Councils make their own rules on public comments
MORE INFORMATION
To read the open meetings compliance guide published by the Wisconsin Attorney General’s Office, go online to www.doj.state.wi.us.
People attending a recent Darien Village Board meeting grumbled when told they couldn’t speak at the meeting if they hadn’t signed up 24 hours earlier.
In Janesville, the city council doesn’t make citizens sign up to speak and council members set aside time each month to listen to constituents.
Some boards allow residents to talk only about things not on the agenda.
Others let almost anything go.
Who’s right?
They all are, in the legal sense of the word.
The “public comment” portion of a board meeting is “simply not something that’s dictated by statute,” said Bob Dreps, an attorney with the Godfrey & Kahn law office in Madison. Dreps is a public member of the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council and an advocate for open government.
He’s the attorney reporters call when they have a legal question such as, “Does Wisconsin have laws that dictate how public comments should be handled at regular board meetings?”
The short answer is, “No,” Dreps said. Governmental bodies are not required by law to allow the public to speak during meetings.
But statutes don’t prohibit public comment, either.
For the sake of healthy democracy, governmental bodies should make sure they are allowing people to share their thoughts, Dreps said.
“As elected officials, in the spirit of democracy, allowing time for that (public participation) in a public meeting is not only appropriate but to be encouraged.”
Some issues, such as budget approval or ordinance changes, require public hearings, according to statutes. But for regular, open meetings, municipalities are left to their own devices to make the meeting rules.
Rules can be good, Dreps said. They can keep meetings moving so everyone can get home before midnight. They can prevent municipal employees from getting dragged through the mud when they’re not there to defend themselves.
But public officials shouldn’t hide behind rules for convenience’s sake, he said.
“What can you say?” Dreps said. “Democracy is messy.”
---
Here is a sample of public comment rules from local governmental bodies:
-- The Janesville City Council allows two opportunities for public comment on every agenda. One is for items on the agenda that don’t require a public hearing. The other is for items that aren’t on the agenda but could be affected by the council in the future.
The council also hosts informal listening sessions an hour before the first Monday meeting of the month.
Residents sign up to speak. Council members might respond or ask questions of the resident, said city Clerk Jean Wulf.
“It’s the prerogative of the city council,” Wulf said. “If they have questions, they’ll ask. If they just want to listen, they’ll listen.”
-- The Janesville School Board allows public comments at every regular meeting. The council will not hear “personal complaints” about school personnel or anyone connected with the schools in open session.
Speakers must identify themselves by name and address. Comments should be about matters pertaining to school district business and are limited to three minutes.
-- The Clinton School District requires citizens to contact the board president or the district administrator in advance of the meeting so the citizen’s issue can be put on the agenda.
The public is allowed to raise issues and questions if a general subject matter designation is listed on the agenda, according to the district policy.
District Administrator Pam Kiefert said the board’s practice is pretty relaxed.
“It’s very open, very transparent,” Kiefert said. “There’s not a lot of adhering to times. At least that’s the practice.”
The board will limit itself to answering basic questions that don’t require board discussion or deliberation. If necessary, the board will put the issue on a future agenda or refer it to a committee or district administration.
-- The city of Milton does not have a formal policy, Administrator Todd Schmidt said. The council allows comments at the beginning of meetings for items not on the agenda. The council also lets people speak up during meetings about items on the agenda.
“The mayor is in charge of running the meeting and can issue time limits depending on the amount of people who want to be heard and the amount of business to be handled on the agenda,” Schmidt said.
-- The Edgerton City Council includes a time at the beginning of its meetings for public appearances for non-agenda items. Residents are allowed to comment on agenda items during the meeting. They do not have to sign up in advance to speak.
-- The Evansville City Council allows anyone to speak at the start of every council meeting, council President Mason Braunschweig said. The agenda lists a citizen appearances item where anyone can speak about anything.
The council is “very, very informal,” and people can speak during the meeting as it relates to an agenda item, he said. The policy states speakers have a three-minute limit, but speakers aren’t timed or cut off unless it’s a really full, long meeting.
“We’re not experts by any means,” Braunschweig said. “It’s good to get input from people who take time out of their day (to come to the meeting).”
People wishing to speak are asked to give their name and address for the record, but they don’t have to be a resident.
-- The Village of Darien has been working to institute a rule that speakers must contact Administrator Marc Dennison before noon on the Friday before the board’s regular Monday night meetings. If the subject matter is relevant to village business, Dennison will put the matter on the agenda and put the resident on a list to speak.
Comments are limited to three minutes, and foul language is prohibited.
