Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 16 2009 @ 07:10 AM CDT

This morning's JS article about Jackson quotes Mayor Kline as saying that the next meeting is September 24. That's next Thursday. Know anything about it Dale?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: dale on Wednesday, September 16 2009 @ 08:17 AM CDT

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 16 2009 @ 03:13 PM CDT

Maybe one of you out there can help me. Does anyone know if there is someone working at the Freeman connected to the CPPD (family, friend,etc)? This is a serious request, not a rhetorical one.

Here's why I ask - Another Freeman has come and gone and once again my "Sound Off" supporting the sheriff's department and Mayor Klein failed to make it. I say "once again" because this is the second one I've sent in the past 2 1/2 weeks that didn't make it. HOWEVER, during the same timeframe MANY supporting the CPPD have. Yes, 2 very short items for the sheriff's proposal were published - they pale when compared to the high number and LONG content of those supporting the CPPD.

As an additional example - perhaps some of you also remeber the Freeman's "Guest Editor" last spring - "retired" Chief Bach (retired under a (storm) cloud only a very short time earlier at a very high cost to the taxpayers of Pewaukee). After all we had been through ... such a "guest" seemed less than appropriate.

To the issue - I believe Klein has taken on an extremely difficult issue because discussing and considering it is exactly THE RIGHT THING TO DO. To think he didn't know in advance the heat he would take is naive. He knew but stepped foreward anyway. That's what Leaders do.

But again I ask, seriously - do you know if there is someone at the Freeman who has the ability to decide what makes the paper and a personbal agenda in ensuring that support for the sheriff's proposition is not all presented.

Thank you

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 16 2009 @ 04:32 PM CDT

I've noticed that to. When the Harken issue was a hot topic, my opinion was not on the same side as those published by the Freeman. I thought it a little too cozy.

The guest editor speaking on that issue was none other than Alderman Kiser's wife, Kim.

I canceled my subscription to the Freeman months ago, so no longer keep up with the biased comments they publish.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 16 2009 @ 09:33 PM CDT

Thats why the Freeman and other print media are so crappy and getting worse. Fairness, equality and being on top of the news.....forget about it.

Then they wonder why circulation is going steadily downhill. Their web sites are just about as bad. ( if you didn't have a high speed connection, you would be ready for retirement before the page loads). You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure out that their business model is broken and that they are life support.

Last month's Milwaukee Magazine had a nice article about whats happening at da Journal and its weak sisters publications relative to non coverage of the local news.

Don't look for any improvements...they are not coming !

Andy Mueller, Pewaukee Village

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 17 2009 @ 08:55 AM CDT

Dissenting opinions in either Sound Off or Letters to the Ed have long
gotten "lost" in the windsock-Yorth era at the Freeman, but it's possible
he may get his directives from higher up the Conley ladder. I think in the
past they just didn't want their news staff or product embarrassed, and
see the credibility of the paper further compromised.

Reasons to buy that paper continue to dwindle.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 16 2009 @ 10:11 PM CDT

Leaders do the RIGHT thing for the RIGHT reason. What is the real reason behind this proposal???

Leaders also keep their people informed about major issues and changes. They don't drop a bomb on them and expect them to perform as if nothing has happened.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 17 2009 @ 12:44 PM CDT

I suggest the last poster read at least SOME of the reasons put forth numerous times. My summary - virtually same services with the best, most qualified current CPPD officers continuing to work IN Pewaukee (no loss of community-connection); retained CPPD identification on squad cars AND POLICE OFFICER EMBLEMS (missed item in Meister's presentation); DIRECT access to major areas of expertise; total elimination of VERY costly administrative duties (negotiate union contracts, grievances, EEO complaints, plain old time and attendance?) - cost savings NOT included in the CPPD computation; much better pension program for officers; and YES - a cost savings to taxpayers of AT LEAST $1,000,000 (think admin costs).

As to the "dropping a bomb" comment - where have you been the last 2+ years. Check 2007 minutes - the high cost and possibly going outside to contract was discussed. The study conducted in 2008 was initially proposed to directly analze cost-benefits of CPPD versus contracting out. The study charge included references to outside contracting. It even came up during last year's budget meetings - all well attended by members of the CPPD. For anyone in the department to say they weren't aware the issue was out there is incredulous.

I sincerely hope that people who do NOT live in the city refrain from talking during the public comments sections at the next Common Council Meeting. We get it - you don't want your children or friends out of a job. Unless you have a financial stake in the matter - e.g. pay property taxes, please give the city residents a chance to speak up - and for those in favor of contracting out - without the boos and unprofessional derision exhibited at the high school meeting.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 17 2009 @ 06:43 PM CDT

So, you believe every single thing the Sheriff proposed but you're critical about some of the costs Captain Meister explained? I'm not saying I disagree with the Sheriff's numbers but I'm as suspect about his numbers as I am about Meister's numbers.

A poster in another string made a comment about the level of service and I feel I agree with what he says - It's not possible to provide the same amount of service with 33% less people. If it is I'd like that to be explained to me b/c I'm apparently not smart enough to figure it out myself.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 17 2009 @ 07:18 PM CDT

Has anyone provided a "equal cost analysis"?? Point being, has the Sheriff provided a cost-per-deputy and has the City PD provided a cost-per-officer?? More importantly, this should be done with equal staffing and equal services provided. Certainly, it should be included in the Sheriff expense side if the city would have to "farm out" special programs such as Cops and Bobbers etc...

On one hand, the sheriff may have an advantage of already having the administration end of things handled from the main county building. However, citizens may be losing the personal touch that is most likely available with the current City PD administration.

I'm very familiar with how things operate between the Sheriffs dept and the CPPD. I have the utmost respect for both organizations. However, looking at the two proposals, there are a couple of things to point out. I'm not sure why people aren't raising this issue a little more, but the Sheriffs proposal significantly reduces the amount of deputies out on the street. Simply put, you are saving the money in providing fewer services. That simple. Secondly, I promise you that ALL of special services that were mentioned by the Sheriff are available to the CPPD anytime, anywhere, at no cost. Period. Having the Sheriff patrolling the Pewaukee streets does not mean that the SWAT team or a drug sniffing dog is going to get there any faster than it would with the CPPD on patrol. I'm stating the above as a fairly impartial observer, but I would like to make sure that the facts are straight.

It really boils down to a few things. Staffing, administration/customer service. With the Sherrif department covering, staffing will decrease thus saving money. You will save money on administration, but will probably loose some customer service and that personal touch you may very well experience now with the current admin. Lastly, I want to make this very clear...the sheriffs proposal mentioning the special services is misleading. Yes the Sheriffs Dept runs many of the services, however they are ALWAYS available to the CPPD any time they are needed. That's pretty much the argument. Let the chips fall where they may, but I do hope that they put this to referendum and not let an important decision like this one fall to the hands of a few... Thanks for your time

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 17 2009 @ 07:37 PM CDT

Yes, they are always available under reciprocal agreements but the "at no cost" is subject to debate. The CPPD provides significant reciprocal services to neighboring communities to off-set the city's use of other departments' assets. The city spends so much time in other communities in fact that I recall about one year ago or so, then-Captain Meister making a pitch for more staffing due to the high amount of CPPD time spent fulfilling the city's reciprocal responsibilities and the resulting impact on city coverage. Everything has a cost somewhere.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 17 2009 @ 08:12 PM CDT

Yep, CPPD does reciprocate, you are correct...to the amount of time spent on this, I have no idea. But, I would have argue that mutual aid goes both ways, probably resulting in a draw. Could be wrong, but I don't have all the calls and times in front of me.

Also, if you think that if the Sheriff dept comes in and requested by the Village they are going to say no??? Don't think so. Again, isn't really an argument in my opinion for cost savings. Also, if a deputy gets called outside of Pewaukee (believe me it will happen) it's going to create a SIGNIFICANT lack of coverage in the city compared to what the CPPD could deal with with current levels of staffing.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 17 2009 @ 09:37 PM CDT

This is the verbage of the draft contract provided by Sheriff Trawicki. I copied it from an email I got from a friend. There seem to be more questions than answers in this document.


AGREEMENT

THIS AGREEMENT is hereby entered into between WAUKESHA COUNTY, a municipal
corporation, hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY" and the CITY OF PEWAUKEE, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "MUNICIPALITY" as follows:

1. The COUNTY shall furnish to the MUNICIPALITY police patrol services to be rendered by three (3) deputies with all necessary equipment for one consecutive shift for the following periods: 7:00 am to 3:00 pm; three (3) deputies from 3:00 pm to 11:00 pm; and two (2) deputies from 11:00 pm to 7:00 am.; one (1) deputy for one 5-2, 4-2 rotating shift from 6:00 pm to 2:00 am.; one (1) lieutenant Monday-Friday, from 7:00 am to 3:00 pm; one (1) lieutenant for one 5-2, 4-2 rotating shift from: 3:00 pm to 11:00 pm.; and one (1) detective Monday-Friday, from 7:00 am to 3:00 pm; . The MUNICIPALITY shall have the right to change this schedule of hours upon thirty (30) days written notice to the Sheriff of Waukesha County provided that the hours within a shift always remain consecutive.

2. The Sheriff shall have supervisory control over the personnel providing these services. The Sheriff shall retain the final authority to make decisions as to the manner in which services shall be rendered.

3. The Sheriff will provide patrol functions as follows:

(a) During patrol hours, the patrol unit will provide continual patrol in the MUNICIPALITY. The unit will be first responder to all dispatched events in the MUNICIPALITY. The unit will begin and end its patrol tour from a location within MUNICIPALITY boundaries mutually agreed upon by the MUNICIPALITY and the Sheriff. It will leave the boundaries of the MUNICIPALITY only in those situations that would require mutual aid assistance by the COUNTY.

(b) Every effort will be made to respond to MUNICIPALITY needs and desires. The MUNICIPALITY will designate a liaison person(s) to provide the Sheriff with any information as to concentration of patrol efforts, special assignments, etc. the MUNICIPALITY desires.

(c) To ensure continuity, the Sheriff will assign officers to the MUNICIPALITY patrol on an annual basis whenever possible. The Sheriff will consider requests by the MUNICIPALITY for changes in assignment, but retains final authority in those assignments.




4. Payment terms are:

(a) The MUNICIPALITY shall pay the COUNTY a sum of TO BE DETERMINED dollars and cents () per month for 12 months. Payment will be made no later than the 10th day of each month. In addition to this monthly charge, the MUNICIPALITY shall reimburse the COUNTY for all additional gross salary and additional employee benefit cost paid to the deputy serving thereunder for overtime hours directly arising from MUNICIPALITY patrol functions, including overtime spent in court in connection with the prosecution of MUNICIPAL ordinances.

(b) Costs for this contract are based on attachment one (1) to this contract. These costs will be recalculated annually. Costs in Tables 1-9 are based on the budgeted costs for the contract year; costs in Tables 10-11 are based on COUNTY indirect cost studies for the most recently available year, adjusted for inflation to reflect current year estimated costs. Table 13 lists total costs for the MUNICIPALITY.

(c) i. Full costs per shift from Tables 1-9 of Attachment one (1) are charged in each
contract year.

ii. Costs for Table 11, Facilities Usage Charge, are only charged once, regardless
of number of shifts contracted.

iii. Cost for Table 10 of Attachment one (1), County Wide Indirect Costs, will be charged at one-half the full calculated cost in the first contract year. In contract years two through five, Table 10 costs will be no greater than the full cost calculated in year one of the contract.

5. This Contract constitutes and contains the entire agreement of the parties, and supersedes any and all other contracts, agreements or understandings between the parties, whether oral or written.

6. All vehicles furnished by the COUNTY under this AGREEMENT shall carry the identifying marks of the Sheriff's Office. All vehicles and other equipment shall remain the property of the COUNTY.









7. The officers will enforce all local ordinances. The officers will write citations on forms supplied to them by the MUNICIPALITY. The MUNICIPAL ATTORNEY will handle the prosecution of those matters in any proceedings. It is further agreed that the fines or forfeitures for State charges shall be turned over to the COUNTY and the fines and forfeitures for those offenses that are violations of MUNICIPALITY ordinances will be turned over to the MUNICIPALITY.

8. Any violation by MUNICIPALITY of any portion of this contract shall constitute a breach of this Contract by MUNICIPALITY. In the event of such breach, COUNTY shall have the option of declaring this Contract terminated. If this Contract is declared terminated by COUNTY, MUNICIPALITY shall pay COUNTY for such police service rendered through the date of termination, prorated on the basis of the monthly charge set forth above.

9. Any violation by COUNTY of any portion of this contract shall constitute a breach of this Contract by COUNTY. In the event of such breach, MUNICIPALITY shall have the option of declaring this Contract terminated. If this Contract is declared terminated by MUNICIPALITY pursuant to this paragraph, MUNICIPALITY is not liable for any charges for police services rendered after receipt of written notice of termination by the COUNTY, with payment for services rendered prior to receipt of that notice to be prorated on the basis of the monthly charge set forth above.

10. It is the intent of and is understood by the parties that the relationship of COUNTY and MUNICIPALITY is that of an independent contractor. The COUNTY is not the employee or agent of the MUNICIPALITY, and the MUNICIPALITY is not the employee or agent of the COUNTY. Each party will therefore be responsible for its own acts or omissions and neither party will be obligated to defend or indemnify the other for any claim, loss or liability that results from the other's acts or omissions. Nothing in this paragraph is intended to preclude or foreclose the right of either party to bring a cross claim or third party claim against the other for contribution as a joint tortfeasor.


11. Terms of this contract are:

(a) The term of this Contract shall be from January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2014, regardless of the dates of the signatures set forth below.

(b) The MUNICIPALITY, except as described in paragraph 10 of this agreement, may terminate this contract only by providing written notice to the COUNTY no later than August 31st of the year preceding termination.


(c) Should the MUNICIPALITY terminate the contract under the terms of paragraph 11(b) of this agreement, the MUNICIPALITY shall be subject to a cessation fee equal to any costs waived under paragraph 4(c) of this agreement in the contract year preceding contract termination. The MUNICIPALITY shall pay this cessation fee to the COUNTY in addition to the costs identified in paragraph 4(a) of this agreement no later than December 31st of the year of notification of termination.

(d) Should the MUNICIPALITY terminate the contract under the terms of paragraph 11(b) of this agreement, the COUNTY shall make every effort to reassign contracted personnel within enforcement functions. In the event the COUNTY is unable to reassign the contracted personnel and is required to lay off COUNTY enforcement personnel, the MUNICIPALITY shall pay the COUNTY the costs of unemployment for the COUNTY personnel until such time that the personnel are rehired or no longer receiving unemployment compensation. Only the costs associated with the personnel laid off are the responsibility of the MUNICIPALITY, not necessarily the specific contracted personnel. Such costs will be billed the MUNICIPALITY on a monthly basis on 30 days net terms.


Dated this day of , 20 .

WAUKESHA COUNTY



BY: BY: ___________________________________
Daniel J. Trawicki Date Date
Sheriff
BY:____________________________________ Date

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 17 2009 @ 10:11 PM CDT

So - what are your questions? Seems pretty straight forward to me.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 18 2009 @ 07:11 AM CDT

These jump out at me.

(b) Every effort will be made to respond to MUNICIPALITY needs and desires. The MUNICIPALITY will designate a liaison person(s) to provide the Sheriff with any information as to concentration of patrol efforts, special assignments, etc. the MUNICIPALITY desires.

Who is the "Liaison" going to be? Do we have someone on staff now who would be capable of this, or would we be hiring a new employee?

(c) To ensure continuity, the Sheriff will assign officers to the MUNICIPALITY patrol on an annual basis whenever possible. The Sheriff will consider requests by the MUNICIPALITY for changes in assignment, but retains final authority in those assignments.

Will our officers be rotated to other municipalities?

(d) The MUNICIPALITY shall pay the COUNTY a sum of TO BE DETERMINED dollars and cents () per month for 12 months. Payment will be made no later than the 10th day of each month. In addition to this monthly charge, the MUNICIPALITY shall reimburse the COUNTY for all additional gross salary and additional employee benefit cost paid to the deputy serving thereunder for overtime hours directly arising from MUNICIPALITY patrol functions, including overtime spent in court in connection with the prosecution of MUNICIPAL ordinances.

Has a realistic figure been included in the contract price to cover overtime and benefits? How much more are we likely to have to come up with?

7. The officers will enforce all local ordinances. The officers will write citations on forms supplied to them by the MUNICIPALITY. The MUNICIPAL ATTORNEY will handle the prosecution of those matters in any proceedings. It is further agreed that the fines or forfeitures for State charges shall be turned over to the COUNTY and the fines and forfeitures for those offenses that are violations of MUNICIPALITY ordinances will be turned over to the MUNICIPALITY

How will it be determined if a forfeiture is a state or municipal one? State law often parallels local ordinances. (Speed limits, vandalism, prostitution, selling drugs) How much revenue might we lose?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 18 2009 @ 09:52 AM CDT

What I am hearing is that the CPPD currently costs about $3 million a year. And litigation regarding the department runs another $300,000.00 a year. I realize the Chief situation is resolved, but we all know that there are two more pending lawsuits out there right now. There is no reason to believe that these two will not cost another $300K in the coming year. Why maintain a PD that has a cost of 10% per year for litigation from internal issues and is admi? Makes no sense to me. The question I have is how many more "issues" exist that are not yet public, that will likely become additional expensive lawsuits? The hidden, but easily anticipated, addional costs that make this department fiscally untenable.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 18 2009 @ 01:14 PM CDT

The pending legal issues are going to remain regardless whether or not the PD is abolished. It doesn't simply go away.

"Easily anticipated"??? Are you a member of the police department? Or the city administration? How are you able to "easily anticipate"? That would be like saying you can "easily anticipate" a lawsuit emanating from the highway department simply b/c some people may not get along.

