Petitions to recall Gov. Scott Walker have , but the practice of gathering those signatures left some unresolved issues within the village.
A Shorewood resident said she had a disagreement with Whitefish Bay village employees and a police officer on Dec. 30 while trying to collect signatures by the entrance to Village Hall. Linea Sundstrom contended that she was on public property. Those employees, and one detective, claimed otherwise.
When the detective told her that she could go to jail if the petition was signed while on village property, she moved to the sidewalk, which she said caused the petitions to be damaged by the rain.
It turns out that Sundstrom was within her rights, and on Monday she asked village trustees to initiate training for village employees to instruct them that Village Hall is public property and that employees should not discriminate against people of differing political opinions. Roughly 20 to 30 residents supported her at the meeting, and some spoke on her behalf.
According to a March 2011 memorandum from Kevin Kennedy, director and general counsel for the state's Government Accountability Board, there is no statute governing the use of government buildings for political activity, and it is up to local communities to decide what to allow.
The village initially in Village Hall. Then in early December, Village Attorney Chris Jaekels drafted a memorandum that changed the village's approach. The memo stated that “village parks, streets, and grounds must be open to all such solicitation that does not threaten health, safety, or public order, or otherwise damage private or public property.”
Sundstrom spoke during the public comment section of the meeting, so trustees could only listen and not respond. She and her supporters left soon thereafter.
Village Manager Patrick DeGrave said after the meeting that Jaekels' memo was originally given to the village clerk, but not to everyone at Village Hall. He said the memo has since been distributed to all village employees, making everyone more cognizant that Village Hall is indeed public property.
DeGrave said Sundstrom had every right to circulate petitions at Village Hall, and he said the detective, who is now retired, acted based on what he thought was the law. He said he will talk to Police Chief Robert Jacobs about reaching out to the woman talking about the incident.
The FitzWalkerstan luck is running thin right now. Why do you call it wasted time to set a wrong right? Wouldn't you do the same if you had been wronged??
You are one sad case for a good citizen. You do not see that the recall petition gathering was democracy in action nor do you comprehend the right for each person to be heard. ............. Bob McBride 9:09 pm on Friday, March 9, 2012 No, actually, I wouldn't. I wouldn't waste valuable time in a village that's got major problems with its sewer system, particularly when flooding season is fast approaching - particularly during a meeting at which those issues are being addressed - just so I could have my say about how offended I was that I had to go stand outside in the rain. It's the height of selfishness. But then again, so is this whole farcical recall.
There is a time and a place for everything. Grandstanding at a village meeting, taking time away from the legitimate concerns of the citizens of that village so you can "make a statement" is neither the proper time or place to address something as piddly as this. I don't expect you to understand. You've repeatedly demonstrated that you have no concern for anyone's issues other than your own and no sense of perspective.
Both issues are important. And remember that this incident did take place in your village hall. Both issues can be addressed without you calling the other issue 'piddly' and the person 'selfish" Have a good day,
If you ever wonder why you get the reaction you do to your crusade, look no further than this. Again, you don't live here, you haven't put up with what we have over the past few years attempting to get the flooding situation addressed. Your continued insistence that this issue is equally as important as that and that it warranted eating up some of the limited amount of time residents have to address the board on real, everyday issues, just demonstrates, once again, that your perspective is out of whack.
You really are a poor widdle crybaby. And your judgement is clouded by your ideology. Enough said. I am out of here. Wallow in your self pity.
Don't get me started on Julie Siegel. This definitely shouldn't have gotten to the point were it was addressed at Village Board meeting. Seems to me it could have easily been addressed on a department level, as it most likely would have been elsewhere. I've had to get up and walk out of a couple of those meetings myself due to some of the ridiculous stuff that ends up chewing up valuable time. Glad I wasn't there for this one. My head would have exploded.