Screening the subject matter helps prevent personal attacks and keeps meetings from becoming “rancorous,” Dennison said.
The goal is to keep meetings civil so business gets conducted and issues get resolved, Dennison said.
Before the rules were introduced, “It was like the Wild West out there,” Dennison said.
-- The Lake Geneva City Council lets the public speak at a specified time at the beginning of city council and committee of the whole meetings, said Lake Geneva City Clerk Diana Dykstra.
At city council meetings, residents may speak only about items on the agenda for that meeting—with the exception of public hearing items—and city council members and other city officials present cannot respond, she said.
At committee of the whole meetings, on the other hand, residents may speak about anything; their comments do not have to relate to items on the agenda, nor do their comments have to be about city business, Dykstra said. City officials, again, cannot respond, she said.
Dykstra said the reason officials cannot respond to residents’ comments at meetings is because such a discussion—without proper notice—would be a violation of Wisconsin Open Meetings Law.
Bob Dreps, an attorney with the Godfrey & Kahn law office in Madison and public member of the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council, disagrees with this interpretation of the Wisconsin Open Meetings Law. He said council members are allowed to discuss issues brought up by the public, just as they are allowed to take public comment.
-- The Whitewater City Council allows the public to speak at a specified time at the beginning of meetings, City Clerk Michele Smith said.
During that time, residents are prohibited from speaking about items on the agenda. However, they may address those items when the city council comes to them during the course of the meeting, she said.
City officials cannot respond to residents’ comments, Smith said.
Some committees also have time set aside for public comments, she said.
---
The Wisconsin Open Meetings Law doesn’t address everything about what is and is not allowed at government meetings, leading to questions about what’s legal.
Here are a few questions that reporters sometimes hear at public meetings.
Answers come from a compliance guide published by the Wisconsin Attorney General’s Office and from Bob Dreps, an attorney with the Godfrey & Kahn law office in Madison.
Note that as a matter of convenience, we used “board” to refer to any kind of governmental body, whether it’s a county board, school board, town board or city council.
Q: What does the open meetings law require for an open meeting?
A: Closed sessions are allowed for some things, but as a rule of thumb, the vast majority of a governmental body’s meetings should take place in a space that’s accessible to the public. The open meetings law applies to “every” meeting, according to the attorney general’s guidelines.
Q: How do we know when meetings will take place or what the board will talk about?
A: Barring emergency, boards are required to post agendas 24 hours before the meeting. The agendas must clearly list all the board’s planned discussions or votes. The agendas should be posted in places where residents can see them. If a newspaper is published in the area, the board must publish the agendas. Boards can place agendas on the Internet, but that’s not a legal substitute for posting or publishing the paper copy.
Q: If I ask a question at a board meeting, may the board discuss the issue I raise?
A: Yes. But officials have to be careful. They’re not allowed to extensively deliberate or vote on something that wasn’t on the agenda. That would be a violation of the open meetings law and they could be subject to fines.
But, legally, they are allowed to discuss issues brought up by the public, just as they are allowed to take public comment.
“Any governmental body who claims they can’t discuss (public comments) or claims they can’t take comments is misguided,” Dreps said.
Q: I’ve heard board members say they follow Robert’s Rules of Order. Does that mean they’re compliant with state statutes?
A. No. Robert’s rules are not law, Dreps said. They are a guide to parliamentary procedure—used by everyone from 4-H’ers to legislators—to prevent chaos at meetings. But Wisconsin law trumps Robert’s rules.
For example, at a Darien Village Board meeting Feb. 16, board member Craig McCue, citing Robert’s Rules of Order, attempted to amend the agenda by adding an item for discussion and vote.
While Robert might allow an amendment, state law does not permit a last-minute addition for action, Dreps said.
McCue, who is running a contested race to keep his seat on the board, wanted the board to vote to host a candidate forum. The village attorney and administrator explained that it was not the village’s responsibility to host a forum, so the board did not take what would have been an illegal vote.
Mar 7, 2009 at 2:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
They fired the chief. I hope he sues.
Mar 7, 2009 at 12:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
DebiO
I'm not saying that the chief had a personal agenda to investigate innocent bystanders. Given that the chief had reason to conduct an investigation, he should have handled it better. No charges have been brought concerning the mishandling of police records, so obviously we don't know if anyone actually was doing that. It's the chief's department, he took actions to have the cameras installed, whether he ran the wires himself or not.