One person caused the legal issues within the police department. Without him, none of this would have happened. He was the root of the problems and now he's gone. You can even trace the issues with Sgt Sneider back to him.

He is also the reason the mayor went looking for alternatives. If anyone actually believed this was a budgetary issue you're completely naive. Who starts with abolishing the police department? A municipality's police department is the single most important department within that municipality. Why don't we contract the highway department as well. The city administrator obviously can't do her job very well, so let's contract that as well. I'm sure the county can come up with a fairy tale lowball number for those positions too.

According to a flyer I received recently, each officer at the PD costs about $105,000. At the meeting I learned the PD budget is about $2.9 million for 27 full time officers and a couple clerical workers. So, let's say it's 30 total people. It's simple math. Divide 2.9 million by 30. I'm pretty sure that's less than the $150,000 the Sheriff says it costs for each deputy. The only way he can cost less than the current PD is to reduce the level of service.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 05 2009 @ 01:52 PM CST

Perhaps if the Mayor and his administration actively paticipated in supporting the department leadership, there would be fewer problems.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 05 2009 @ 07:28 AM CDT

One thing to keep in mind. CPPD does send officers out of community to assist if asked. However CPPD does not empty the community of manpower. Someone is always there in the event an officer is needed to handle calls during times like that.
I can tell you the SD does empty the communities of the one car they have by contract leaving no one there to handle calls in that community if needed.

SD will then send one of their cars from another area if needed or leave the calls for service sit until the contract car returns

This is the part the Sheriff is not telling you.

Next time you see the Sheriff ask the question or ask one of his satff.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 18 2009 @ 02:05 PM CDT

Your last paragraph shows your total lack of understanding of the actual costs of running a department. Your simplistic math is not even close to reality. It is extremely naive to think you simply divide the number of people into the budget to get the cost per person. Keep talking, you’re digging your own grave here.

At last week’s meeting, the mayor didn’t say “pending” legal issues, he said there are more legal problems to come, as in the future, as in not yet underway. If you are blaming one person and that person is now gone, how is it that there are still more problems? Doesn’t quite add up to me.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 18 2009 @ 08:21 PM CDT

Thankfully you're here. You obviously run a police department so you can enlighten the previous poster with the real monetary figures. This is what we've been waiting for the whole time. Go ahead and dig his/her grave for him/her. If you don't have anything to back up what you're saying then you seem to be the ignorant one.

Upcoming legal issues - if there are upcoming legal issues, they are already set in motion. You can't presume to know what issues will arise in the future and what lawsuits will result from something that hasn't happened yet. What the other person was saying is that it doesn't matter whether the PD stays or not, these issues have already happened and will still cost the same amount of money either way. They don't simply disappear, if they actually exist in the first place.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 18 2009 @ 09:59 PM CDT

No they don't disappear - but heading off future problems can be achieved by getting out of the business and passing that area of responsibility to a larger organization. Please think about just the huge costs of contract negotiations - for a department of about 30 people. Probably takes as much time and personnel at the sheriff's department with or without covering the City of Pewaukee. 100% elimination of all those costs by contracting out.

Future problems? A virtual guarantee. Have you ever worked in an office or department where employees have taken different sides in an extremely contentious issue and then, with the wave of a hand (and the departure of one person that many of the current CPPD officers supported) the officers magically put aside all the bad feelings. It does NOT happen. Old wounds fester and it is only time before they explode - and future grievances and EEO complaints again flood the city. Tired of all the CPPD drama - time to move on. The significant cost savings is just an addede bonus.

Signed, City of Peweaukee resident (are you?)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 19 2009 @ 09:34 AM CDT

The way I see it, our taxes are not going down. We already pay less taxes than everyone in the state. So let's say we save a million dollars with the Sheriff's proposal. What am I, as a tax paying citizen, actually saving? That million dollars is going somewhere else.

Unless you are a member of the police department that plans on causing future problems, don't speculate as to whether future problems will occur. It's irresponsible. There is no logic behind your prediction. Using that logic we should also contract every other department within the city because it's possible future problems MIGHT occur.

I don't understand why we don't go ahead and merge PDs with the Village. That seems to make much more sense.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 19 2009 @ 01:00 PM CDT

I do not live in the City of Pewaukee, I just work there. I do not
know who is feeding some of you all
this garbage about the turmoil at the CPPD. Yes there have been
issues in the past and yes there is
some pending litigation. Other than the unresolved law suit working
relationships at the PD are just
fine, (contrary to what you are being fed). In fact Mr. Anonymous (or
is it Mrs. ??) the relationships
within the PD are the best they have been in a long time. I am not
saying all 30 of us get together
every night or spend weekends together. For the most part we are
united, committed and frankly we
are sick and tired of others telling us how bad things are and that we
do not get along! We have never
allowed the issues of the last 2 years to negatively impact the jobs we
do for you or our
professionalism. What I find most ironic is that the proposal to get rid
of the PD has unified the whole
department and has helped mend some fences. Thank you!

Jake Bernotas

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 20 2009 @ 07:08 PM CDT

So Jake, let's go back to the basic issue. Regardless of any inner struggle - or lack of issues - if the sheriff's department can deliver all or even 95% (assuming some community programs might be reduced) and most if not all interested current CPPD staff would be hired by the sheriff, AND a million dollers PER YEAR could be saved and redirected into other critical needs - such as roads, why shouldn't the city do it?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 21 2009 @ 10:04 AM CDT

Per the mayor this is not a money issue. Why do we keep looking at this?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 21 2009 @ 11:11 AM CDT

Some people see "SAVE A MILLION DOLLARS" and then hear nothing else. We are not going to "save" a million dollars. We aren't going to save anything. We are still going to pay the same amount in taxes either way. And with that million dollars I would prefer a better equipped police department over repairing a couple roads.

We seem to be missing the point. And the previous poster is right, the mayor says this is not a money issue. The point is that the Sheriff IS NOT providing the same service. Why is this so hard to understand? There will be 18 people dedicated to the City of Pewaukee, and I use the term "dedicated" loosely. When you go from 27 to 18 you're are going to lose service. Many of those 18 inside Pewaukee will probably not have any local knowledge of the City of Pewaukee. And I have nothing against the Sheriff's Department at all, but they aren't bringing anything that isn't already there. And, with the exception of 2 Lieutenants, there will not be a command staff within the City of Pewaukee. If you need to speak to the person in charge, do you think a person dedicated to the entire county is going to have the same focus as a Chief in your own City?

Has anyone on here seen the actual proposal? I have. The Sheriff harps on "local control." Well, it blatantly says the Sheriff has final authority on how all services will be rendered. Which means, the City of Pewaukee (i.e. Mayor, Common Council) can request anything they want and the Sheriff can choose to ignore ANY request they make, per the contract. That's local control? What a joke.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 21 2009 @ 02:55 PM CDT

First, the Mayor did not say this is not a money issue - he said it was not the sole reason. It certainly is a factor and I never heard him say otherwise.

Second - we keep hearing the 18 versus 27 argument. Let's break down our 27 total. First - we have 6 supervisors so that leaves 21 officers. (Do we need such a high percentage of supervisors to officers?). Now of 21, one is on long-term paid admin leave, 1 is full-time community service/light duty so we're at 19. Of 19 - 4 are on in the "day-shift" invesigation unit - 3 detectives and one full-time officer all working 7-3:00 but additional "random hours" when needed. Are the random hours paid at overtime? Don't most residents work - who's even around to investigate or interview between 7 and 3:00. Anyway, now we're done to 17. We next have at least 2 (3?) assigned to our "Drug Detection Unit." So - now we finally get to 11 patrol officers divided between three shifts who are actually out there patroling. The sheriff suggests 18 with 5 supersvisors and one full-time detective. 12 (sheriff) versus 11 CPPD. Are our crime and drug issues really so bad we need so much dedicated to them with so little actually on our streets looking out for us? And much of what the crime & drug officers do now would be covered at no cost by other sheriff resources.

Why do we have all detectives working days, all these special units, a full-time community officer? There are many issues - all of which need to be "negotiated."

Quite frankly, I see no reduction in protectioin AND money is a significant supporting factor to me. For those who don't care about road quality - please talk to residents who are extremely concernd. By the way, I'd like to ask the road poster if he/she lives in the city? Just curious.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 21 2009 @ 07:29 PM CDT

you don't know what your talking about

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 22 2009 @ 09:04 AM CDT

Sounds to this taxpayer/city resident like the poster does indeed know
what he's talking about.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 21 2009 @ 09:24 PM CDT

East Green Road is really BAD. Even worse than our Sussex Street.

Andy Mueller, Pewaukee Village

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 24 2009 @ 02:36 PM CDT

You my friend do not have a clue as to what you are talking about. Keep in mind investigations often involve businesses in the city...which are usually open during normal business hours. I'd be willing to bet more investigation would involve local business then individual citizens. Probably why they keep those hours.

Secondly, I don't care how you do your math, the sheriff proposal WILL reduce staffing on shifts. Period. You don't read very well do you?? The supervisors that you question the need for are also out on the road patrolling as well. The sheriff proposal significantly drops supervision. What's more, that sole Pewaukee contract supervisor will be spending most of his day driving a desk as apposed to being out on the road in a squad. The 2nd shift sheriff on a 5-2/4-2 helps, but leaves no one supervising the overnight in the city. That overnight supervisor is probably spending most of his time sitting at a desk in the middle of City of Waukesha. One less squad out on the road overnight.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 22 2009 @ 09:24 AM CDT

Your post was very good and believable, but it appears this issue has impacted your selection process for hiring a chief when the choice turned it down. While many reasons will come up I'm betting this whole issue was the cause. Funny, I've heard some of the fire chief candidates dropped out in the final days too, apparantly the image of the city isn't too stable right now for potential public safety employees.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 23 2009 @ 08:35 PM CDT

Dale,
Once the Police Department is disbanded to save 1M, why don't you contract fire and ems service with the City of Waukesha? I checked the Waukesha website and their fire department is trained to handle
all possible fire, ems, hazardous materials, and technical rescue emergencys. I'm sure Waukesha could save Pewaukee another 1M or more on next years budget. A year or two after that you can disband the Public Works Department and contract
that service to. The possibilites are endless to save money including eliminating the current city goverment. That to can be a contracted service.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 23 2009 @ 08:43 PM CDT

I find it funny that the cops so far are the only ones who
post their name besides Andy...... the ney sayors are
entertaining while the rest show facts....

So I wont sign my name because I've figured out I'm
your neighbor and go knows what you will post about me

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 23 2009 @ 09:01 PM CDT

You have nothing to fear, but fear itself!

Andy Mueller, Pewaukee Village

BTW, here's a novel concept. How about contracting out alderman/trustee positions? Seriously, these "positions" are way overpaid for the work accomplished.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 23 2009 @ 09:18 PM CDT

Andy,
I think your idea would be in the best interest of
both Village and City of Pewaukee tax payers!

Mike

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 24 2009 @ 01:13 AM CDT

If we could for a moment be truthful here. First Sheriff Trawicki can not provide adequate coverage for the city with his numbers. He already pulls squads out of their contract communities and leaves them without a squad in their area. Ethically if the City of Pewaukee is not paying for a 3-11pm detective under Trawicki's proposal, as well as his 24/7 supervision, then you must agree county taxpayers ARE paying for it. Is that ethical? You decide, it may be a good deal, but is it ethical? If it doesn't pass the smell test, then you have to wonder what else doesn't. Second this is not just about money, the City P.D. has been in the paper and taxpayers are shelling out way too much money. This is not the police officers fault alone, you can fault management, and the City and the Police Commission. Many of your officers will not be hired, from duty injuries that they suffered protecting and serving, to some damaged reputations where the officer actually did nothing wrong. Some don't deserve to be hired on a law enforcement agency. People who have dedicated, and been willing to give up their lives if necessary, will be abandoned. What you need is a Chief with a long term contract who can come in, join factions, weed out malcontents without fear of not making a ridiculous one year probationary period for the Chief. Your talking with the Sheriff, trying to hire a Chief, and talking with the Village. While still not laying out all the facts. Everyone deserves better.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 24 2009 @ 02:24 PM CDT

The above is absolutely correct. Contract squads get pulled all the time. Just takes a simple request to the supervisor on duty, and off they go, out of the community. Happens I'd guess probably next to daily. Also, a good point that hasn't been brought up is the fact that the CPPD are pretty darn important when it comes to serious EMS calls. I'm betting citizens that got early CPR and defibrillation from some of our officers are pretty happy it wasn't a Sheriff squad that was supposed to be in a certain patrol district, but was gallivanting around in Sussex, Town of Lisbon, or Town of Delafield. That's another thing. If you think that a contract squad isn't going to be spending a good deal of time in the Town of Delafield, you're incorrect. They dropped their contract, so now they have no squad dedicated for patrol. Hmm...what community shares a considerable border with the Town of Delafield??

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 24 2009 @ 03:33 PM CDT

First, CPPD patrols are already frequently called outside the city limits TODAY - it's called reciprocal agreements. Second, I'd rather pay for ONE detective during the day shift and no one on nights than the current FOUR we pay for now with no one on nights. (Never did hear an answer about whether detectives get overtime for random off-shift hours). Besides, if an actual need is there, an increase in next year's contracts is always available.

CPPD officers and families and friends - here's an idea I think you'll like - especially since most (all?) of you don't even live in the city). Let's get rid of those overpaid aldermen ($6,000 with mileage for endless hours at other committee and board meetings, as well as phone calls and emails) AND that overpaid mayor (what – maybe $8-9,000 per year) and go with a full-time mayor and no common council. Rename the position city "czar!" It would no doubt come with a salary of $120,000 or so, including benefits BUT he/SHE would offset this cost by initially eliminating the administrator position. However, in less than one year’s time, he/SHE would probably come in asking for an "administrative assistant" due to the sheer volume of work. (All those grand openings to attend take a lot of time!) And here's the best part - I'll bet recently-elected Alderwoman Enters would gladly step up to the task (she is the proposer of the idea after all). With her second while on the PFC to select former CPPD chief Bach who boasted a GED, she will bring to us at least a high school diploma and no professional experience. (Support work does not fall within a professional category.) Then we'd have all the high quality leadership you guys want! (Hey - maybe she could even bring back Bach!)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 24 2009 @ 10:31 PM CDT

Maybe this doesn't belong in this thread. I hope Dale will answer this question.

At tonight's meeting Captain Meister alluded to "certain elected officials" leaking information (name and rank)of an officer regarding ongoing internal police investigations. I assume he was speaking as the acting chief of the CPPD, as he did not preface his statement with a disclaimer.

Because he made these statements during an agendized Common Council Meeting, as a city employee, and deliberately chose to bring this information out, are the details of his statement now part of the Public Record? Can anyone request and access the background details supporting his statement under the Open Records Statute?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: dale on Friday, September 25 2009 @ 06:10 AM CDT

Acting Chief Meister's comments are indeed public record, however the details of any possible ongoing investigations are most likely not. I do not believe that the details of any investigation are open to public records requests as the investigation is in progress. The release of any such information would likely compromise any investigations.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 25 2009 @ 11:31 AM CDT

All comments that I made at last night's meeting were made in my offical position as the head of the City of Pewaukee Police Department.

Out of respect for those officers involved, and out of respect for the law, I will not disclose the specifics of any internal matters that I am currently investigating. My comments about certain elected officals were based on three things: 1. Conversations that I have had with these officials, 2. Documents that I have in my possession, 3. Statements made by citizens based on their conversations with their elected representatives.

I did not name any specific politicians; except for the Mayor when it was neccessary to show that the information came from him. I do beleive that those elected officials whom I referred to know who they are.

If anyone is interested in the information / document that was being given to the Alderman referencing internal problems in the police department, I suggest you contact your elected official and ask them about it. It is my understanding that they were advised by the City Administrator that they could disseminate this information to their constituents.

Daniel M. Meister
Captain (Acting Chief)
City of Pewaukee Police

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 25 2009 @ 11:41 AM CDT

Also, I chose to bring this information to light only after the Mayor opened the agenda item by making certain comments about issues within the police department.

The Mayor opened the floodgates when he made public comment about ongoing internal issues and current litigation. I simply responded to his allegations. One might question whether or not it was even appropriate for the Mayor to mention this; especially since some of this was based on content discussed in a closed session meeting with the rest of the council.

Again, is this really a budgetary issue???

Cpt. Meister

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 25 2009 @ 01:06 PM CDT

Captain Meister, quite frankly the more you read last night the more you seemed to be making the sheriff department’s case. Clearly internal issues DO remain. Clearly there is considerable rancor and bad feelings on your part concerning the mayor and "certain elected officials." How can the current department work effectively with the city officials (your bosses) when so many bad feelings exist? To attack the mayor in a public forum and confirm that continuing internal issues with more officers (we only have 21 non-supervisory officers to begin with!) seemed to be poor judgment.

Regarding officers who may not be able to pass the Sheriff departments’ physical fitness, why should we be paying a full-time officer's salary for anyone who can't meet those requirements for us? I am sympathetic to anyone facing a serious job issue - but across the country folks fully capable of performing their jobs have lost them anyway due to the current economic situation. I don't quite understand our officers' positions when all those qualified are virtually guaranteed a new position within the sheriff's department which comes with THE WISCONSIN STATE PENION PLAN. Losing seniority on vacation and shift picks pales when compared to so many losing their entire livelihood as many citizens of the city have already no doubt experienced.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 25 2009 @ 01:18 PM CDT

I agree with the commenter above. CPPD should remember who they
work for.

Question: why do some of the signs that CPPD has posted say "Vote No"
when no referendum has been scheduled, or is even likely to occur?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 25 2009 @ 06:14 PM CDT

CPPD works for the people, not the common council

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 25 2009 @ 10:20 PM CDT

The previous statement is true, to some degree. We have a representative form of government. Some people think we have a democratic government (majority rule of the people). This is not the case. There is a difference.