And speaking of personal agendas, Ms. Candidate for Trustee, why are you criticizing the ten employees for filing the claim, then criticizing Metzner and Putnam for not? Were any other board members in the PD? How do you establish the fact that two board members were in the area, yet no one else was? Have you been watching the tapes?
The sad part is that if a crime was actually committed, if police records were illegally accessed, the chief's investigation failed to identify the person or persons commtting this crime. To quote a recent blogger: "A Police Officer who does not conduct a FULL investigation of a valid complaint, including BOTH parties, is not an officer we, as citizens, expect will uphold the law as written."
Mar 7, 2009 at 8:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
Well said debio. We all now why MR K is on Chief back. His wife carrying on about McCue is about sick. People who go to church try to work for a better life . Unlike you McCue, Kenyon.Debbie and Evey are in this to help the town not to make it worst. The only reason was Quote I got a letter in my shopper box is the reason I am running.
Mar 6, 2009 at 10:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cornchild -
When Steve Devoy spoke with the newspapers recently, he said he asked for advice from the Walworth County Sheriff's Office once he found evidence that confidential records had been compromised.
.
By following the advice given by the Sheriffs, DeVoy CLEARLY had no personal agenda to conduct an 'unwarranted' investigation of innocent bystanders, and in fact, he was NOT the one who installed the cameras.
.
That said, the question remains, why were all these Village Employees in the Police Department? Their work does not involve being there.
.
It's a fact that Metzner and Putman had been in the same public area of the Police Department as others, yet they are not included in the charges.
.
Why would that be? Perhaps because they are running for re-election? Maybe wanting to continue the Good Old Boy government here in town without dirtying their own shoes - and letting others be thrown "under the bus"?
.
Another question - WHO in the Police Department was compromising/accessing/nosing into CONFIDENTIAL records unlawfully?
.
Well, this has never happened in Darien before. But now we got a newer guy, who has a reputation of creating chaos and dissention following him, from MANY communities. Do you think it might be him?
.
A Police Officer who does not conduct a FULL investigation of a valid complaint, including BOTH parties, is not an officer we, as citizens, expect will uphold the law as written. And this officer in particular has an agenda that is frightening in that he is willing to forego designated policy to hide facts, cover wrongdoing and advance his career, to the detriment of his Chief and honest citizens of Darien.
.
Mar 6, 2009 at 12:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cornchild: Thanks for your reasoned post. I disagree with you on virtually every point you made, but that doesn't mean your post isn't solidly reasoned. I think I have stated my professional assessment previously, so I will not reiterate any of that here. If you are interested in knowing my specific variances from your line of thought, let me know. Thanks, though, for a good post.
Mar 6, 2009 at 11:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
Noway,
Okay, I changed my mind. I guess I'm just a glutton for punishnment.
"EarthAngel
Mar 4, 2009 at 9:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
Probability dictates that in the most unstable of the 10 people - maybe ONE is SO shaken by potentially being caught on camera doing something wrong, they would suffer from GUILT, not damage."
We seem to be trying to draw big black lines around the issues, and tangling everything into the same mess. So let me state for the record that I think Steve DeVoy is an assett to this community, a servant of the people who has helped keep us safe for years. However, I believe he handled the use of the cameras incorrectly. I don't think we are going to find out later the he couldn't get a warrant, simply that he didn't ask. If the ten Darien employees pursue this, the whole case will hinge on whether they have a reasonable expectation privacy in their workplace, and whether the surveillance falls under the rules of an employer taking measures for the security of their workplace, or if they were the subject of an unwarranted criminal investigation conducted by a law enforcement agency. A warrant would have negated that argument.
Remember, a lot of the video cameras we have in place today are not intended to catch people committing crimes, but to protect the interests of everyone. Police dashboard cameras protect officers from unfounded claims of misconduct, but an officer who wrongly applies force is going to be caught on tape. The same thing applies to the video on the Janesville Police uniforms.
I don't mind the fact that I am on camera when I walk through a department store. But if a security guard at that store stopped me on my way out and said "We think someone is shoplifting, and even though we have no reason to suspect you, we are going to search you just in case" I would have serious objections.
And lastly (for this post)it sounds like many bloggers here want to fire everyone for filing a frivolous lawsuit before it is proven that the lawsuit is frivolous.
Mar 5, 2009 at 1:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
You people that are afraid of cameras better not go to janesville. The police have video on uniforms .But if your not breaking the law you would not care. Their should be cameras put in the city hall so people can!t push others into voteing for them or their people. What do you think cornchild? Oh yes they lied you and mrs P didn!t do that. RIGHT.
Mar 5, 2009 at 9:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
Cornchild: you're obvious not a person of your word. You're still blogging!
Posted on February 24 at 10 p.m. by Cornchild
To all,
I give up! You win. I obivously have no credibility because I refuse to accept the facts you make up or gather from somebody speaking with authory over their cup of coffee or bottle of beer.
What I've lost sight of is that this is the blogosphere, where nothing need be proven. We as group probably don't make up even 5 percent of the voting public in Darien, and I just hope other people reading these blogs have the good sense to look elsewhere for help in deciding how they will vote in April and what they will say to their elected officials as we try to dig out of this mess.
I will now stop wasting my time online and venture out into the real world, where I can have real discussions with people who have to accept responsibility for their actions and statements. Have fun yelling at each other.
Mar 5, 2009 at 9:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
Cornchild:
“Why do employees have to be doing something wrong to feel violated” I don’t think anyone said the employees “did anything wrong” that was captured on video in order to sue the village. The thing some of the employees did “wrong” was to add their name to a notice of claim when they weren’t even in the areas of the police department that were under surveillance. That’s wrong in every respect and they should be held accountable for making a frivolous claim! Do you think an employer in the private sector would allow an employee to file a frivolous claim and continue their employment – I bet not. If you think differently then why don’t we just get the checkbook out now and start writing checks to 10 people for whatever amount they ask for. Furthermore, were the rights of the board members and citizens that entered into the police department violated, if so why hasn’t anyone else felt violated and filed a notice of claim? I believe if you go to the Darien library you’ll be monitored by a camera. Do you think everyone that has utilized that public building should be entitled to money for feeling violated? What is the difference between the library and the police department in terms of a public or non-public building? They're both owned by the community and not a private individual. Lastly, this has nothing to do with looking into bedroom windows so I don’t know why that was even mentioned.
Mar 5, 2009 at 7:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
ResponsibleCitizen -
I read her comments twice but I don't find where you see a finger pointed?
Cornchild -
I undress in my bedroom, so I pull the shades. I know better than to undress in the police department, that would be a public area.
Mar 5, 2009 at 7 a.m.
Suggest removal
EarthAngel...if you would have actually READ my comment you would note that I stated "I don't agree with the Lawsuit but it is their right to make the claim. We live in a democracy here not a socialistic empire. People have the right to make the claim...it is a civil matter"...to top it off your comment does nothing BUT FINGER-POINT IN SOMEONE ELSE'S DIRECTION.
Mar 4, 2009 at 11:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
Thanks for your insight copperguy
Mar 4, 2009 at 11:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
copperguy is SO logical and correct. It's just a matter of thinking, if you have the capability. No bedroom windows - PUBLIC AREA!
NO! I do NOT want the chief to sue. All's I'm saying is, above everyone else - he'd have a right to sue. He was done wrong!
None of the other idiots are 'suffering' anything or were done wrong.
Sorry, corn, you are WRONG.
Mar 4, 2009 at 11:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cornchild...A public building is- by definition - a "public place." A library, or a school, for instance, are "public places," though one can't just mosey in and through at one's own discretion. Who would argue that video surveillance (whether publicized or not) in a library or school are violations of the Fourth Amendment?
One's home, on the other hand, is a "private place." The Constitution guarantees one's right to be secure in their posessions. Your home, and that which occurs within it, are your "posessions." That's why there is a DISTINCT difference between one looking in your bedroom window versus one surveilling a public building. And, why there is the need for a warrant - based on probable cause - to enter a private place.
You are correct in that this may ultimately make its way to a court of law. There will always be an attorney who wants to try and reverse a previously issued court decision.
I'm not sure if you are insistant on declaring a police department to be a private place because you are opposed to the surveillance, if you simply are opposed to Chief DeVoy, or for some other reason. But there is ample judicial precedent establishing public places to be exactly that: public.
Given your conviction in the belief that a public building isn't a public place, this shall be my last post on the subject.
Mar 4, 2009 at 10:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Why do the employees have to be doing something wrong to feel violated? Would it be okay if you found someone looking in your bedroom window if you weren't doing anyhting wrong?
I'm glad you and everyone else on this blog is in touch with how the village employees feel. I think they are saying "this was not right, and we want the issue addressed."
And Earthangel, none of your posts are fingerpointing???? That's all we're doing here.
As far as the chief's distress, one of the articles concerning his suspension included a statement from his lawyer about taking legal action against the village. If the chief sues, that's okay, right? Or will you all suddenly turn against him?