Our government is one in which the people elect representatives who hopefully will vote according to their constituents wishes. They are the ones who count, not the voters who elected them. This system has worked for over 200 years. There are flaws in it, just as there are in any system of government.

Think of your local government in terms of the Electoral College used to elect a president. The popular vote may favor one candidate over another, but in the end, the only votes that count are those of the designated representatives to the Electoral College.

If there is a serious effort being made to preserve the CPPD then the department needs to reach out to the people, and ask them to contact their elected representatives voicing their wishes. The squeaky wheel gets oiled, it's a fact of life.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 27 2009 @ 06:53 PM CDT

No it's not to a point.

The people are the government. The council works for the people. CPPD works for the people.

If the people want something by majority vote they will get it. Put this to a referendum and let the people decide.

The Mayor does not want it to go to referendum. That is evident everytime it is brought up and he gets agrivated.

Why is the council afraid of a referendum? Because they don't want the people to decide.

With a referendum there can be no doubt what the people want.

End of story.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 27 2009 @ 09:44 PM CDT

The same thing is true for voting on merger and a host of other issues...from local to the federal. Our politico's view of the public deciding an issue is that of taking away their perceived "power", when they are really out of touch of what the electorate wants..of course, they want a pay check to maintain this "power".

I think it is high time that "we" vote on whether we should keep going forward with this merger stuff, given the fact that millions have been spent on this over time with no results except more studies and meetings. Will Dale or anyone from my beloved Village put this on the ballot in November? I bet not. No one has the balls to do it and allow us taxpayers decide where we should be headed.

Andy Mueller, Pewaukee Village

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 27 2009 @ 10:29 PM CDT

If you have not been paying attention, it is too late to get this (the CPPD/Sheriff) on the November ballot as a referendum question. The question(s) would have to be formulated, run by the attorney, voted on by the CC, submitted to the Waukesha County Clerk, the ballots printed, legal notices published in the paper, etc. etc. The election is six weeks from now. There is not enough time.

As far as direct legislation goes, there is way more work to that than people seem to think. First off, it would need to be determined if this is a policy issue, or a legislative one. If it's policy, then Direct Legislation is not allowed under State Statutes.

If it's legislative, then a PAC would have to register with the state, apply for a federal ID number, and form a question with language that would not need to be altered to pass as a legal Ordinance.

After all that, there are State Statutes mandating the number of signatures needed to present it as direct legistation, and then the CC would have to adopt it, or put it to referendum within XX days.

Even if this is a legitimate referendum question, there is no time to get it done by 12/31/09.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 28 2009 @ 11:31 PM CDT

From my observations, when gov't really wants to do something, the wheels can turn exceedingly fast. Things that were impossible yesterday, get done today.

If any voting is too late for November, the spring primary isn't that far off. Who says a contract has to start on Jan 1? Contracts are what you make them. And in that regard, if WSD depleting the contract squads in the event of a "situation"is a problem, put it in the contract what the minimum level of staffing is to be maintained, no matter what. Thats what contracts are for..spell it out.

Andy Mueller, Pewaukee Village

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 29 2009 @ 12:15 PM CDT

I think the contract states the Sheriff dept retains final authority on that matter. Could it be altered?? Perhaps, although I'm guessing the Sheriff may have an issue with that. Another point that needs to be addressed I guess...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 25 2009 @ 10:54 PM CDT

After listening to the original presentations by the WCSD and the CPPD, and attending the September 24th Councel meeting, I think it is becoming very clear that the City will save far more than a million dollars a year by disbanding the CPPD.

I apprecheate the difficult position Cheif Meister has been placed into. He was not responsible for all the legacy problems within the department. However someone could have told him that verbally attacking the Boss is not the best was to save your job.

While I am not familiar with the details of the details of such things as the existing Union contracts, I do believe that the Cheif had an opportunity to save the department by recommending more radical restructuring to the department including the potential downsizing which was badly needed.

At this point the Sheriff's department has all but guaranteed existing CPPD staff members jobs. I feel we should consider this a police department "merger". In any merger there are usually a few jobs lost, but the Sheriff is offering positions to all sworn staff members that can meet the requirments for his department. Those staff members who chose to take those positions with the WCSD will reciev eth ebenefit of the Wisconsin Retirement Plan (a significant impovement).

I have long believed the extraordany expense of all the fiefdoms (small government bodies) in Waukesha County is illogical. I am glad to see the City of Pewaukee considering a logical solution.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 29 2009 @ 12:45 PM CDT

Take a look at the Sheriff’s editorial in today’s Freeman. Spells everything out very clearly. Leaves nothing to be misunderstood. Saving a million dollars is the bottom line.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 29 2009 @ 03:05 PM CDT

Why are we still talking about saving a million dollars? The people don't care about the million. They say raise the taxes if it keeps the PD.

Is the council listening?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 29 2009 @ 03:17 PM CDT

How many people have said raise taxes? Ten or twenty? I attended all 3 meetings, and believe it or not, not everyone at those meetings was in favor of keeping the CPPD.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 02 2009 @ 11:10 PM CDT

I also have attended all the meetings on this issue. You are wrong! The vast majority of people are very much in favor of keeping their own local PD. I suggest anyone questioning this to go pick up a copy of the minutes from the meetings. I cant count the amount of people in support of the PD, you claim to have been there so you know I am right. I can count the amount of people who said they were in favor of the sheriff's department: 1st meeting = not one person stood up and said they wanted the sheriff's department. 2nd meeting = 1 lady spoke up and said she wanted the sheriff's department. 3rd meeting = yes there were a couple who stood up and supported the sheriff's department. Approximately 5 stood up and said the sheriff's department was a good idea, (all 5 of these people were selected officials from much smaller communties that are satisfied with contracted police services). These 5 people are not Pewaukee residents. Yes I was there and yes there were 2 more people who stood up and said the sheriff's department was a good idea. Yes these 2 folks were also Pewaukee residents. Guess what? Both of these people work for Waukesha County. The lady works in human resource and the man works for the sheriff's department. Either way you look at it the overwhelming majority of people at all the meetings so far have been in support of the PD.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 04 2009 @ 11:50 AM CDT

I have also attended all three meetings and I agree that majority of people at meetings were FOR CPPD. I also helped solicit the petition to keep the CPPD and had 99% of the citizens in FAVOR of KEEPING the CPPD.

Linda Paprocki
City of Pewaukee Resident

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 04 2009 @ 03:41 PM CDT

Are you sure?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 04 2009 @ 04:27 PM CDT

If not, why don't all the people who want Sheriff Dept. show their face & SIGN THEIR NAME???????

Linda Paprocki,
City of Pewaukee Resident

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 29 2009 @ 04:44 PM CDT

You heard wrong. The CPPD employees and their families said they don't
care about the people paying an additional million dollars. The people
would like to save the million dollars.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 29 2009 @ 06:43 PM CDT

Put it to a referendum and lets see

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 29 2009 @ 10:10 PM CDT

I submit the following for consideration on getting this on your Nov ballot. The wheels of gov't can turn fast if they want to:

1. Your experienced legal beagle, Stan, should be able to produce a opinion neutral referendum question in an hour or so of time.

2. FAX it to Kelly

3. In conjunction with Item 1, Kelly has noticed a Council meeting and sent a copy of said FAX to all council members.

4. Council meets and does what they do best. Vote YES on the question. Move to adjourn.

5. Kelly to FAX information over to County Clerk to be placed on ballot. City to pay for this last minute re-printing if they have been printed already..can't cost that much and much less than a mil.

6. Everyone Votes.

7. Council deals with the results of vote.


Andy Mueller, Pewaukee Village -- In the Speed Zone

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 29 2009 @ 10:20 PM CDT

Do you still put your Easter Basket out, and hang up your stocking on Christmas Eve Andy?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 30 2009 @ 10:37 AM CDT

I keep them out all year to stay ahead of the curve. I'm a kid at heart. :-) Just look how far ahead of the seasons that stores have their mdse out.

Only 3 months until xmas!

Andy

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 05 2009 @ 01:55 AM CDT

I just read a comment where someone said, "The CPPD employees and their families said they don't
care about the people paying an additional million dollars." I would like to know who you are. And I would like to know when I talked to you and told you that. And then I would like to know when you talked to any of my co-workers and which one of my co-workers told you that.

I don't appreciate someone posting an anonymous comment about my viewpoint, and the viewpoints of my co-workers, when that person hasn't talked to me and has probably never even heard of me.

We all understand this is a hot topic and everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I also understand it's not an issue of right and wrong. Whether or not the Sheriff can save this city a million dollars can be debated and so can many issues brought up by Captain Meister. What is not up for debate is we feel, right now, that the City of Pewaukee Police Department, YOUR police department, is the best law enforcement option for the City of Pewaukee.

I have been at this department since 2004 and I absolutely love my job and I love where I work. Obviously we've had our problems, both public and private. But all departments have their problems. I believed we had moved past the issues that had plagued us and things had taken a very large positive step forward until we were blindsided by the Sheriff contract proposal. And, believe me, we were completely blindsided. We were looking forward to the appointment of a new Chief. I feel that alone would have signified us completely turning the corner and moving past the events of the past couple years.

Now we go to work every day not knowing what the future holds. That's a very difficult environment to work in but we're still out there every day doing what we can to make you feel safe.

Personally, I just want everyone to know who has come up to me in the past couple months and told me they want to keep their police department that I appreciate it more than those people will ever understand. The same goes for those people who stand up and speak at the Common Council meetings. It's those comments that keep us motivated and makes us proud to provide the services we try so hard to provide. I will never get sick of hearing it.

To whomever reads this, when you get to my name on the bottom you'll probably realize you've never heard of me. Keep in mind, there are many more people who you've never heard of in this department who have had nothing to do with any of the controversy over the past couple years. So when people make comments about the dysfunction within our department (I wish these people would sign their names to their comments), it only applies to a select few people from situations that are in the past. It does not apply to the current environment we work in now. I've heard it said a million times recently that we're now tighter as a department than we've ever been, and that couldn't be more true.

Finally, I would ask anyone who comments about the feelings/beliefs/motivations of the people I work with, to identify yourself. Otherwise I would ask the readers on this site to completely ignore what they're saying.

Officer Dan Adrian
City of Pewaukee Police Department

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 05 2009 @ 07:13 AM CDT

The Sheriff has to make every effort to place officers from any department that is disbanded because of contract. That is mandated by State Statute 9.20. Look it up. He is not doing this out of the goodness of his heart.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 05 2009 @ 11:42 AM CDT

Long and short, you have a department with an annual cost of about $3 million and litigation costs, not from boats breaking fingers (outside), but from internal problems that exceeds 10% of the budget. This 10% extra litigation cost has been ongoing for several years, with absolutely no end in sight and in fact we are told by the Mayor and confirmed by the acting Chief that there are additional matters still laying in the weeds. It would be complete incompetence on the part of the Mayor and the Common Council to ignore this issue and NOT consider alternatives to eliminate the problem.

I fully appreciate that there are many very good police officers in the department that are being affected, and perhaps not fairly, but that's life. I would like to suggest that some of this problem is due to the ineffectiveness of the Police and Fire Commission. The problems, when they arise, linger for ever. Case in point, the Sergeant that has been on paid leave for a year. I don't really care what the reasons are, the Police and Fire Commission would have saved the community an awful lot of money if they resolved these issues in a timely fashion. This is a matter that is completely out of the hands of the Mayor and the Common Council.

Keep in mind that early this year, after one meeting between the police union and the Mayor and the President of the CC, the police union flatly refused to attend any additional meetings if the Mayor or the President of the Common Council were to be present.

There is no reason to believe that the situation with the P & F Commission will turn around any time soon.

There is no reason to believe that the situation with the CPPD will turn around any time soon, despite most officers being good people and good officers.

Isn't the definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

Alternatives must be considered!

Rick Carr
City of Pewaukee

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 05 2009 @ 12:11 PM CDT

So are we looking at eliminating CPPD just because of legal bills, lawsuits and complaints due to internal issues?

Help me with this. I've never heard of a business doing this.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 05 2009 @ 02:09 PM CDT

Mr. Carr, thank you for signing your name to your comments.

You say, "There is no reason to believe that the situation with the CPPD will turn around any time soon." As someone who is not a part of our police department, how do you know a) what the "situation" is and b) whether or not the situation has turned around? I'm not asking this in an adversarial tone. These are just things I was wondering about.

Let's say, hypothetically, the police department is disbanded today. Are people under the impression that any pending litigation will simply disappear? I know there are investigations that aren't public yet, but all the pending litigation is a result of incidents that have already happened. Whether or not our department survives has no effect on that litigation and it has no effect on how much money it will cost the city.

Also, I haven't asked anyone to feel sorry for us. We aren't saying "this isn't fair." When you say "that's life", believe me, we understand that. We also understand the Council is doing it's duty by seeking cost saving alternatives.

There is no reason for people to feel sorry for us, and we don't want people to. I want people, and I suppose the Council most importantly, to make this decision from a public safety standpoint. If you (the City of Pewaukee citizen) seriously injure yourself, don't you want the fastest response time possible? Don't you want the Officer responding to know where your street is without having to consult a map? That is what you have right now and it has literally saved lives. I have been involved with others in my department in saving the lives of at least 6 people in my career. These were people who would not be with us today if we didn't respond as fast as we did. Maybe this isn't something a lot of people are considering but I guarantee you will consider it when that life saving situation applies to you or someone you love.

Respectfully,

Officer Dan Adrian
City of Pewaukee Police Department

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 05 2009 @ 04:07 PM CDT

Please stop acting like the sheriff’s deputies are idiots that can’t find a street without a map. They will be assigned to the city and will learn it the same way that you did when you started on the dept. Also a lot of the current officers would be hired as deputies and, of course, they already know the streets. Earlier you wrote “. . . I would like to know when I talked to you and told you that. And then I would like to know when you talked to any of my co-workers and which one of my co-workers told you that”. Officer Brian Fredricks was quoted in the Freeman saying that the city should just raise taxes to keep the police dept. Every time he speaks or is interviewed he makes it clear that he is representing the CPPD as their union guy. I believe he made the same reference to raising taxes as the solution to the budget problems at one of the council meetings about this subject. So if that is not your opinion, then perhaps you should inform your representative to stop speaking for you.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 06 2009 @ 06:49 AM CDT

Why do you, officer, find it necessary to know the identity of those who
dare to speak in favor of the sheriffs proposal? As a longtime pewaukee
resident, let's just say it's rarely been in a citiZens interest to be on the
opposite side of public policy from the PD in this community.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 06 2009 @ 08:37 AM CDT

Officer Dan Adrian

I also appreciate your willingness to sign you name to your posts. I also agree with the prior poster who prefers anonymity, as in the past it was not always healthy to oppose the CPPD, just ask John Gotto, hopefully those days are gone, but.....

You asked me a valid question in how I know if the situation with the CPPD has turned around. I will attempt to answer it for you.

Not being on the department as you note, I must come to my own determination based on what I see. First there is/has been a culture of not all, but certainly some within the department of filing lawsuits. The trend is the trend until it is no longer the trend, and I have not seen any thing to give me any indication that the trend has changed. If you have anything to share that will convince me that the litigious culture has changed, I would be happy to hear/see it.

Secondly, I observe that the police union has, I assume, voted as it's leaders individuals that were involved in the Red Rooster incident (I was a part time officer for nine years, part time, but fully certified, and if any of us had done any of that we would have been summarily fired!); the John Gotto incident (are we really expected to believe that Balistrere was actually just casually driving by on the opposite side of town and just happened to have a camera with him to take pictures, they must all think we are idiots to believe that crap. I was stuffing mailboxes on that very windy day myself, and I picked up flyers blowing in the wind as well, it could have been me.); the never publicized incident in which a fake letter was sent to a park employee advising him of a threat against his life, as a "joke", sounds serious to me. These are the union leaders that your union voted to represent you and it reflects on you. Then these same leaders after one meeting refuse to meet with the Mayor or the President of the Common Council, whether it is arrogance, stupidity, immaturity, or whatever the reason, it doesn't matter, that's their job as union representatives. It leaves me with the solid impression that the culture of the CPPD has not changed. Some of this may be unknown to you as I believe that you in a previous post stated that you have only been here about five years.

Frankly, after the Chief situation was resolved, I was hopeful that the department was "fixed" and that we would no longer have to worry about it. I was as surprised as you were to find that outsourcing was being considered, but I don't see how else to be rid of the ongoing unacceptable 10% internal litigation expenses.

Rick Carr
City of Pewaukee

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 06 2009 @ 09:15 AM CDT

Everything that is still going on is left over from the previous administration there.

It just doesn't stop when you eliminate the department head.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 06 2009 @ 08:33 AM CDT

That's probably because a private business doesn't have to pay idle employees for a year and then reward them with a severence package.

They can just fire the people who don't do their job. They can even deny unemployment for cause.

You simply can't compare a private employer with the government. If it were that simple the bad employees in the dept. would already be gone.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 06 2009 @ 09:18 AM CDT

It sounds like they are working on it. I know things take time. The Chief there has not been gone all that long. He was off for quite a while but not gone until they paid him out.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 06 2009 @ 01:39 PM CDT

Mr Carr, after reading your response I completely understand how the average citizen would feel the way you do. To be honest, I could give you reasons why I believe you're wrong, but I would simply be repeating things I've already said. I would guess the only way to prove you wrong is to actually prove you wrong, but our department may not have enough time to do that. And, just for your reference, I began working here about 3 weeks after the Red Rooster incident.