And by the way, the Village Offices and especially the Police Department are not public spaces like one of the village parks - none of us have the right to wander into the PD and start looking around without a PD employee present, so the "Public place=No expectation of privacy. No expectation of privacy=no warrant." song copperguy is singing may fall flat in court.
Mar 4, 2009 at 9:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
ResponsibleCitizen-
You said (regarding the court case) "we spend money either way". No money needed to be spent at all if this never came about. You can't be serious that this claim has any chance in hell of going through.
Yet you'd excuse the participants for 'giving it a shot'? Do you SERIOUSLY believe there is psychological damage from this?
Probability dictates that in the most unstable of the 10 people - maybe ONE is SO shaken by potentially being caught on camera doing something wrong, they would suffer from GUILT, not damage.
it seems to me 'finger-pointing' was initiated by those employees making a claim against the village, NOT citizens.
Life in the public nowadays is frequently spent on camera, whether you know it or not. In what scenario do you think that all the village employees happened to think of filing this suit on their own? Trust me, they were coerced, forced, or goaded as a group. That is where your indignance should lie.
NoWay is correct, the Chief has probably gone through MUCH more distress than the whiner employees trying to bamboozle this village with their bogus claim.
Fire them and start over with a more reasonably sized village employee base. it CAN be done with less people, as they will WORK for their pay.
Then bring back Chief DeVoy so we can retain the rest of the good policemen we have here.
Mar 4, 2009 at 2:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Agreeded reasponsible, except that they are messing with peoples lives here also. True Devoy is being paid, but think about if that was you in his shoes. Giving all that time to something he loves and to have it all ripped away. Not to mention Chet. These board members are trying desperatly to fix something they ruined by screwing with peoples lives. It is totaling uncalled for and I hope everyone involved gets sued.
Mar 4, 2009 at 7:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
Everyone can yell their opinion as loud as they want...the claims will go to court and whether or not they have any merit the Village loses...we spend money either way. You can say we have too many employees all you want...but when you expect the normal functions of our municipality to go on without the manpower...well gee that is just ridiculous. Keep the personal agenda's out of this. Does it matter if someones child was or was not refused a job I'm sure that half of the working population has applied for a job that they have not gotten; its part of life LET IT GO. I don't agree with the Lawsuit but it is their right to make the claim. We live in a democracy here not a socialistic empire. People have the right to make the claim...it is a civil matter...some may say that it was an invasion of privacy and some may not...either way everyone loses we all spend money and time. People will lose their jobs and in this day and age that's not good either. Quit the finger pointing and work together people.
Mar 3, 2009 at 11:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
No way for us to know if there was audio. From the descriptions published, it doesn't sound as though there was audio equipment involved.
Would videographic evidence from the recordings be admissible in court? Likely. Again, since there was no expectation of privacy, no warrant was required. Would be similar to a camera at a gas station capturing a crime across the street. Could such video be entered as evidence in that case? Sure.
I really encourage folks not to get distracted by questions such as "Who was in where?, and "What are they afraid of?" In reality, the thing to remember is, (now, everyone sing along) "Public place=No expectation of privacy. No expectation of privacy=no warrant."
Test at 11. No notes allowed.
Mar 3, 2009 at 10:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
Its a good point WisconsinMom. The guy was on the job the first day he started, and he is in on the lawsuit. GREAT first impression.
But correction - 10 are suing, not 9.
Mar 3, 2009 at 10:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
Corn..
The "courtroom" as you call it is NOT where the cameras were found. The cameras were in DeVoy's office!
Sounds to me like you are a "very bitter" person..Maybe your son got denied a job working for the PD??
Mar 3, 2009 at 10:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Corn....
How are the birds these days??
Can you really sit there and type away agreeing that Marc Dennison has the right to sue after being on the job for 6hrs?? How were his rights violated?? and Connie..she was to be training Marc..not snooping around doing PI work in the PD..
I think all 9 should be let go!
This is going to cost the village a fortune...If I thought I could I would sell my house!
Mar 3, 2009 at 10:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
If the cornchild is condoning that lawsuit and those ridiculous claims, she must not be playing with a full deck.
Their 'constitutional rights' were NOT violated, and their 'right' to ask the question in court will cost their employer - the Villagers of Darien.
The employer has the right to fire them.
Mar 3, 2009 at 10:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
copperguy -
Thanks for your voice of reason. You obviously know what you're talking about.
Mar 3, 2009 at 10:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Do we know there was no sound to go with the video? Interesting point.
Thisis a notice of claim, not a lawsuit. There was a timeline to be met or the possibility of pursuing this would have gone away.
Isn't it ironic that you are exercising your constutional right to free speech as you ridicule these people for wanting a competent authority to rule on whether their constitutional rights were violated. I don't know how their case will do in court, but they have a right to ask the question.
Incidentally, do you think anything on the tapes will be admissable in court? Just wondering if the chief was wasting his time (and our money) anyway.
Mar 3, 2009 at 9:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
I am a small business owner, nothing to do with law enforcement. I can fire anyone for any reason, with documentation (except discrimination) and any court in the land would support me if a frivolous suit were brought against me by an employee that will never fly in court.
By allowing them to continue in my employ, I open myself up for another lawsuit down the road, and I now have a disloyal person on my payroll. A virtual lawsuit waiting in the wings.
I suggest the citizens wake up and consider that potential.
Mar 3, 2009 at 9:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
Corn
Are you saying the following people have reason to spend significant (if ANY) time in the police dept:
Superintendent of Public Works Gregory Epping, water department and public works employee Michael Michalek, water department employee Edward McLernon, water department and public works employee Michael Veley, administrative assistant Mary Schneider, deputy clerk Dean Abel, Connie Machi and Marc Dennison?
Let's say they had reason to be there once or twice. What 'psychological damage' could they have? What 'pain and suffering'? Gimme a break.
More to the point, are they worried they were caught on tape doing something wrong? (After all, WRONG-DOING was being investigated.)
Tell me who YOU are, and why in the world you would go along with this nonsensical lawsuit by ALL the Village employees.
Mar 3, 2009 at 9:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
oops: should have been "a) search incident to lawful arrest." Missed the "c" in "search."
Mar 3, 2009 at 9:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Cornchild: I have posted elsewhere on this, so I'll keep it brief.
A Viilage Hall, or Police Department - among others - is a public place. There is no right to privacy in a public place. Therefore, there is no applicability of the Fourth Amendment. There are some limitations to this...for instance, it is a different story if you're talking about intercepting conversations. That is eavesdropping, and NOT the same as videographic/photographic/personal surveillance.
Courts have laid out, very specifically, exceptions to the warrant requirement. Among these exceptions you will find: a) searh incident to lawful arrest; b) plain view; c) consent; and d) public place. There are others.
Bottom line here is...public place = no expectaion of privacy: no expectation of privacy = no warrant/probable cause required.
Mar 3, 2009 at 9:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Bites,
tell me who you are and maybe we can talk....
Village employees have reason to go into the PD, which also is the courtroom.
Zee,
Are you in charge of a law enforcement organization? They have special rules to go with their special responsibilities. Try putting it on paper that you fired someone because they brought a lawsuit against you. Then let me know how it works out when they sue you for that.
Mar 3, 2009 at 8:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
I AM an employer. If one of my employees attempted to sue me over something so stupid and unmerited, I'd fire them in a heartbeat.
A village this size is wasting its money on so many high-priced employees anyway.
Mar 3, 2009 at 8:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
Corn
From the article announcing these charges:
"The Fourth Amendment is intended to guard against unreasonable search and seizure." Nothing about being on camera in a Public Area.
Being "really pissed off" is not a reason to sue your EMPLOYER. Especially if they do not work in the Police Department (where the cameras were)- why are they spending time there and not DOING their jobs?
So, do we have a bet? (I'm betting NOT, because there IS no case.)
Mar 3, 2009 at 8:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
thisbites
You don't tell the subject - you tell a judge, who based on the merits of your case issues a warrant confirming that need for the criminal investigation overrides the Fourth Amendment rights of the subject.
Lawyers use terms like "psychological injury, pain, suffering, humiliation, loss of reputation, violation of rights and other damages" because "really pissed off" just doesn't look good in a legal brief.
Mar 3, 2009 at 6 p.m.
Suggest removal
Corn
The cameras were put there as part of an investigation. One would never conduct a successful investigation if the target was told of the cameras beforehand.
It's not like there were cameras in the bathroom, the Police Station is a Public Area. There was no violation of the 4th Amendment. The claims of psychological damage are a joke. I'm willing to bet you $50,000 that they have no case. (I'll donate my winnings to the Village to make up for all the costs the 'Village 10' incurred in this nonsense.)
By the way, they SHOULD all be fired.
Mar 3, 2009 at 5:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
"Spoden says cameras could be useful in locations with a high number of traffic accidents. He says the intent of using cameras should be clearly understood, to avoid any appearance of "Big Brother"."
Not like hiding the cameras in plants without telling anyone about it.
Mar 3, 2009 at 2:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Check out this new blog about cameras
http://wclo.com/news/2009/mar/01/cameras...