To answer another question, I want to know who's talking to me. A question carries much more validity when you know who it's coming from. I enjoy reading comments from those who identify themselves (Mr Carr, Mr Mueller, Mrs Paprocki). Otherwise, who's actually making these comments? You may or may not live in the City of Pewaukee. If you're worried about retaliation then I suppose there's nothing I can do about that. Personally, I can't imagine focusing on a random citizen simply because he/she disagrees with me. Especially in a situation like this where there really is no right and wrong.

I want to clear up one issue brought up earlier. To the anonymous poster who said it, I have never, ever, said anything negative about the competence of the employees of the Sheriff's Department. They are an excellent department.

If the Council decides to contract police services they will probably hire about 18 of us. At this point there is nothing in the proposal that states those 18 will be assigned to the City of Pewaukee. The reason for that is all of us will be at the bottom of the seniority ladder and we will be last to choose where we want to work. Also, the proposal states the Sheriff will have "final authority" as to how all services will be rendered.

Dan Adrian

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 06 2009 @ 03:52 PM CDT

First, I am not signing this because I DO fear reprisal from some members of the force. This blog has accepted anonymous entries for years including MANY pro-department recent anonymous entries. I don't see you complaining about them. Second - I AM a city resident.

Anyone hearing Captain Meister's comments at the recent CPPD/CC meeting KNOWS he has no trust or respect for the mayor and "some common council members." That is a "broken" reality - not a baby out with the bathwater one. Even with a new chief, he and others feeling the same way will remain.

Next: Officer Kramer -- when did all this become just about you? Why is it that since mainly YOUNGER officers will benefit from WRS but YOU won't it is therefore bad. Only physically fit officers will be picked up but YOU"RE not so it's bad. Reality check -- you were given an unauthorized perk assignment by your then-pal Chief Bach. I am not interested in keeping the CPPD, foregoing a potential minimum $1,000,000 savings, so you can keep bowling. I suggest that if your recent statements reflect what you see as pivotal decision-making factors it might be better for you to keep quiet.

I believe the RIGHT THING TO DO FROM A BUDGET PERSPECTIVE is to contract with the sheriff's department. The fact that by so doing we would turn off the unending flow of issues and legal fees (yes current open ones will still need to be concluded) is just a side benefit.

Unsigned because I (like some others?) do fear you

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 06 2009 @ 11:15 PM CDT

I actually admire you for not signing your name. Why on earth would you want anyone to know it is you making such intelligent comments. Do you feel better now? When did Officer Kraemer (please note spelling, you can spell it right next time to look smarter) make it about him? Others made it about him. After 5 duty related back surgeries he could be sitting on his butt and doing nothing. Yet, he chooses to serve your fine community. Does it bother you that he has built a quality reputation in your community and that people admire his caring. Well, that should not bother you. You should embrace that attitude and try it yourself.

With regards to your potential $1,000,000 savings I live in the Town of Lisbon. The then chairman stated there would be savings of $210,000 per year by eliminating the police department. He also decided that the residents should not vote. Guess what? 1 year later not only is he no longer in office, but my taxes went up, and the savings are actually only $18,000. Yes you are reading correctly I did not leave out a "zero" So while you are condemning those that are trying to save the jobs they love, keep in mind even the young guys don't want to start at the bottom again. And I am sorry, you "fear that there will be reprisal from the police department"....I bet the individuals that stood up at these last meetings against the police department are in jail now..... if you are ashamed of what you have to say, you should not say it!

Debbie Kraemer

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 07 2009 @ 08:46 AM CDT

Thank you Mrs. Litigation expense.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 13 2009 @ 08:33 AM CDT

Wouldn’t that be an $18,000 savings over what the budget was the year the contract was implemented? If Lisbon still had its own department, that budget would have gone up the next year as all budgets seem to do. So to compare the current cost of the Sheriff’s contract with the budget from the last year you had a police department is really flawed thinking.

I have empathy for the fact that your husband has undergone “5 duty related surgeries”, but you fail to mention the large monetary settlements he has gotten as a result of his injury or the very public lawsuit he has pending against that fine community he chooses to serve.

As far as “even the young guys don’t want to start at the bottom”, do you seriously think that anyone who has lost their job due to the current economic climate wanted to start at the bottom again? That doesn’t really impress me as much of a counter argument against us taxpayers saving a substantial amount of money. Things are tough all over.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 06 2009 @ 10:28 PM CDT

Rick...I'm glad to see that someone agrees with the comment I made awhile ago about the ineffectiveness of your P&FC. IMO, alot of these City problems have been self induced by those people in City gov't who don't follow the rules and procedures for the rectification of said problems.

You know, when the City was formed, it seemed that the City gov't had a corner on gov't efficiency and operations. As time has gone forward, we have seen that advantage deteriorate so it looks like our Village gov't is really on top of things now.

This is one of the reasons that I'm cold on merger. We know what we have in the Village and we don't need to screw up a good thing....with our police or anything else.

Until your policies and procedures start running as they are supposed to without being short circuited, don't look for anything better.


Andy Mueller, Pewaukee Village, Ahead of the curve.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 07 2009 @ 05:28 PM CDT

Mrs. KraEmer,
Your husband made it about him in his interview with the local newspaper. I didn’t.

Alderman Noll,
I was very disappointed last night that Alderman Hasslinger’s motion regarding the CPPD/sheriff department issue failed to find a second. Seconding a motion does not require that the “seconder” vote in favor of the motion but it does permit open discussion. A discussion would have provided the opportunity to determine if there was enough support to move forward. Sooner or later all of you will be required to step forward – pro or con – and state your individual position in the matter. That’s the tough part that comes with the job.

For the record, I am a District I resident and I am in favor of contracting with the sheriff and saving significant tax dollars. Please add my vote to your tally.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 07 2009 @ 06:11 PM CDT

I don"t think so!!! Not without your name. I'll refrain from adding my name because of "retaliation".

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 08 2009 @ 01:11 AM CDT

The following is not about the CPPD, nor is it about the CC or Mayor. It is about my perception of the events surrounding this budget process. Hopefully this letter will appear in a future LCR.

Dear Editor,

I attended the first 2010 Budget workshop for the City of Pewaukee on October 7, 2009. I am as frustrated by this process as the members of the CPPD, the Common Council, the Mayor, and city department heads.

I heard the acting police chief and other officers accuse the Mayor of having a personal agenda to abolish the PPD. I heard the Mayor accuse the PPD bargaining representative of shutting Alderman Hasslinger and himself out of bargaining meetings.

I heard Ms. Enters say that she wanted to go through an 80 page budget document line by line, and reduce expenditures by $1.6 million in other areas in order to save the current structure of the police department. Our other department heads already submitted bare bones budgets. Short of abolishing other departments, how does she plan to accomplish this? She offered no suggestions.

Alderman Hathaway proposed eliminating the Joint Park and Rec Department. That savings makes up a third of the shortage. Do we want to do away with our park and rec department?

Alderman Kiser proposed a four day work week for all city hall employees. Is this an area which should be explored? We can probably live without our administrative staff one extra day a week, but how much would this save? No one had the answer. Staffing costs per hour would decrease by 20%, but employee benefits, insurance and utility costs would remain the same.

There seems to be support to reduce all employee’s wages by an across the board 10%. Alderman Bierce was very concerned that the guy who plows snow may be forced out of his home with a 10% reduction in pay, but that other highly compensated employees would not be adversely affected. Is this a fair and equitable solution?

Acting Chief Meister proposed an approximate 16% reduction in his budget, by not hiring a police chief (which hours earlier he had petitioned the PFC to hire him for), laying off two other fulltime workers and requiring furloughs for all staff members, including the command staff. He also proposed eliminating the summer and winter lake patrol. Isn’t this a reduction of services? Isn’t the reduced level of service the county will provide one of the strongest points the PD has used to urge the CC to retain the local department?

Harlan Clinkenbeard, our contracted planner, proposed borrowing funds to overcome the 2010 short fall. The obvious problem with this is that when you rob Peter to pay Paul, eventually the repo guy comes knocking on your door. By most projections, 2011 will be just as difficult as 2009 and 2010. How many years into the future will we be repaying the money we borrowed to pay the utility bills incurred in 2010?

Jeff Weigel, the head of Public Works, called out the CC and the Mayor for failure to provide direction. Last year he was given a directive to establish a five year plan for road reconstruction and resurfacing. The CC committed to funding the road projects. It was decided that the money for those projects would be borrowed. Now he feels that by cutting his department’s operating budget, those projects will not be completed on schedule. Do we really want our roads to continue to be neglected?

Taxpayers deserve more than squabbling and indecisiveness. The next workshop is scheduled for Oct. 14. I realize this is an extremely difficult decision, and I thank my lucky stars that I voted to elect someone to make these difficult decisions for me. I would ask my elected representatives to carefully study the budget figures before next week, make suggestions, offer constructive criticism, and bite the bullet in deciding what should stay and what should go. We cannot have it all. If we are going to keep our current PD and the current PD service level we have, some other area will suffer. Do we want our streets paved and plowed, do we want our parks maintained, and do we want City Hall open Monday through Friday? It’s up to the CC members to make this decision.

I would expect them and all others in the room to maintain a civil posture during the next debate on the budget. We did not elect or hire you to bicker amongst yourselves. We are all entitled to our personal opinion, but we are also obligated to respect the opinion of those who disagree with us. The budget workshops are not the place to air personal differences. Do the homework, make the decisions, and get on with the process of government. Like it or not, this budget is due for filing by mid December.

Although I am a member of Pewaukeeans for Better Government, I am expressing my personal opinion, and I am not speaking on behalf of PBG.

Barb Whitcomb

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 08 2009 @ 11:47 AM CDT

Hey guys -

I've been off in the Riviera for a while on my yacht and I'm trying to catch up on everything that's happened while I was gone. My, my, quite a bit happening for such a small town... oops... I mean city. One thing I can't seem to find an answer for - maybe someone can help me...

Is Sgt. Sneider still single?

Duke LaCrosse, Pewaukeeans for a Sexier Police Department (P4SPD)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 08 2009 @ 03:59 PM CDT

Let’s recap current city issues.

• The sheriff’s department has proposed a contract that would save the city $1,000,000 (excluding all administrative time.) Major issues raised by those opposed are
1) decreased service and
2) potential loss of jobs.
Acting Chief proposes a plan to furlough officers (a/k/a decrease service) and “cut some staff” (potential loss of jobs) to save up to $460,000, still $540,000 less than contracting with the sheriff.

Acting chief asks PFC to promote him to chief despite, clear issues with the mayor and “some council members” – the folks who manage and direct the CPPD.

• City votes to save $12,000 that could FINALLY get the merger issue to referendum - give US the right to vote on it. At the same time, 2 aldermen (Hathaway & Enters) support keeping the CPPD. Save $12.000, forego $1,000,000.

• Alderman Hathaway (again) suggests ELIMINATING THE PARK & RECS DEPARTMENT. We have award-winning programs for residents of all ages and incredible assets in our great parklands. “Best suburban city to live in – except it has no parks. It does however come with blighted land and rusting, deteriorating equipment..."

• Last – LET’S RECALL ANOTHER MAYOR. Recall elections cost money that WE will pay for. The next election is in April 2010! Any decision regarding the CPPD and the 2110 budget will be long settled and final before any recall action could occur.

I believe most of the councilmen and Mayor Klein are doing a good job during a nationally tough economic time. They are confronting some very emotional and difficult issues head on. It’s not the time to use up energy on a recall. We can’t always “take our bat and go home.”

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 08 2009 @ 04:35 PM CDT

A couple of other things.

One, I hope the Mayor is trying to put a permanent fix on the forever ongoing internal litigation costs on top of the one million savings, which runs an additional 10% over the budget amount per year.

Two the culture of the CPPD has not changed. Officers involved in the Red Rooster are still there and even voted as leaders of the union that refuses to meet with the Mayor, officers involved in Carley's are still there, officers who threatened the life of a Park employee are still there, whoever gave Balistreri a heads up that the Sherriff is coming is still there, you still have a Lt. who filed a complaint with the EEOC for not being a LT, who has not withdrawn the complaint (did I say he is a LT?) and the officers involved in the Gatto incident are still there.

Three, you have the representative of the Police union stand right in front of the CC and threaten additional lawsuits, so the litigation expenses aren't going away.

Four, you have the PD setting up it's own political action committee. Aren't police departments not supposed to be political?

Five, the acting Chief asks the PFC to promote him to Chief and an hour or so later recommends eliminating the Chief position as part of a budget reduction

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 11 2009 @ 10:00 PM CDT

Dale.....Since alot of people don't seem to want a reduction of services or any belt tightening and the fluff that goes with them ( wants vs needs ) how about expounding on what the City tax rate COULD be if things were to continue as business as usual? Also to be included would be any financial sanctions from our beloved State in this rate if there is any penalty for going over the levy limits.

Maybe this higher rate would be palitable to your taxpayers as I haven't heard many complaining about higher City taxes. We certainly haven't had any complaining about the large school district tax increase for this year or their 25 million school spending plan along with ANOTHER 450K yearly operations increase. A 1.5 million increase and you don't even get a yawn from anyone, but 1.6 mil for the cops and you would think the world is coming to an end. Guess I don't understand it as in the case for both institutions, "its for the kidz"). [ tears in eyes ]

So Dale, check it out and let everyone know what tax rate could be for "full services".

Andy Mueller, Pewaukee Village...a tax heaven

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 12 2009 @ 12:32 AM CDT

16 per cent increase

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 12 2009 @ 08:31 AM CDT

Gessz, that's all this flap is about? Seems to me that you guys were around $3/thousand, so now it would be $3.45? More money has been spent than that just flapping about this.

Andy Mueller, Pewaukee Village--with alot higher rate than that on a good day.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 12 2009 @ 09:05 PM CDT

by law all we can go up is 3%

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 12 2009 @ 09:52 PM CDT

Because of the TABOR situation in 2005 our previous CC and recalled mayor, Jeff Nowack, passed a resolution granting themselves the authority to borrow up to $8 Million within the next 5 years, without any input from taxpayers.

That money is not subject to the 3% cap because it was approved before the levy limits went into affect. It can be borrowed and used to pay operating expenses, and not count towards the levy limit.

I believe every million borrowed would add about 20 cents/thousand to our tax bill for the duration of the loan.

This is not the time to be increasing our taxes, legal or not.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 13 2009 @ 05:57 PM CDT

Being curious, what is the penalty if its more?

Andy Mueller, Pewaukee Village

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 17 2009 @ 04:56 PM CDT

Just keep playing with yourself....

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 13 2009 @ 04:22 PM CDT

An Open Letter to the Pewaukee Common Council and to the Editor

RE: The Police Department

Acting Chief Meister has accused the Mayor and some members of the common council of having motivations other than financial in proposing the Sherriff Department alternative to solve the City’s budget problems, as if it were a bad thing. I certainly hope that he is right!! I will try to explain why.

First, our three million dollar a year PD has internal litigation expenses, year after year, that exceeds 10% of the budget. I had hoped that was over once Bach was gone, but there are more internal investigations ongoing, with more yet to come. Meister’s written statement to the CC quotes the Mayor as saying he wished that these people would just go away, indicating to me that the same bad apples are repeatedly involved. But these people will not go away, the litigation culture will not go away, and the ridiculous ongoing internal litigation expenses will not go away.

Second, the public should know that after only one meeting early this year, our Police Union refused to attend any further meetings if either the Mayor or the President of the Common Council were there, whether it is arrogance, stupidity, immaturity, or whatever the reason, it doesn't matter, that's their job as union representatives. It leaves me with the solid impression that the culture of the CPPD has not changed. Keep in mind that the President of the Union is the same officer that thought it would be a good idea to put his gun belt, including his service revolver on a bar maid at the Red Rooster while at the bar after hours, take cell phone pictures and send them into cyberspace. This is the individual that the union has voted to be their leader and that reflects on them. Additionally, the department still has the officers that were involved in the John Gatto incident (are we really expected to believe that Balistreri was actually just casually driving by on the opposite side of town and just happened to have a camera with him to take pictures, they must all think we are idiots to believe that crap. I was stuffing mailboxes that very windy day and I picked up flyers blowing in the wind as well), and the never publicized incident in which a fake letter was sent to a park employee advising him of a threat against his life, as a "joke" by a detective, sounds serious to me. Another Lt. has an ongoing complaint with the EEOC against the city for not being a Lt., yet he is a LT.

Then you have Jim Palmer of the Wisconsin Professional Police Association during public comments threaten the CC with additional litigation at the last CC meeting.

Next, we now have the Police union establishing a Political Action Committee for the express purpose of influencing Aldermanic and Mayoral elections in the City. Only a small number of the members of the union are residents. I thought Police departments were supposed to be non political. Do we really want to return to the era of Nowak, Bach and Cheri Enters?


Also, you have an “independent” effort to recall the Mayor filed by a friend of an officer who no one recalls ever seeing at a CC meeting, coincidently on the same day as a similar effort was filed in Jackson. The filer of this effort wasn’t even in town to comment. I have to ask, is he really a front man? Are non-resident employees of the police department really behind the recall effort?

The Sheriff has promised to hire all officers that qualify. Do we really want officers on the PD that don’t qualify for the Sherriff?

The PD litigation culture has not changed. The excessive internal litigation expenses must be stopped. There are bad apples that wouldn’t go away. The Sherriff’s proposal saves the City a million dollars and eventually the litigation expenses and solves all of the other problems for once and for all. Oh and I forgot, we lose cops and bobbers, but maybe not, the officers can still do that, on their own time and on their own dime.

Rick Carr
City of Pewaukee

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 14 2009 @ 09:06 AM CDT

Well said, Mr. Carr.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 20 2009 @ 09:21 AM CDT

Dale, I am dissapointed that you waffled and voted no yesterday. Vote with your principles and beliefs. Do not let special interests sway your thought process. Remember why you ran for office and why the people voted you in.