I think the Sheriff should really be careful about installing the cameras. He should first make sure that none of the 9 Darien employees that filed a law suit for the installation of cameras don't travel his roadways prior to making the final decision. He'll be sued for violating their 4th amendment rights!
Mar 3, 2009 at 10:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
Once again darien police came to save the day. This time it was me. My car Ijust got died have on 14 and half on street. I called for help and CHUCK was their in seconds, Thanks CHUCK.Now for the bad think a darien worker seen me broke down in the middle of church st across the other street. He just flew around like a cat on fire. Thanks for nothing creep.
Mar 3, 2009 at 6:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
I have no desire to run for any form of public office...I do have a desire to get more citizens involved. We the citizens of the Village of Darien need to come together and tell the present and future Boards of Trustees how we feel and what we expect of them.
Mar 2, 2009 at 11:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
NoWay and ResponsibleCitizen should run for office.
Mar 2, 2009 at 3:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
The Village of Darien appointed
Marc Dennison as Village
Administrator/Clerk/Treasurer in
October 2008. Marc began work in
December. Prior to his
appointment, Marc was Economic
Development Director for the city
of Pine Island, Minnesota.
Mar 2, 2009 at 10:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
Noway said it all. He knows whats going on. I hope
more belive like him come election day. They might vote that out to. HA! you know the big boss rules I can do what I want.
Mar 2, 2009 at 9:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
I believe what it comes down to is this: They want somebody that they can control in the police dept. Maltese fits that bill perfectly because he is spineless and he knows nothing about law. They tell him what to do, he does it. With Steve it is different, he has been in law enforcement for so many years he knows when it isn't right and by law has to do something about it. Remember this all started because Metzner made fraudulent claims against Fema and the Village Insurance Company. For gods sake even Puttman knew that it was wrong. But now that Metzner has something against Devoy Puttman jumps on board and now they ride to meetings together. Puttman and other board members want to cut our police staff down to get out of this Financial mess they have gotten us into and they will mess with good peoples lives to do so.
When in Reality they should be cutting back everywhere instead of one Dept. Can't wait to see how much money this is costing us, and the board members get more money every special meeting called. Even a $100 extra every month is good for people on Social Security. The longer they drag this out, the longer Danz and the board members reap the benefits. The people in the Village need to start standing up to these boneheads. Quit re-electing people like Puttman who have put us in this situation. And I promise you another thing, if Kaufenburg gets into office there will be even more kayos. She has her one personal agenda against the police and other people. Beware!!!!
Mar 1, 2009 at 10:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
ResponsibleCitizen -
.
The Teacher is right, I was at the meeting too. If the Chief did anything wrong, he would have been voted 'terminated' by the board.
.
This did not occur. The unanimous vote was to have Hazelbaker contact DeVoy's atty. AND Wilson's atty.
.
What is unclear is why they dragged Wilson into this mess. When I heard them say his name, I was sure they made a mistake and meant to say 'Konopski', but no.
.
No mention has been made of Konopski, and I want to know why that is. He is another good cop that did nothing wrong, so why aren't we privy to the reason for HIS suspension? (Another potential lawsuit among many coming down the pike.)
.
Too much secrecy in this Village, too much back-stabbing and questionable motives.
.
Too LITTLE concern for residents and the future and prosperity of the Village.
.
You are clearly an intelligent guy, I wonder, will you vote for me?
Mar 1, 2009 at 8:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
They voted to have the attorney's talk to their attorney's to come to a resolution.. They didn't VOTE to keep them suspended.. I was there! I heard...I am sure McCue and Kenyon are hoping like we all are that this means DeVoy will be back!
Mar 1, 2009 at 8:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
They voted to keep his pay while he is out or metzner was trying to starve him out. Not for any think he done wrong. Rember the meeting? Their been so much it hard to keep up just ask Craig or Allen they will tell you without being hatefull. The question the other lady asked me I don!t know for sure.I would guess something the crooks don!t want told.
Mar 1, 2009 at 6:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Many of you have your faith in someone that the ENTIRE board voted to keep on suspension...After Kenyon & McCue had intended on wanting him back they voted to keep him on suspension. Do you honestly think that they would vote that way if he hadn't done something that Hazelbaker thought would be a conflict to the Village.
Mar 1, 2009 at 6:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
DON'T YOU GET THAT AFTER THE BOARD VOTED TO KEEP DEVOY ON SUSPENSION THAT MAYBE HE DID DO SOMETHING WRONG!!!