Jim Matel
City of Pewaukee

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 20 2009 @ 03:07 PM CDT

Dale,

I too was disappointed by your vote. I understand your commitment to direct legislation rights. However, in this instance, I see two separate issues, running on parallel but simultaneous tracks. Voting on a budget is one of the major responsibilities of an alderman. It needs to proceed now. If the petitions are sufficient and a referendum is required, that will unfold in its own right. I voted for you because I felt you would take a stand even in tough times. I fear that part of your decision was based on police personnel pressure and possibly the not-so-veiled threats related to next spring's election.

I'd also like to say that I believe many people may have signed the "Police Driven" petitions (only three officers even live in the city) due to a lack of true understanding OR because a police department officer was presenting the petition. Even if not dressed in any way to identify themselves as officers (and to do so would be a direct violation of their ethics code) if they mentioned that they were members of the force that would give anyone pause to not sign. If even one officer violated that code it would be just another example as to why its time to cut our loses and move on.

If anyone was approached by someone who clearly persented his/herself as a police department officer I hope they will come forward. If an ethics violation has occurred it needs to be investigated.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 20 2009 @ 03:32 PM CDT

I took the petition around to be signed. I am not a Police Officer, just a citizen of Pewaukee. I took it in my subdivision. ONE person declined to sign. TWO asked me to come back so husband/wife could sign. Thank you Dale for voting the way the people you represent wanted.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 21 2009 @ 06:22 AM CDT

If we have to keep the police department. How do we pay for them? If the city budgets for $2,000,000. will the department work free for 4 months?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 21 2009 @ 07:42 AM CDT

I hear the PD has started its own blog. Anyone know it's address?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 21 2009 @ 02:30 PM CDT

Did you tell them that if the department stays exactly as is today their property taxes could go up as much as 16%? Did you tell them the captain's recent proposal for cuts would SIGNIFICANTLY reduce their current level of service? (19 1/2 furlough days per year per officer!) Did you tell them that the sheriff's proposal provides virtually identical service to what we have today but at a cost savings of more then $1,000,000? Yes more - indirect costs were not included in the seriff's costs - and believe me they have been extraordinary these past few years - with no end in sight. I suspect not.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 23 2009 @ 12:59 PM CDT

I'd like to make an argument both in defense of Dale, and as to why I do not think that a vote to dissolve the PD would be a violation of Dale's principals.

Dale,

I respect you position regarding your belief that the CC members should respect a CITIZEN'S effort at direct legislation. I vividly recall how it was outrage that the CC under Nowak passed a quickie measure allowing them to spend up to $10 million dollars with out a referendum as a means of circumventing a direct legislation petition that they knew was being circulated for signatures which would limit expenditures to $1 million dollars, without a referendum. This was clearly an outrageous thing for the CC to do, and frankly it motivated me to get involved at the same time.

I very much respect your stand to not violate your principals, after all, it was your principals that I voted for when I voted for you. I expect nothing less from you, and you have not let us down.

Now I'd like to try to make an argument that voting to dissolve the Police Department for budgetary and other issues is not a violation of your personal ethics.

First, the circumstances here are completely different, even reversed. The prior situation was clearly an effort by the CC to circumvent the citizens. What we have here is clearly an effort by the Police union, mostly non-resident city employees, to circumvent the CC, using some citizen's as front people. I will allow that there are resident citizens that are involved, but the petitions were written by the union and largely circulated by union members both from Pewaukee City employees and Jackson union employees. It would be difficult for the circumstances to be more different, yet still using direct legislation. Who knows what "reasons" the circulators used in asking for signatures, less services? Save our jobs? Do you want officers to have to look at a map to find your house? These are arguments that they made publicly. I don't know, surprisingly no one asked for my signature.

Second, I firmly believe that most people that signed the petition likely signed it based on arguments that the CC knows to be false, although that is difficult to say.

We know that the argument about less service is false. With the cuts that the department agreed to at the last budget meeting, the elimination of two positions, no chief and 19.5 days of furlough for 29 officers, which amounts to almost one month off per year for each officer, and a combined 3,900 hours, that the City would get more service, not less with the Sherriff.

Need a map, well maybe, but only if the officers all have complete memory loss, as the Sherriff will hire our existing officers and assign them to the City if they want. All squads also have GPS and laptops.

Save our jobs, not. The Sherriff said on Jeff Wagner's show that he would hire all officers that meet the minimum requirements for his department. I ask, why would we want any officers that can't qualify?

Next Dale, I argue that your principals of budget responsibility and providing best possible service are in conflict with the principle regarding direct legislation. I know that you have as a core value budgetary financial responsibility. You have demonstrated this time and again, and I thank you. We all know that from a budget perspective, there is no possibility of saving the department. I expect that providing the best possible service to the community is also a core value. Because the community would have greater, not lesser service with the Sherriff's department. Wouldn't this core value weigh against the direct legislation value?

Two remaining issues that I also expect effect you core values need to be considered. One is do you allow the union to dictate to the CC what the CC can do? Another is do you allow this opportunity to get the City out from under the endless ongoing litigation expenses go by? I read this mourning Officer Kraemer's lawsuit complaint against the City and Acting Captain Meister and Sergeant Norquist. It is about enough to turn my stomach. The details show a bunch of juveniles whining to each other about he said this and she said that, they won't let me go upstairs, and oh my aching back, give me $300 K and legal expenses. That was amended and refiled this year and goes back several years. This is only one of several. This will have to be resolved, but I don't see any reason to think that any of this will ever end without dissolving the department. Would it not be a core value to help get the City out from under this endless litigation? Further, the CC members have information that the some command staff members have been accused of being involved with the Gatto incident, the Sony Long incident and even threats against the Mayor, all information coming from within the department and exit interviews. Is there not a core value in dealing with these?

In summary Dale, I respect your determination to act on your core values and I am confident that you will. I have made assumptions about your core values that I understand may not be correct, but I expect that some of your core values conflict with your strongly held belief in respecting direct legislation. I argue that this piece of direct legislation is instituted by employees more so than residents and that it is not at all the same. I argue that the several other core values are in conflict with the direct legislation value, and the these other values should trump and win out.

Dale, I respect you and support you and hope that you will forgive me for making this argument so publicly. In my defense, I feel that this argument is important for the public to see in addition to yourself as ultimately the community may have to decide on these issues.

Rick Carr
City of Pewaukee

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 23 2009 @ 10:09 AM CDT

You don't know what your talking about.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 23 2009 @ 12:58 PM CDT

I'd like to make an argument both in defense of Dale, and as to why I do not think that a vote to dissolve the PD would be a violation of Dale's principals.

Dale,

I respect you position regarding your belief that the CC members should respect a CITIZEN'S effort at direct legislation. I vividly recall how it was outrage that the CC under Nowak passed a quickie measure allowing them to spend up to $10 million dollars with out a referendum as a means of circumventing a direct legislation petition that they knew was being circulated for signatures which would limit expenditures to $1 million dollars, without a referendum. This was clearly an outrageous thing for the CC to do, and frankly it motivated me to get involved at the same time.

I very much respect your stand to not violate your principals, after all, it was your principals that I voted for when I voted for you. I expect nothing less from you, and you have not let us down.

Now I'd like to try to make an argument that voting to dissolve the Police Department for budgetary and other issues is not a violation of your personal ethics.

First, the circumstances here are completely different, even reversed. The prior situation was clearly an effort by the CC to circumvent the citizens. What we have here is clearly an effort by the Police union, mostly non-resident city employees, to circumvent the CC, using some citizen's as front people. I will allow that there are resident citizens that are involved, but the petitions were written by the union and largely circulated by union members both from Pewaukee City employees and Jackson union employees. It would be difficult for the circumstances to be more different, yet still using direct legislation. Who knows what "reasons" the circulators used in asking for signatures, less services? Save our jobs? Do you want officers to have to look at a map to find your house? These are arguments that they made publicly. I don't know, surprisingly no one asked for my signature.

Second, I firmly believe that most people that signed the petition likely signed it based on arguments that the CC knows to be false, although that is difficult to say.

We know that the argument about less service is false. With the cuts that the department agreed to at the last budget meeting, the elimination of two positions, no chief and 19.5 days of furlough for 29 officers, which amounts to almost one month off per year for each officer, and a combined 3,900 hours, that the City would get more service, not less with the Sherriff.

Need a map, well maybe, but only if the officers all have complete memory loss, as the Sherriff will hire our existing officers and assign them to the City if they want. All squads also have GPS and laptops.

Save our jobs, not. The Sherriff said on Jeff Wagner's show that he would hire all officers that meet the minimum requirements for his department. I ask, why would we want any officers that can't qualify?

Next Dale, I argue that your principals of budget responsibility and providing best possible service are in conflict with the principle regarding direct legislation. I know that you have as a core value budgetary financial responsibility. You have demonstrated this time and again, and I thank you. We all know that from a budget perspective, there is no possibility of saving the department. I expect that providing the best possible service to the community is also a core value. Because the community would have greater, not lesser service with the Sherriff's department. Wouldn't this core value weigh against the direct legislation value?

Two remaining issues that I also expect effect you core values need to be considered. One is do you allow the union to dictate to the CC what the CC can do? Another is do you allow this opportunity to get the City out from under the endless ongoing litigation expenses go by? I read this mourning Officer Kraemer's lawsuit complaint against the City and Acting Captain Meister and Sergeant Norquist. It is about enough to turn my stomach. The details show a bunch of juveniles whining to each other about he said this and she said that, they won't let me go upstairs, and oh my aching back, give me $300 K and legal expenses. That was amended and refiled this year and goes back several years. This is only one of several. This will have to be resolved, but I don't see any reason to think that any of this will ever end without dissolving the department. Would it not be a core value to help get the City out from under this endless litigation? Further, the CC members have information that the some command staff members have been accused of being involved with the Gatto incident, the Sony Long incident and even threats against the Mayor, all information coming from within the department and exit interviews. Is there not a core value in dealing with these?

In summary Dale, I respect your determination to act on your core values and I am confident that you will. I have made assumptions about your core values that I understand may not be correct, but I expect that some of your core values conflict with your strongly held belief in respecting direct legislation. I argue that this piece of direct legislation is instituted by employees more so than residents and that it is not at all the same. I argue that the several other core values are in conflict with the direct legislation value, and the these other values should trump and win out.

Dale, I respect you and support you and hope that you will forgive me for making this argument so publicly. In my defense, I feel that this argument is important for the public to see in addition to yourself as ultimately the community may have to decide on these issues.

Rick Carr
City of Pewaukee

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 27 2009 @ 02:55 AM CDT

I'm pretty sure Dale and the rest of us understood what you said the first time you said it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 27 2009 @ 08:34 AM CDT

Isn't it obvious that was an error when there was a pagination problem?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 27 2009 @ 05:23 PM CDT

Dale, how about starting a new thread? Over 3,000 have been into this one. Time for a fresh start!

To all the “Supporters of the CPPD” who show up at CC meetings, emotionally rant about the need to continue with the CPPD, attack certain council members and the mayor, and then proceed to exit en masse when the agenda item is over -- you talk as if you know everything about what our city government is doing and facing. How about staying for all the meeting? How about going to all city meetings? Even stepping up to fill one or more committee or board positions? Then you might know at least something about what you claim to have already mastered. Not interested? Is it because many of you don’t live in the city; or that those who do have some personal connection or tie to the CPPD?

To the Common Council and Mayor – please continue working for a balanced budget – one that does not include the CPPD. That is fiscal responsibility.

Alderman Hathaway – you recused yourself on the merger vote with a total price tag of $87,000 yet had no problem voting to keep the CPPD at a cost to taxpayers of a minimum of $1,000,000! Please do the math OR else recuse yourself from any vote related to the CPPD issue as you did the merger issue. One you wouldn’t vote on because it would cost money; the other you had no trouble voting against saving money. How about some consistency – or at least be honet about your merger vote reasons. You’ve been opposed since the beginning. Or, think about how many curb-thingys or whatever it is you say your constiuents want that $1,000,000 can buy!

Alderwoman Enters – I know you were and still are devoted to the (Bach) CPPD. Now serve your constituents – you know – the ones you promised you would be their “voice.” Many District I voters support the sheriff’s department. At least acknowledge them.

And for whichever alderman (my candidates listed above) is sending confidential communications to anyone within the CPPD, your actions are a clear violation of the city’s Ethics code. If any hard proof surfaces, you can be guaranteed an ethics complaint will be filed.

Kathleen Novack
District I resident

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 28 2009 @ 06:55 AM CDT

I can see why you got voted out

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 28 2009 @ 08:45 AM CDT

I can see why you'll soon be unemployed.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 28 2009 @ 09:45 AM CDT

Didn't know my company was laying anyone off.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 30 2009 @ 05:23 PM CDT

Officer Dan Adrian,

I was rereading your signed post of October 5, and I would like to ask you in a non adversarial tone, as you respectfully did, a questions or two.

I refer to your post:

"There is no reason for people to feel sorry for us, and we don't want people to. I want people, and I suppose the Council most importantly, to make this decision from a public safety standpoint. If you (the City of Pewaukee citizen) seriously injure yourself, don't you want the fastest response time possible? Don't you want the Officer responding to know where your street is without having to consult a map? That is what you have right now and it has literally saved lives. I have been involved with others in my department in saving the lives of at least 6 people in my career. These were people who would not be with us today if we didn't respond as fast as we did. Maybe this isn't something a lot of people are considering but I guarantee you will consider it when that life saving situation applies to you or someone you love.

Respectfully,

Officer Dan Adrian
City of Pewaukee Police Department "

Since that time, unfortunately things have become more contentious, but we have found that with the budget cuts required to keep the department would actually result in less service with the current department. We have found that good officers, such as yourself, who know the City, will be able to continue to work the City for the Sherriff. We have found funding, diverted to the Parks department, to continue community service programs. We have found that each officer would have to take 19.5 days, or almost a month furlough, per year, one 12 th of your salary. We know that from a budget prospective, the CC has no real alternative. We know that with the Sherriff you would have better a pension program. Given all this, and knowing that it is no longer about levels of service. (Because if it were you would have to be for the Sherriff's proposal.) Why is it that you, through your union, are continuing to fight this? And in a way that insures that it will only get uglier, and more expensive?

Respectfully asked,

Rick Carr

By the way, One of my proudest moments, although it was over 25 years ago, was hearing "Don't worry, everything will be alright now, the Police are here" as I arrived to my very first call. It was a medical emergency and at that time I had almost no training and had no idea what to do, but it all worked out. I also recall the only time I gave CPR, not on duty, but it also worked out, reviving an individual who happened to be an off duty Sherriff's deputy, also many years ago.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 30 2009 @ 06:47 PM CDT

At a luncheon yesterday I was asked by a friend who also lives in the city what I thought about the police issue. He mentioned that he and his wife signed the petition when a police officer came to their door. I asked if the officer was in uniform or in any way dressed to indicate he was an officer. My friend said no but he introduced himself as a CPPD officer. The officer also told them that all Pewaukee police officers would lose their seniority and be placed low in competing for new City assignments against all interested current sheriff department officers.

I wonder how many people, facing an identified police officer who is asking them for a signature, would actually say no - especially if they know only a little about the total issue. In fact the officer clearly misrepresented the facts to them (lied?) which was a major factor in why they signed. And this is ther professionalism and integrity so many want to preserve ...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 30 2009 @ 11:03 PM CDT

Why is the CC so afraid for this issue to go to a referendum? In the end this issue should be for the people of Pewaukee to decide, not 7 elected officials (some of which already had their minds made up on day one because of personal opinions). The Village of Jackson listened to their residents, why doesn't Pewaukee? Finally, anyone watch the news and notice how Milwaukee Co. officals worked together to solve their budget issues? The LEADERS WORKED TOGETHER and made cuts in ALL departments, not just one! This is happening all over the place but the so-called leaders in Pewaukee seem only interested to take the easy way out.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 01 2009 @ 10:48 PM CST

I notice in today's ( Sunday) Lake Country Living section of the da Journal, that Oconomowoc City PD is hiring officers. Should anyone who may be displaced in the City, be putting in an application over there?

Just an FYI

Andy Mueller, Pewaukee Village

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 02 2009 @ 12:39 AM CST

Mr Carr,

You ask a very good question and you also allow me to clear up some widely held misconceptions.

I have some personal reasons as to why I don't like the idea of this contract. Naturally, I'm not wild about the idea of a substantial pay cut, which leads to one of the large misconceptions. At the CPPD a patrol officer reaches maximum pay after 3 years of full-time service. I believe that number is 11 years at the Sheriff's Dept (I may be wrong, but it's somewhere near that). I hear a lot of people asking what we're complaining about since we'll be placed at the same pay level at the Sheriff's Dept. That is not how it is going to happen, unless you have 11 or more years at the CPPD. How do you think a deputy with 9 years experience is going to feel when he/she is suddenly making substantially less than a new deputy with 3 years experience? The union at the Sheriff's Dept will not accept that, as well they shouldn't.

Someone who wrote a couple comments before me seems to believe those of us moving to the Sheriff's Dept won't lose our seniority. That's completely wrong. The transfer to the Sheriff's Dept is not a lateral transfer. The 18 people who are originally hired will be the bottom 18 in seniority at the Sheriff's Dept.

I recently read the original proposal from the Sheriff. There is nothing that states the officers who move from the CPPD to the Sheriff's Dept will be patrolling the City of Pewaukee. In fact, that proposal states the Sheriff retains the final authority to make decisions as to how all services shall be rendered.

Since we are on the topic, let me propose a hypothetical situation. Let's say you are a deputy with 15 years experience. You have a family and would prefer to be a day shift deputy but you don't have enough seniority yet. So, instead you're on 3rd shift b/c if you worked 2nd shift you would never see your family. Now, there are 18 new deputies, all of whom are far below you in seniority. You're going to be a little upset that 5 of those new deputies are now working day shift in the City of Pewaukee. I know their union will not approve of that.

My question is why does everyone seem to believe that all the former CPPD officers will be patrolling the City of Pewaukee? And why would any of us want to create animosity with our future co-workers by basically stealing more preferable shifts?

Having said all that, I realize none of that really makes any difference as to what the final outcome will be with this process. So I move onto more relevant topics.

The 19 furlough days idea was simply a base offer. We were also willing to simply take a wage decrease which would keep our service level the same.

The level of service argument has been completely led off course. What we would like to do is keep the department exactly the way it is now and then fill our vacant spots. That would put us up to 27 officers. When we say the City of Pewaukee will lose service, this is what we're referring to. You simply don't have the same level of service with 18 people that you have with 27. And "level of service" is not simply referring to how many officers are on the road. I believe there is a large drop in service by simply not having a command staff dedicated solely to your city.

So, when the Mayor originally stated this was a budgetary issue, then at the high school stated it wasn't a budgetary issue, but has now concluded it actually is a budgetary issue, we knew the focus of the issue had changed. It wasn't about level of service anymore. If it was the department would stay the way it is. If we had said we weren't willing to concede anything, the contract would already be signed, sealed and delivered. We had to adjust and exhaust all our options.

So, why do we continue to oppose this contract? Because we'll all be starting over. I have a job I enjoy. I like the people I work with and I like the city I work in. Why wouldn't I fight to keep those things? Some aren't willing to start over and they realize their law enforcement careers may be nearing the end.

I have no idea if I gave you any insight into our mindset, but I just spent an hour trying my best. If I didn't, let me know and I'll try to expand on anything I've said.

Now I have a couple questions for you.

Do you have any idea the amount of money the transition will cost the City of Pewaukee? I admittedly do not, but I believe there are hundreds of thousands of dollars that have not even been mentioned. There is sick time that will have to be paid, along with vacation time and compensatory time. The Sheriff's Dept will have to assign thousands of hours of overtime to cover the City of Pewaukee until all the training of new deputies is complete. The original proposal states the City of Pewaukee will reimburse the County for all overtime resulting from patrolling the City of Pewaukee. The County isn't going to be paying for that. Where is that money coming from? I don't know the answer to that, but don't those costs need to be considered? I find it strange that people hear "save a million dollars" and automatically believe it without any scrutiny.

Why do people continue to use the legal expenses as a reason to contract police services? I see no logic in this viewpoint, but it appears to be a popular argument. I don't deny this department went through some dysfunctional times in the past few years. And whether or not there are future lawsuits stemming from this period that haven't been filed yet, I don't know. But getting rid of the department does not stop that from happening. The pending lawsuits and possible future lawsuits resulting from that time period, and the costs associated with them, don't simply disappear b/c of a contract with the Sheriff's Dept. The only legal expenses that would be avoided are those resulting from situations that haven't happened yet. How can you predict that? And wouldn't it make sense to apply that line of logic to all departments? Who knows what's going to happen at City Hall or the Highway Dept?

In the end, we would like the citizens to vote. Regardless of the outcome, no one would be able to argue with the final result.

Officer Dan Adrian
City of Pewaukee Police Department

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 02 2009 @ 08:25 AM CST

stop the crying!!! this is all about me,me,me,me. who cares about the tax payer.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 02 2009 @ 09:02 AM CST

Have a referendum. The Citizens are the tax payers. What are YOU afraid of.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 02 2009 @ 02:39 PM CST

First, I believe a referendum would support contracting with the sheriff’s department. Everyone I have talked to with all the information has told me they too see contracting as the way to go.

Officer Adrian – please tell folks about the results in Lisbon. Officers interested in staying in Lisbon DID. Second, the sheriff has made it clear that IF 18 current CPPD officers QUALIFY and WANT to stay in Pewaukee they will.

Next – bad shift issue. The fact is many, many area residents have LOST their jobs entirely due to the current economy. I wonder how many of them want to pay more in taxes so you can keep your shift. They may be facing foreclosure. Your guaranteed job status makes a shift inconvenience a minor issue to them.

What or how the sheriff department’s union reacts should be based on past experience. I don’t recall ever hearing about any serious issues when Lisbon contracted.

Please – let’s stop the hysteria.

One other considereation - our representatives are elected to budget and oversee the daily operations of our city. That includes approving a balanvced budget within state-mandated limits. I believe it was never the intention of the direct legislation provisions to usurpt operational duties.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, November 02 2009 @ 04:54 PM CST

Wouln't you fight for your job and stand up for what you believe in if you were about to loose your job? I know I would! In the end, at least all of these officers who are expressing their thoughts and opinions can go down saying that they stood up for their beliefs! You're an idiot if you think that they should just step back and not say anything! Way to go CPPD employees for standing up for your department and all of the great things that you do.

Finally, I noticed a comment referring to Lisbon and their contract. Did anyone ever talk to those citizens about what they think of their contract? Of course we know the Town President (or whatever the title) is only going to say good things. What is it really like in Lisbon from the resident's point-of-view? I know that some would have liked to have a say in the matter and some are not comfortable not having their own PD.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 03 2009 @ 06:46 AM CST

The Town of Lisbon residents have seen no decrease in the level of service, and they are happy to see the Sheriff's Department within their town. Also, the nay sayers who wanted to keep their police department are also satisified with their contracted police services. Thats a fact.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 03 2009 @ 09:28 AM CST

Dale -

I was wondering if you saw the new Michael Jackson movie "This is It" and what you may have thought about it.

Thanks,

Duke LaCrosse

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 03 2009 @ 12:21 PM CST

has anyone ever asked...., if the sheriff is responsible
to police townships by law, why these communities feel
the need to pay for additional sheriff contract
patrols....say in Lisbon? why are they paying any more
than their regular county tax? if the sheriff was
adequately policing what he is responsible for...why do
these townships feel the need to pay extra for more
patrols?
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 03 2009 @ 02:22 PM CST

For every person who likes the Sheriff in Lisbon you can find someone who doesn't, that's a "fact." The police department used that argument to support them and the Sheriff used it to support them. It's a toss up either way. Like Mark Belling says, when you enter a situation with a certain mindset you can always spin the information in your favor.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 03 2009 @ 05:10 PM CST

Wow, the mayor did a fablous job with the timing of all of this. Not enough time to get it on the ballet for today's vote, budgets are due...etc. How long did he have this planned anyway? A quick fix! I hope that all of the elected officials who voted to disband are proud to live in the ONLY city in the state of WI to NOT have their own PD. Some "Bright Future" the City of Pewaukee has!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 04 2009 @ 10:04 AM CST

"the ONLY city in the state of WI to NOT have their own PD"

Who cares? I expect others will soon follow suit.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 04 2009 @ 12:21 PM CST

Maybe you dont', but some do! Maybe you can use the crystal ball that the mayor has to predict what cities will be next. Just think of the money in that!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 04 2009 @ 02:00 PM CST

We may be the first in Wisconsin but not in the country. The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department contracts with eighty-eight cities, ranging in population from 700 to 175,000, and in size from 1 to 100 square miles. They represent very diverse communities with equally diverse needs. The department works closely with each community to provide a level of service that reflects those individual needs. Services can be provided on a regional basis with other communities, with the benefits of cost sharing, or on a fully dedicated basis.

It seems to me that if it works so well there it is worth a try here. I suspect it is the face of the future in many communities throughout Wisconsin.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 04 2009 @ 08:47 PM CST

There are many people in the PD that contributed to this situation. They have no one to thank but themselves!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 04 2009 @ 09:38 PM CST

So if someone or a select few people you worked with had problems at their place of employment, should you loose your job because of them? When a few apples in the bushel are rotten, would you dump the entire basket? Just wondering? The people responsible for the budgetary mess need to step up and take responsibility for their lack of actions. Again, personal issues could have been put aside and a solution could have been worked out TOGETHER as an entire city. This is happening all over the state and other communities are finding other solutions not abolishing entire departments.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 05 2009 @ 10:27 AM CST

Why do you say lose your job if you are not one of the "bad apples", when you know that the Sherriff has committed to hiring everyone that meets minimum requirements, and without having to take an entire month off with no pay and better retirement? A lot of people in the private sector would love to have that kind of assurance!

For starters, the city started the budget process $2 million in the hole. This comes from reduced revenues because there is no development going forward in the city this year, and because of reduced home values due to the economy. They got 16% reductions from all departments except that after the first meeting with the police union, the union refused to meet again if either the Mayor or the President of the Common Council were present, so look to yourselves when you look at not working together. Those are the individuals that you chose to represent you, good job.

As far as not throwing out the whole bushel goes, what else can you do if you can not get the rotten apples separated from the good apples? And who's fault would that be?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 05 2009 @ 01:48 PM CST

Let's talk about the Mayor's crystal ball. I thought he should have had a set?? He appears sneaky, underhanded and downright deceitful. If the City of Pewaukee had financial problems, he and his administration should have known about it long before the August timeframe when all of this "shortfall" controversy surfaced. The Mayor's plan to disband the PD was calculated, planned, and excuted like a true mole. This was retaliation at it's finest.
Some "Bright Future" the City of Pewaukee will have. If I were to relocate or start a business, I would do it in a community that was looking forward, not a community that operates on vendetta. My thoughts and prayers go out the the fine officers, and their families, who have served the City for many years. I hope they all find jobs working for departments who will appreciate their efforts.
Mr. Mayor there were two roads, the high road and the low road. It is unfortunate for the City of Pewaukee you chose the low.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 05 2009 @ 02:24 PM CST

AMEN!!!!!!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 05 2009 @ 07:06 PM CST

Ditto!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 06 2009 @ 01:11 AM CST

as carr and novak sit silent in the night...the fairies
of sugarplums dance in their heads... while the soon
to be ousted mayor sits and does nothing..... but run
the city into the ground... alderman Hasslinger drops
F-bombs and stomps like he needs meds.....

they way i look at it... the cops win.... with better
benefits we will all pay for at the county level.... while
the city suffers... klein.... done....hasslinger
recalled.... who wants a piece of pissed off
constituents ?????

Dale this is your web site... take this mess down and
do yourself a favor and get away from this..... the
people have spoken in a legal manner......

if the village of jakson clerk can certify the exact
same petition that was signed here twice the needed
amount..... stanley riffle can pound sand and we can
all watch our taxes go up because the mayor and
council want to fight the people rather than listen

what say you elected officials????

And novak... at least sign your name to all your
posts....and last i checked mr carr.... your not a
cop...u were part time something which means
nothing

at least alderman kiser realizes there isn't a rush......

Dale....... is Mr Riffle right or not? if you think so and
your wrong....... it will cost the city millions...... worth
the gamble??????? last I checked the petitions were
certified in Jackson............... without opposition ......

this is not about the PD vs the Sheriff....... this is
about a mayor with a vendetta, an alderman who
needs meds, and noll and kiser who want to see the
numbers ...... we will see at the next meeting....

there is a difference between contracting and
consolidation....... if this goes through then i say the
village drops their fire and ems contract with the city
and combines with Delafield... who has paramedics
we have to hire in because we are too cheap ........

if the city doesn't want to play in the sandbox then
pound sand!!!!!!! Good luck cops.... you are better
off.... this city however isn't!!!!!!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 06 2009 @ 06:43 AM CST

Well said! Mr. Hasslinger is a huge disappointment; practically sleeping at the High School presentation and ready to run off and pout when challenged. Those who have him as a representive should be very angry with his conduct and lack of leadership. And the Mayor, do we even need to go there? Do you think he has even sat down and talked with all of the officers and/or their families regarding the final decision. Probably not! He's useless, time to move on.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 06 2009 @ 10:07 AM CST

News flash -- the mayor works for his constituents, not the police
department. The police department, for that matter, works for the
constituents too... or used to anyway. If our representatives were wrong
on this, the next election cycle will take care of it. I got a feeling they
were right.

Kudos to the council and the mayor for doing what's right.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 06 2009 @ 10:30 AM CST

I'm still trying to figure out what exactly the "fairies of sugarplums" are that were referenced in the above rant regarding Novak and Hasslinger.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 06 2009 @ 10:24 AM CST

Hey, has anyone tried the new weekend brunch at Billy Ho's? I heard it was pretty good but I wanted to get some other opinions.

Thanks,
Duke LaCrosse

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 07 2009 @ 11:54 PM CST

Well if old Hasslinger wasn't on his meds tonights...
best make sure you are Mikey if you don't want to be
recalled in April... at least take the microphone away
when your going to spout off like a the public can't
hear you!!!

It would appear after tonights meeting that half the
council has turned over all control to the city
administrator... who.. must we mention...was
incapable of predicting a shortfall when all of her
counterparts did in so many communities around
us...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 11 2009 @ 10:02 AM CST

Have you just noticed that the administrator runs the city?? This is not news.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, December 13 2009 @ 08:36 PM CST

Now that all this police stuff is behind us, Dale, lets start a discussion on the fast track to merger thing.

Andy Mueller, Pewaukee Village

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 14 2009 @ 07:17 AM CST

Good idea Andy,

But, with merger discussions having gone on for about ten years or more, dating back to negotiations with Waukesha to solidify borders, and the current merger committee at least a year or more old, and a possible referendum four months away in April, how exactly is that a fast track?

Just asking....

Rick Carr

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 16 2009 @ 11:44 AM CST

After following this merger stuff over time and whatz recently been in the paper, I think that one could just insert words such as TARP, Cash for Clunkers, Swine Flu, Health Care...you get the idea.

This has all the earmarks of poor planning when one can't even come up with a realistic budget two days in a row. We just can't plow ahead and work out the details later and expect lower taxes. I don't believe the supposed savings will be all that great...and probably over promised. If these savings don't occur, WHO is going to be responsible? Just having excuses, throwing up one's hands and walking away from the problem is just unacceptable.

Given these troubled times and complete lack of trust of one's gov't, IMO it would be better to come up with a merger framework to work within that people can buy into, then have us voters decide if the process should continue, then if so, proceed with a final vote with the plans in place. If people vote no, then we keep on with business as usual without more wasted dollars being spent on chasing a carrot. This all or nothing vote is just a receipe for failure..just like our last school referendum.

Andy Mueller, Pewaukee Village

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 17 2009 @ 04:40 PM CST

I'll admit, I haven't looked at this blog for a while but obviously I did today. Quite frankly, after being blasted several times by someone for NOT signing my name to items he has apparently attributed to me, I have found it incredible that at the end of his tirade that he ends by NOT signing his own name. I can only think of the phrase "grow up" when I think about it. For those following this blog, I am sure they have seen my name at the end many, many comments as well as local paper editorials.

Now - a similar comment - to those taking incredibly off-base shots at Alderman Hasslinger, I think its time for him/her to also fess up with a signature. I have been to every meeting referred to and totally dispute the cruel and unnecessary jabs (slurs?) being leveled. Please – let’s try to get back to some semblance of respect for one another. If you don’t like how someone is representing you – run against him or her. You might find it is much harder to serve than you seem to currently believe.

I believe this blog offers a great opportunity to discuss important issues. Recently the caliber of comments has dropped to such a low that they are debasing an important forum. I wonder if that is at least part of the reason Dale has not opened any new streams since September.

Kathleen Novack
former Alderman, District I

p.s. it’s NovaCk

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 17 2009 @ 06:31 PM CST

Good points,

Now to another every important item.

Dale,

Are you gong to run for another term? I think that you should! Althouugh, I would certainly understand if this last term has "burnt you out".


What do the rest of you think?

Rick Carr

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 01 2010 @ 08:59 AM CST

It is my understanding Dale is not going to run for re-election. Thank you, Dale, for your service to your community. It is also my understanding that at the present time Ms. Novack is running for Alderperson in District 1 and is presently unopposed. Competition is good in all elections. There is competition in all other Districts and the Mayor's race. Is there anyone in District 1 that would be williing and able to serve your community at this very important time, or can Ms. Novack just take the seat without any effort?

District 1 residents, think about the opportunity to serve, but time is running out. You need 20-25 signatures by 5 p.m. Tues., Jan 5, on file with the City Clerk. Thank you to all who serve, and anyone that considers the challenge.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 01 2010 @ 09:01 AM CST

It is my understanding Dale is not going to run for re-election. Thank you, Dale, for your service to your community. It is also my understanding that at the present time Ms. Novack is running for Alderperson in District 1 and is presently unopposed. Competition is good in all elections. There is competition in all other Districts and the Mayor's race. Is there anyone in District 1 that would be williing and able to serve your community at this very important time, or can Ms. Novack just take the seat without any effort?

District 1 residents, think about the opportunity to serve, but time is running out. You need 20-25 signatures by 5 p.m. Tues., Jan 5, on file with the City Clerk. Thank you to all who serve, and anyone that considers the challenge.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 01 2010 @ 09:04 AM CST

Sorry you had to see the comment twice. Not used to how this works.

And best wishes to you, Capt. Meister.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 31 2009 @ 04:04 PM CST

So long City of Pewaukee! It has been an interesting 3 1/2 years.
Thanks for the invaluable lesson in politics. I will be sure to use what I
have learned to make positive changes wherever I may roam.

I hope the city remains a safe place to live, work and play. I just wish
I knew who Duke LaCrosse was...

Happy New Year and good luck!

Dan Meister
Acting Chief (Soon to be former acting chief)
City of Pewaukee Police (Soon to be no longer)

***********************************************************

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, December 31 2009 @ 05:00 PM CST

See Ya....Wouldn't want to be ya.....

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 01 2010 @ 11:50 AM CST

I truly hope that the citizens of the City of Pewaukee don't regret the actions of their Mayor.

Finally, a very special "Thank You" to ALL of the former law enforcement officers of the City of Pewaukee for their many years of dedicated service.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 01 2010 @ 10:30 PM CST

"DITTO"

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 05 2010 @ 12:41 AM CST

"See Ya....Wouldn't want to be ya....."

Cowardly and immature...

Ironic, considering he's moving forward in his law enforcement career and is twice the person you could ever hope to be. I hope you got a kick out of yourself, because that comment holds no weight.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 05 2010 @ 09:52 PM CST

Geez Dan, it doesn't get much better than this. Opportunity is what you make it. Where else could you get college credits in politics and public administration and get paid ( with benefits ) to boot? You also have OJT which makes you employer job ready.

Then, being hit by lightning, you fall into Jerry Salamann's old job in Columbus where you will be able to utilize said education skills right from the get go.

It doesn't get any better than this as you are the luckiest guy around and positioned for significant future job opportunities beyond Columbus.

Best of luck. ( It wouldn't surprise me that your next stop will be the State DOJ somewhere ) and Pewaukee will only be a memory.

Andy Mueller, Pewaukee Village

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 06 2010 @ 09:51 PM CST

I appreciate the comments.

Dan

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 04 2010 @ 09:39 PM CST

Days since a Pewaukee officer in BLUE drove by me
house ... 6

Days since i've seen a squad drive past my house since
the moyors bright idea..... 4.... beat that novak, carr,
klien.............

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 04 2010 @ 11:08 PM CST

Anybody know what the original 1.1 million dollars savings is actually
down to now? Anybody know how much the police department was under
budget at the end of the year.

They should start teaching a new class at Pewaukee H.S. It would be
called Pewaukee Math.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 05 2010 @ 08:27 AM CST

about 300,000 so far.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 05 2010 @ 09:40 PM CST

Now don't feel bad if you haven't seen a squad in a short period of time. On my street I'm hard pressed to see a squad in 6 months unless they are knocking heads at a particular location.

Andy Mueller, Pewaukee Village

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 05 2010 @ 08:44 AM CST

Does anyone know which members of the CPPD were NOT offered
positions in the Sheriff's dept after applying for one? Was Officer Adrian
hired? Sneider? Kraemer? (j/k about that one, but Adrian would seem to
be a very good hire)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 06 2010 @ 09:17 AM CST

I don't get the freeman, anyone know who Rodger got to run for Dale's seat, if anyone?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 06 2010 @ 09:35 AM CST

Just Kathleen Novack is listed in Dist 1 in the J-S.

"Who Rodger got to run?" How Nowakeean. Such recruiting is how we
ended up with Gumphrey in city government. Roger should worry about
his own race before he attempts to surround himself with all his pals.

On another note, I'm very disappointed to hear Dale isn't running again.
I didn't always agree with him but he truly seemed to understand that his
role was to represent his constituents, not advance a personal agenda.
Many thanks for your service, Dale.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 06 2010 @ 05:43 PM CST

Wow, I haven't been on this site in a couple months. It takes awhile to figure out where to begin reading again.

To answer someone's question about how many of us got hired, the answer is 16. Yes, I was one of them. A total of 19 applied. Cher Sneider did not get hired.

It's been a difficult process for most of us. From simply rushing to turn in an approx 27 page application along with several other documents, to a thorough background check and polygraph test. The Sheriff's Dept was stuck in a horrible spot. The process would normally take several months and they were given about 6 weeks.

I will definitely miss those who did not make the transition and I wish them the best. Some great officers/people were forced out of this profession against their will.

Personally, I am going to miss being in Pewaukee. I enjoyed working there and thought many great things were in store for us. I felt we were just getting past the dark times. But that's not how things worked out, but, for the most part, I will think back fondly on my days working for the City of Pewaukee. It's time to move on and hopefully working at the Sheriff's Department will be much better for all of us in the long run. My new co-workers have done a great job making us feel welcome. Whether there is hostility or not, I'm not sure at this point, but I haven't noticed anything negative at all and the transition is going as smoothly as possible.

Happy New Year everyone,

DEPUTY Dan Adrian
Waukesha County Sheriff's Dept

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 07 2010 @ 01:56 AM CST

number of days since a squad has been on my trail
cam..... 6

number of days since the big move..... 6

number of squads seen at city hall...... 5

sweet

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 07 2010 @ 11:52 AM CST

Being curious, why do you need a see a squad every day or more than once a day? Are you in a high crime area of the City? Where would that be? Just because a squad goes by doesn't mean that some crime can't be committed 5 seconds later. Its just false security.

We don't see ours for weeks/months and don't have any problems.


Andy Mueller, Pewaukee Village -- in the crime free zone as our guys are doing their jobs. Maybe you city folks should be joining our fine Village instead of the other way around.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, January 07 2010 @ 03:41 PM CST

why would you have a trail cam pointed at the road???

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, January 08 2010 @ 11:25 PM CST

First, he has an insecurity problem. Second, he is just trying to find ways to complaine.

I live in Springdale Estates, and I see the Deputies in the old City of Pewaukee Squads on a daily basis. So, I would have to say that they are doing a very nice job thus far...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 09 2010 @ 06:14 PM CST

They didn't hire her, but they hired someone that was a headline just 13 months ago after being charged with two felonies... good luck with that...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 10 2010 @ 08:36 PM CST

Two felonies that the Washington County DA looked at and laughed at how ridiculous they were, dismissing them almost as soon as he received them. Even mentioning something like that shows a frightening level of immaturity.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 11 2010 @ 05:07 AM CST

In the mean time, the union (led by so arroagant a drunk that he thought he could show up drunk at the scene of an accident without getting nailed) and Kreamer continue to sue us.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 11 2010 @ 08:31 AM CST

Who and what are you referring to?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 11 2010 @ 08:45 AM CST

Apparently the judge who charged him didn't think it was all that funny.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, January 11 2010 @ 09:56 AM CST

...and so the mayor and other council members thought all the lawsuits and legal
expenses would suddenly go away, along with the entire police department. I
didn't think so.

So much for punishing everyone for a few "Bad apples".

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 12 2010 @ 03:32 PM CST

To answer the early January 11th question - Executive Director of Wisconsin Professional Police Association Jim Palmer (who has spoken at several city common council meetings and included and not-so-veiled threats of legal action against the city) was charged with DUI when he drove to the scene of an accident after a friend called him for help. He drove with a BAC of .0146 to get there. Occurred at 2:30 a.m. morning after Christmas. .

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 12 2010 @ 10:42 PM CST

Think of this as a training session. How else would one be able to get first hand knowledge of what life on the streets is all about and what it takes to enforce our laws. Money can't buy first hand experience and OJT! :-)

Andy Mueller, Pewaukee Village

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 01 2010 @ 10:23 AM CST

I believe this site is J-3 which in police lingo means DEAD.......

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 17 2010 @ 12:18 AM CDT

Since this large cache of ammo was found at the City PD..I don't know how this much could have just been "found" now, but was this a pre-cursor of a hostile takeover of our beloved Village by City forces?

Andy Mueller, Pewaukee Village ( in the bunker )

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 17 2010 @ 02:28 AM CDT

On Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs - Dave Grossman

By LTC (RET) Dave Grossman, author of "On Killing."
Honor never grows old, and honor rejoices the heart
of age. It does so because honor is, finally, about
defending those noble and worthy things that
deserve defending, even if it comes at a high cost.
In our time, that may mean social disapproval, public
scorn, hardship, persecution, or as always,even death
itself. The question remains: What is worth
defending? What is worth dying for? What is worth
living for? - William J. Bennett - in a lecture to the
United States Naval Academy November 24, 1997

One Vietnam veteran, an old retired colonel, once
said this to me:

"Most of the people in our society are sheep. They
are kind, gentle, productive creatures who can only
hurt one another by accident." This is true.
Remember, the murder rate is six per 100,000 per
year, and the aggravated assault rate is four per
1,000 per year. What this means is that the vast
majority of Americans are not inclined to hurt one
another. Some estimates say that two million
Americans are victims of violent crimes every year, a
tragic, staggering number, perhaps an all-time record
rate of violent crime. But there are almost 300
million Americans, which means that the odds of
being a victim of violent crime is considerably less
than one in a hundred on any given year.
Furthermore, since many violent crimes are
committed by repeat offenders, the actual number of
violent citizens is considerably less than two million.

Thus there is a paradox, and we must grasp both
ends of the situation: We may well be in the most
violent times in history, but violence is still
remarkably rare. This is because most citizens are
kind, decent people who are not capable of hurting
each other, except by accident or under extreme
provocation. They are sheep.

I mean nothing negative by calling them sheep. To
me it is like the pretty, blue robin's egg. Inside it is
soft and gooey but someday it will grow into
something wonderful. But the egg cannot survive
without its hard blue shell. Police officers, soldiers,
and other warriors are like that shell, and someday
the civilization they protect will grow into something
wonderful.? For now, though, they need warriors to
protect them from the predators.

"Then there are the wolves," the old war veteran
said, "and the wolves feed on the sheep without
mercy." Do you believe there are wolves out there
who will feed on the flock without mercy? You better
believe it. There are evil men in this world and they
are capable of evil deeds. The moment you forget
that or pretend it is not so, you become a sheep.
There is no safety in denial.

"Then there are sheepdogs," he went on, "and I'm a
sheepdog. I live to protect the flock and confront the
wolf."

If you have no capacity for violence then you are a
healthy productive citizen, a sheep. If you have a
capacity for violence and no empathy for your fellow
citizens, then you have defined an aggressive
sociopath, a wolf. But what if you have a capacity for
violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens?
What do you have then? A sheepdog, a warrior,
someone who is walking the hero's path. Someone
who can walk into the heart of darkness, into the
universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed

Let me expand on this old soldier's excellent model
of the sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs. We know that
the sheep live in denial, that is what makes them
sheep. They do not want to believe that there is evil
in the world. They can accept the fact that fires can
happen, which is why they want fire extinguishers, fire
sprinklers, fire alarms and fire exits throughout their
kids' schools.

But many of them are outraged at the idea of putting
an armed police officer in their kid's school. Our
children are thousands of times more likely to be
killed or seriously injured by school violence than fire,
but the sheep's only response to the possibility of
violence is denial. The idea of someone coming to
kill or harm their child is just too hard, and so they
chose the path of denial.

The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He
looks a lot like the wolf. He has fangs and the
capacity for violence. The difference, though, is that
the sheepdog must not, can not and will not ever
harm the sheep. Any sheep dog who intentionally
harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and
removed. The world cannot work any other way, at
least not in a representative democracy or a republic
such as ours.

Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a
constant reminder that there are wolves in the land.
They would prefer that he didn't tell them where to
go, or give them traffic tickets, or stand at the ready
in our airports in camouflage fatigues holding an M-
16. The sheep would much rather have the sheepdog
cash in his fangs, spray paint himself white, and go,
"Baa."

Until the wolf shows up. Then the entire flock tries
desperately to hide behind one lonely sheepdog.

The students, the victims, at Columbine High School
were big, tough high school students, and under
ordinary circumstances they would not have had the
time of day for a police officer. They were not bad
kids; they just had nothing to say to a cop. When the
school was under attack, however, and SWAT teams
were clearing the rooms and hallways, the officers
had to physically peel those clinging, sobbing kids off
of them. This is how the little lambs feel about their
sheepdog when the wolf is at the door.

Look at what happened after September 11, 2001
when the wolf pounded hard on the door. Remember
how America, more than ever before, felt differently
about their law enforcement officers and military
personnel? Remember how many times you heard
the word hero?

Understand that there is nothing morally superior
about being a sheepdog; it is just what you choose
to be. Also understand that a sheepdog is a funny
critter: He is always sniffing around out on the
perimeter, checking the breeze, barking at things
that go bump in the night, and yearning for a
righteous battle. That is, the young sheepdogs yearn
for a righteous battle. The old sheepdogs are a little
older and wiser, but they move to the sound of the
guns when needed right along with the young ones.

Here is how the sheep and the sheepdog think
differently. The sheep pretend the wolf will never
come, but the sheepdog lives for that day. After the
attacks on September 11, 2001, most of the sheep,
that is, most citizens in America said, "Thank God I
wasn't on one of those planes." The sheepdogs, the
warriors, said, "Dear God, I wish I could have been
on one of those planes. Maybe I could have made a
difference." When you are truly transformed into a
warrior and have truly invested yourself into
warriorhood, you want to be there. You want to be
able to make a difference.

There is nothing morally superior about the
sheepdog, the warrior, but he does have one real
advantage. Only one. And that is that he is able to
survive and thrive in an environment that destroys 98
percent of the population. There was research
conducted a few years ago with individuals convicted
of violent crimes. These cons were in prison for
serious, predatory crimes of violence: assaults,
murders and killing law enforcement officers. The
vast majority said that they specifically targeted
victims by body language: slumped walk, passive
behavior and lack of awareness. They chose their
victims like big cats do in Africa, when they select one
out of the herd that is least able to protect itself.

Some people may be destined to be sheep and
others might be genetically primed to be wolves or
sheepdogs. But I believe that most people can
choose which one they want to be, and I'm proud to
say that more and more Americans are choosing to
become sheepdogs.

Seven months after the attack on September 11,
2001, Todd Beamer was honored in his hometown of
Cranbury, New Jersey. Todd, as you recall, was the
man on Flight 93 over Pennsylvania who called on his
cell phone to alert an operator from United Airlines
about the hijacking. When he learned of the other
three passenger planes that had been used as
weapons, Todd dropped his phone and uttered the
words, "Let's roll," which authorities believe was a
signal to the other passengers to confront the
terrorist hijackers. In one hour, a transformation
occurred among the passengers - athletes, business
people and parents. -- from sheep to sheepdogs and
together they fought the wolves, ultimately saving an
unknown number of lives on the ground.

There is no safety for honest men except by
believing all possible evil of evil men. - Edmund
Burke

Here is the point I like to emphasize, especially to
the thousands of police officers and soldiers I speak
to each year. In nature the sheep, real sheep, are
born as sheep. Sheepdogs are born that way, and so
are wolves. They didn't have a choice. But you are
not a critter. As a human being, you can be whatever
you want to be. It is a conscious, moral decision.

If you want to be a sheep, then you can be a sheep
and that is okay, but you must understand the price
you pay. When the wolf comes, you and your loved
ones are going to die if there is not a sheepdog
there to protect you. If you want to be a wolf, you can
be one, but the sheepdogs are going to hunt you
down and you will never have rest, safety, trust or
love. But if you want to be a sheepdog and walk the
warrior's path, then you must make a conscious and
moral decision every day to dedicate, equip and
prepare yourself to thrive in that toxic, corrosive
moment when the wolf comes knocking at the door.

For example, many officers carry their weapons in
church.? They are well concealed in ankle holsters,
shoulder holsters or inside-the-belt holsters tucked
into the small of their backs.? Anytime you go to
some form of religious service, there is a very good
chance that a police officer in your congregation is
carrying. You will never know if there is such an
individual in your place of worship, until the wolf
appears to massacre you and your loved ones.

I was training a group of police officers in Texas, and
during the break, one officer asked his friend if he
carried his weapon in church. The other cop replied,
"I will never be caught without my gun in church." I
asked why he felt so strongly about this, and he told
me about a cop he knew who was at a church
massacre in Ft. Worth, Texas in 1999. In that
incident, a mentally deranged individual came into
the church and opened fire, gunning down fourteen
people. He said that officer believed he could have
saved every life that day if he had been carrying his
gun. His own son was shot, and all he could do was
throw himself on the boy's body and wait to die. That
cop looked me in the eye and said, "Do you have
any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself
after that?"

Some individuals would be horrified if they knew this
police officer was carrying a weapon in church. They
might call him paranoid and would probably scorn
him. Yet these same individuals would be enraged
and would call for "heads to roll" if they found out
that the airbags in their cars were defective, or that
the fire extinguisher and fire sprinklers in their kids'
school did not work. They can accept the fact that
fires and traffic accidents can happen and that there
must be safeguards against them.

Their only response to the wolf, though, is denial,
and all too often their response to the sheepdog is
scorn and disdain. But the sheepdog quietly asks
himself, "Do you have and idea how hard it would be
to live with yourself if your loved ones attacked and
killed, and you had to stand there helplessly because
you were unprepared for that day?"

It is denial that turns people into sheep. Sheep are
psychologically destroyed by combat because their
only defense is denial, which is counterproductive and
destructive, resulting in fear, helplessness and horror
when the wolf shows up.

Denial kills you twice. It kills you once, at your
moment of truth when you are not physically
prepared: you didn't bring your gun, you didn't train.
Your only defense was wishful thinking. Hope is not a
strategy. Denial kills you a second time because
even if you do physically survive, you are
psychologically shattered by your fear helplessness
and horror at your moment of truth.

Gavin de Becker puts it like this in Fear Less, his
superb post-9/11 book, which should be required
reading for anyone trying to come to terms with our
current world situation: "...denial can be seductive,
but it has an insidious side effect. For all the peace
of mind deniers think they get by saying it isn't so,
the fall they take when faced with new violence is all
the more unsettling."

Denial is a save-now-pay-later scheme, a contract
written entirely in small print, for in the long run, the
denying person knows the truth on some level.

And so the warrior must strive to confront denial in all
aspects of his life, and prepare himself for the day
when evil comes. If you are warrior who is legally
authorized to carry a weapon and you step outside
without that weapon, then you become a sheep,
pretending that the bad man will not come today. No
one can be "on" 24/7, for a lifetime. Everyone needs
down time. But if you are authorized to carry a
weapon, and you walk outside without it, just take a
deep breath, and say this to yourself...

"Baa."

This business of being a sheep or a sheep dog is not
a yes-no dichotomy. It is not an all-or-nothing,
either-or choice. It is a matter of degrees, a
continuum. On one end is an abject, head-in-the-
sand-sheep and on the other end is the ultimate
warrior. Few people exist completely on one end or
the other. Most of us live somewhere in between.
Since 9-11 almost everyone in America took a step
up that continuum, away from denial. The sheep
took a few steps toward accepting and appreciating
their warriors, and the warriors started taking their job
more seriously. The degree to which you move up
that continuum, away from sheephood and denial, is
the degree to which you and your loved ones will
survive, physically and psychologically at your
moment of truth.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 17 2010 @ 02:43 AM CDT

I can't wait to see Klein's front man Mr "I was a cop for 3
weeks but couldn't handle it it" Rick Carr explain why his
opinion on law enforcement services in the city should
matter.....or better yet..why he knows so much about
stuff he shouldn't know anything about, unless the
mayor is leaking things that HE SHOULDN'T.... as an
executive of the city.... hummmmmmm
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ dumas...............

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 18 2010 @ 11:22 AM CDT

2:43 am, I don't think that I like much of anybody thinking this much about me at that time of day, can't be a good thing. Let's see, what type of job might a person posting vile on the subject of law enforcement at 2:43 am. have? Maybe someone with 58,000 rounds?

You may not need to wait long for opinions from me.

The 3 weeks was actually 9 years. part time for 9 years as I have always acknowledged, just saying. Never said I was an expert, but spent some time as a sheepdog.

I would love to know what you think I know that you think that I shouldn't know, and how you know it.

Rick Carr

Ex sheepdog, but not quite a sheep either, as I'd like to think

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 19 2010 @ 09:33 AM CDT

Mr. Carr (neither sheep nor sheepdog, but wolf in sheep’s clothes).


I don’t think that I like anyone writing lies about me at anytime of the day/night – that can’t be a good thing either. Can you spell SLANDER Mr. Carr?



You may not need to wait long for opinions (or facts) from me or my attorney.



I already know what you think you know of me. The question is how did you get such false information? Or, was it just your intent to make such false, slanderous statements????


When will you and others who had it in for the Pewaukee PD let it rest? You won. We are all gone. We have moved on. Yet, for some unknown reason, you feel it is appropriate to print untrue, slanderous statements about some of us. As a former sheepdog, I would have thought you still might have some integrity left in you???

How about converting some of that negative energy you have inside of you on positive ways to help the City of Pewaukee grow? Maybe you could serve on a committee as a liaison to the sheriff’s department? After all, as you claim, you do have this law enforcement experience. Maybe the mayor would appoint you to the police and fire commission???

Either way Mr. Carr, your lowly, recent attempt to sabotage one’s life has failed. It failed because the truth was realized. I would suggest you cease and desist in this particular matter before this issue continues in another forum such as a court of law.

An apology would be nice too, but I’m not holding my breath.



Dan Meister – Current sheepdog.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 19 2010 @ 07:59 PM CDT

Again.....an ex-pewaukee law enforcement captain threatining to sue....for what??? Slander.... stop being so vindictive and move on. You said you did, but I dont think you really did.... Slander....how pathetic......

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 20 2010 @ 12:29 AM CDT

Whew! My mind is swirling after trying to figure out what you all are talking about. Please, former Captain Meister – tells us it wasn’t actually you who wrote the recent message but someone pretending to be you. You went on to be a Chief of Police but the content of your message seems an almost unbalanced reaction. Not the type of communications I would want to see in my chief of police. Also, I can’t recall ever seeing anything written by R Carr that would warrant a charge of slander. But whatever it is/was I hope you can prove that (1) “it” was said and then (2) that “it” is NOT true. Truth is always a winning defense.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 20 2010 @ 11:54 AM CDT

The above entry that is supposedly written by Meister is not. Just look at some of his previous entries and you can plainly see his sentence structure is very intelligent sounding and he doesn't overkill the question marks.
Just someone pretending to be him and make him sound stupid. Backfired.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 20 2010 @ 01:40 PM CDT

Actually, maybe not clear but writer immediately above (me) also felt it wasn't Meister. Do believe whoever wrote it continues to think that legal threats will somehow change the attitude of the reasonable conscientious voter. Won't work. Sheriff's department doing great job. Savings to citizens are super. All recent past Pewaukee police officers to finish sheriff's training program opted to NOT come back. Please - let's try to restore some semblance of class back into the community.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 20 2010 @ 05:33 PM CDT

WOW......

I also do not believe that Dan Meister wrote that post. It is not his style and I am sure he is busy with his new position, in which I wish him well. I think that he should know that someone is using his name, and I will let him know, and he knows how to contact me if it was him and he wants to pursue it. I don't know what false information I have, and if I have, an apology from me isn't inconceivable.

I have no desire to argue any of these issues further, with Meister or anyone else. As the poster said, it is over, with the only exception being how it relates to the Mayoral race. And, it is Rodger Hathaway that is making it an issue in the Race. I, for anyone that doesn't already know, am working with Scott Klein toward his re-election.

I am puzzled by the post's reference to something I have done recently. My last post on the PD issue was 10-30-2009, in response to Officer Adrian. The request that I cease and desist is puzzling in that I haven't written anything since October, and because they obviously don't know me very well.

By the way, I'll check my facts, and continue to say anything I want to going forward, but this issue is dead, as far as I'm concerned.


The important part of the 58,000 rounds story, in my opinion, is Hathaway's reaction to it. Saying that buying 500,000 rounds at a time is not unusual, and comparing it to buying extra worms when going fishing. You have to ask your self if that is the kind of thinking that you want to see in a Mayor?

Rick Carr

This opinion is solely my own, although I am working with Scott Klein For Mayor

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 21 2010 @ 04:42 PM CDT

Where was Carr a Cop for three weeks?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 21 2010 @ 07:22 PM CDT

Sesame Street?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 22 2010 @ 12:45 AM CDT

So much for my hope of some semblance of class...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 23 2010 @ 10:31 AM CDT

I have corresponded with Chief Meister and I am satisfied that he had reason to believe that I had acted to harm his reputation. I have not, as I believe he now understands. If he was the author, with what I know now, he would have been well justified. I sincerely hope that he and I are now"good", although we have disagreed. And, I sincerely wish him well in his new position.

Rick Carr

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 24 2010 @ 12:58 AM CDT

What is so funny is you clowns think anyone with any
true law enforcement background has accused the
sheriff of not being able to handle basic police
services, in any community.... they can.....and very
well

The question is.... are they best suited..... this
mayor refused to listen to the feelings of the
public.... he claims he is a mayor (in the last debate)
who has been successful by "moving slow".... the
truth is.... he is unresponsive and an absentee
mayor.....

The truth be known the sheriff will be responsive....
but the citizens of Pewaukee deserve more.... they
deserve attentiveness.... the sheriff will not provide
that without paying for it....

The Mayor can say they provide this and that... the
truth is the city PD and all other PD's in the county
utilize those extra services already....it is not like you
are "all-of-a-sudden" getting some new service
because the city contracted with the sheriff.....Klein...
his usual smoke a mirrors....

simply.... it comes down to Scott Klien... and his
koolaide drinking bunch....talking themselves into
doing an end around the law enforcement officer's
bill of rights.....and to that end.... what will be will
be..

You may not like Hathaway....but he is better than
Mr. "Slow approach to Govt" Klein....... as the village
tries to update...how does that help the village

The city is not a town anymore........time to move
on....Scott...go back to the county board and worry
about Ottowa .....

Ohhhh wait... that is where the sheriff lives...that's
right.... lets fire off a new topic since old "my daddy
left me a house on Pewaukee lake but I called
Nowak a spoiled brat" Klein shot off his mouth in the
debate..... What department in Waukesha County
has had more sworn people under investigation?
.....hummmmmm??? What current department head
is getting divorced because rumor has it he got
caught having a tiger woods with a subordinate????

Way to turn it all over to your little crew Scottie....
hope you manage projects at MSI better than you
run a city........ especially since you couldn't even get
the fancy ballpark to land here..... way to go........
useless....

Merge???? Why would I want to merge with such town
trash...... we are right back to 1979...... I'll keep my
PD and my small village and you town clowns keep
voting in your old names....... there is a reason we
didn't protect your borders back then.....


I say yank your city status!!!!!!!!!!!
goofs

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 24 2010 @ 12:43 PM CDT

AMEN

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 24 2010 @ 05:00 PM CDT

Did last writer mean to sign his name "goof." I would believe it. Otherwise, anyone so knowledgeable would surely have signed with a real name.

Hathaway deeply concerns me. He seems to have totally traded off being part of what he must view as an "in crowd" with any allegiance to taxpayers at large. Virtually everyone I have talked to like the idea of saving in excess of $800,000 per year for equal or superior service. Most do not even know about the change when I first talk to them. No one expressed a concern about perceiving any reduction in service.

Let's step back - The final offer made by the CPPD indicated it would result in a loss of “only” $300,000 per year. To do this would require a dip-into-reserve funds of $300,000 (so real yearly loss is $600,000) and 19 days furloughs per officer in 2010 – clearly a significant drop in service. No one even asked about 2011. Would we again have to furlough (lesser service)? Would the officers again agree to a large cut in pay? Would the reserve fund again be tapped? For how many years? A reserve fund can only last so long. The issue was not “fast-tracked.” The idea has been under discussion since late 2007.

While sitting on the Council I watched as Hathaway came in with many big proposals. Increase communications with citizens with a city-wide email data base. He obviously did not look into any complexities of such a concept. Never materialized. He vocally challenged the city’s escort service ordinance before he obviously had even read it. It was designed to stop such businesses – not grant them access to our city as he had originally assumed. He proposed legislating what holiday decorations folks could put out (how does anyone judge what is in good taste and who wants government to do that in the first place). He wanted the city involved in situations when one home owner’s trees extend into a neighbor’s yard. (He felt it would help minimize tensions between neighbors.) He brought in a doctor to show the dangers of allowing resident’s to burn their leaves. Proposal after proposal initiated by him was shot down as short-sighted. He consistently did not take the time to fully consider what impact these decisions might have from a big-picture perspective.

And Mr. Hathaway, I hope you recall your important statement captured in the August 4, 2008 Common Council Meeting Minutes: “Mr. Hathaway felt all department heads serve at the pleasure of the Common Council, not the mayor.” (Italics added) IF elected, I hope people hold you to your statement.

There is a reason why slow and deliberate is usually the best tactic. I hope all voters will carefully consider which approach they prefer. And how much intrusion from city government they want in their lives. Shooting from the hip frequently causes damage to one’s toes.

Kathy Novack
Candidate, District I.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 25 2010 @ 07:53 AM CDT

"Most people don't know about the change" and "It was not fast tracked" seems kind of contradictory to me.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 25 2010 @ 10:25 AM CDT

I thought this site was dead?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 25 2010 @ 10:55 AM CDT

Not contradictory at all. The fact is most people do not follow local government very closely. Those who do - through attendance at council meetings and use of the city's website - know the CPPD issue has been under discussion for years. For newer concerned citizens I recommend a look back into past minutes which are also on the website dating back to 2005. In particular, the September 14, 2007 minutes will show the first recorded mention of the potential need to look outside the current structure.

And PLEASE - before you react to my statement above let me expand -- it's not that most citizens don't care about the services they receive or the leadership of the city. It's that they are content and pleased with the way things are run in Pewaukee. They don't experience problems and life - post Nowak - is good. Walk door-to-door across the city and ask lots of folks - not just those you know are already following the issues. I know what I have experienced in my door-to-door visits in District I as well as numerous discussions I'ver had when I meet someone new and learn they live in the city.

Kathy Novack

p.s. may I quip back - if you thought it was dead, why are you still checking it out?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 26 2010 @ 07:41 AM CDT

Just wanted to see if there was any more craziness out there after reading JS online.

But hey, Good point!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 26 2010 @ 12:27 PM CDT

What was in JS online?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 27 2010 @ 05:33 PM CDT

Who is running against Kathleen Nowak?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: dale on Saturday, March 27 2010 @ 09:10 PM CDT

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 29 2010 @ 07:16 AM CDT

We know a little more than that.

We know that she had an apartment in the Village recently.

We know that she lists her address as the same as her Campaign Manager, Russ Legg, nothing wrong with that, but..

We know that she first showed up at the Mayoral Debate in the company of Rodger's bloc.

We know that she attended and announced her candidacy, campaigned and handed out flyers at the Meet and Greet, saying that she turned in her papers that day.

We know that she turned in her papers the following day, a violation of campaign laws and meaning that she lied the night before.

She had campaign flyers that she distributed at the Meet and Greet, meaning that she spent money before filing, another violation.

We know that when she showed her driver's license showing proof of residency when turning in her papers, that her driver's license was dated that very same day, so did she move to the City to run? (She only needs to be a resident for 10 days before the election)

We know that she is aligned with Rodger and his bloc, wanting to bring back the Police Department.

We know that she lists NO governmental experience at all.

We know that she wanted the City Clerk to provide stickers for her to give to the voters for the voters to put in the write in portion of the ballot, and that Roger advocated for her to the City Clerk, which would have been another violation. Rules be damned.

We know that she has never shown any interest in City government, having never been seen at a CC meeting to date.

And we know that she works with Debbie Craemer, although claims to have never talked about running with either of the Craemers.

And we knw that she was putting flyers on mailbax flags, another violation, minor, but...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 29 2010 @ 12:18 PM CDT

WOW! You sure know a lot!!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 29 2010 @ 05:09 PM CDT

A lot of B.S.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, April 03 2010 @ 11:08 AM CDT

The comments about the revenue under the sheriff's dept. come straight from the reports given once a month at Common Council meetings. They are not lies, nor are they exagerated. Roger refuses to put out the facts because they are contrary to his position.

Those meetings are open to every living person. You do not have to live in the community, state, or even the country, to attend them. Why not make the effort to go to them, instead of believing the
mantra of Hathaway and his harem?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 29 2010 @ 12:21 PM CDT

Is the City Clerk releasing all this information to you?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 29 2010 @ 07:13 PM CDT

Please - to whoever labeled the info provided as "BS" tell us what the "bs" part of it is. The writer sure seemed to set it all out from a factual basis. If any of it is wrong - someone let Carrie Wergan know so she can set the record straight. And when no facts are submitted to rebut the statements above, we'll all know there are credibility and integrity issues here.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 30 2010 @ 05:39 PM CDT

Usually whenever someone start's every paragraph with "We know" but does not followup with "WHO KNOWS" is making up a story. That's all I'm saying. Who is "WE"?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 08:00 AM CDT

I saw Carrie campaigning at the meet and greet along with everyone else who was there, and I, myself, heard her say that she "just filed my papers today" the day before she got her driver's license changed and filed her papers the next day.

I noticed that her flyers also say that she is passionate as a qualification.

Rick Carr

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 08:41 AM CDT

So

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 31 2010 @ 09:58 PM CDT

Here’s my take. Look at Wergan’s mailer. It was quite expensive for someone who just decided the other night while talking to her live-in boyfriend to run (her quote from newspaper) – this is unless the police union and PAC are supplying her money. Identify one thing that is not vague. Has she offered even one idea, a statement of position, any experience to make her a qualified candidate? Her mailer is mostly a huge American flag and two photos of her. Fundraising is admirable but not an equivalent to knowing how to fulfill the duties of an alderman. Here’s a nightmare for citizens – three totally inexperienced aldermen (Brown, Wentz & Wergan) + Enters who proved last year she had no clue on how to approach a massive budget and headed by “we live in a wealthy community” Hathaway. Even the wealthy won’t be able to afford his agenda.

And by the way – just WHY are FORMER officer Kramer’s city police business cards showing up attached to Colleen Brown’s campaign material? TOTALLY INAPPROPRIATE & UNETHICAL MISREPRESENTATION – Kramer – you’re not a police officer anymore! Brown – I thought you had more integrity.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 01 2010 @ 09:04 AM CDT

Sounds to me like you are worried.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 01 2010 @ 02:16 PM CDT

In a city that has elected the boy molester, Nowak and Mukros, sure,
elections worry me.

But now that the Hathaway gang has resorted to felony blackmail (see
jsonline today), eh, not so much.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 01 2010 @ 03:03 PM CDT

I agree. When big money from OUTSIDE the community starts financing slick-looking campaign material we should all worry. Many who don't keep up on community activity but still vote can be swayed if they don't know the source. Local campaigns should NOT require war chests and when they start to - we can count on losing strong LOCAL committed candidates who just can't afford to compete with their own funds and won't sell their souls to use someone else's.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 01 2010 @ 04:22 PM CDT

welcome to politics. Your no longer a small town

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 01 2010 @ 07:09 PM CDT

Kool-aide drinking brainwashing at the 5o with Klein Hasslinger and Novak this weekend anyone?

I heard they were going to ask management to contract out pizza from the Waterfront Pub because they think it is cheaper and more efficient.

The Waterfront and Doc's will be submitting propsals Friday so Klien can lobby a few of the good old boys quick to get this done.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 01 2010 @ 07:39 PM CDT

How offensive is the “kool-aid” writer’s rambling nonsense. And for more NONSENSE – see Hathaway’s most recent “Guest Editor” article. He states in criticizing the decision to not use our policing contract to patrol Highway 16 and I-94 – “these are very lucrative and generate roughly $600,000 in traffic citations.” He was at the last Common Council Meeting when last years TOTAL citations and fees in 2009 were listed as around $386,000 - $214,000 LESS than his stated “fact.” And of the total, only a small portion was from those two roadways. In fact, AS ALSO STATED AT THE MEETING, citations to date significantly exceed last year at this time AND they are from patrolling our streets and impacting public safety – not by setting up speed traps. Hathaway – quit lying which is exactly what it is when you give out information you know not to be true.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 02 2010 @ 01:41 AM CDT

are you a deputy??????? or family of one?????

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 02 2010 @ 02:08 PM CDT

Neither. Are you a former CPPD officer or family of one?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 01 2010 @ 09:11 PM CDT

You know, Colleen's not a bad person. But she's gotta be wondering wtf kinda crooks she's hooked her wagon to by now.

[ Reply to This | # ]