Mar 1, 2009 at 6:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
BOO.....HISS!!!!!
Mar 1, 2009 at 10:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
Don't you get it?? Dennison's first CUTS will be Chief DeVoy and Chett Wilson...
Than we have to pay the headhunter fee..and his freakin bonus!
People help us dig up dirt on this man from Island Lake MN...
We need ALLL NEW MEMBERS
Mar 1, 2009 at 8:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
if Dennison does not make the cut in his first 6 months...we don't pay the fee to the company that found him...I don't know if he gets his sign on bonus either.
Mar 1, 2009 at 8:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
Lets get on with saving this Village money now. Give them their walking papers and lets get people working for us that care. I am so Disappointed in Mary, thought she was a better person than that. All the others I would have understood, because you can tell by the way they talk to you that they think they are way above you. Does Dennisons probationary period end before or after Evi gets elected?
Feb 28, 2009 at 10:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Since it has been determined that local government can set the rules for the public to speak at Board Meetings, I would encourage Darien residents to assert their rights, and call for the Village President to let them be heard.
.
Contrary to the current rules here, it seems that we ought to be able to make comments on the agenda, in ADDITION to any subject OTHER than the agenda.
.
What reason could there be to not allow us to speak? I understand restricting time limits, but free speech is our right!
.
The challenging Village Presidential candidate, Evelyn Etten, WILL listen to you. I have met her, and, GET THIS - she is a voice of REASON! What a concept! I urge to you vote for her if you want to reinstate a semblance of fair and honest representation of YOU here in Darien.
.
In addition, ALL the Village Employees who have decided to SUE this Village in a frivolous lawsuit (claiming Psychological Damage) need to be 'eliminated' or 'downsized' - ASAP.
.
The current state of economical re-evaluation, nation-wide, indictates that needless spending and excess should be curtailed.
.
The Village Employees 'claim' represents staggeringly preposterous allegations in my mind, how about yours? Do you now TRUST these 'loyal employees'? I don't.
.
As one person referred to on the previous blog, there ARE too many Village Employees for a community this size.
.
The abuse of DPW overtime, the huge salary increase of one employee, and the ultimate slap in the face, a lawsuit by those very people we pay, who now want to SUE us... all are unforgivable and not only abusive, but selfish and laughable.
KICK 'em to the curb.
Feb 28, 2009 at 4:27 p.m.
Feb 28, 2009 at 9:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
I meant to say except for McCue and Kenyon...they have stepped up and voted with the "people's" interests at heart..
Why haven't the minutes to the meetings been posted on the village website?? Can MD not figure out how??
OR
Are they trying to hide something??
Feb 28, 2009 at 9:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
In Darien, there is one BIG bird that is allowed to speak! I didn't see them give 3 minutes either!
Darien is run by a dictator..the VP..
Time to cut our losses folks..Call for the resignation of the whole board and ALL village employees involved in the suit and start FRESH!
Feb 28, 2009 at 8:22 a.m.
Feb 28, 2009 at 8:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
Dr. Moreau: What is the law?
Sayer of the Law: Not to eat meat, that is the law. Are we not men?
Beasts (in unison): Are we not men?
Dr. Moreau: What is the law?
Sayer of the Law: Not to go on all fours, that is the law. Are we not men?
Beasts (in unison): Are we not men?
Dr. Moreau: What is the law?
Sayer of the Law: Not to spill blood, that is the law. Are we not men?
Beasts (in unison): Are we not men?
Feb 28, 2009 at 7:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
Congats ResponsibleCitizen, you have just broke the record for consecutive worthless comments that nobody cares to read. The previous record was held by both hannah and irishlady.
Feb 28, 2009 at 5:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
Local officials' e-mails relating to municipal business which are kept or maintained by the local official or another authority constitute records which can be requested under Wisconsin's public records law. 12/29/00.
Feb 28, 2009 at 5:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
When Do Minutes Have to Be Published and When Can They Be Posted?
In villages where a newspaper is published in the village,13 minutes of the village board must be published in the paper as a Class 1 notice. If no newspaper is published in the village, the village board may cause the proceedings to be published in a newspaper having general circulation in the village, posted in several public places or publicized in some other fashion as directed by the board.14 In cities, minutes of the common council must be published in the official newspaper as a Class 1 notice.15 The statutes do not require that minutes of other governmental bodies be published.
What Happens If Minutes Are Not Published or Posted As Required by Law?
Wisconsin law does not define the consequences for failing to publish or post minutes as required by law. The most likely conclusion is that if minutes are not published or posted as required by law, it gives an opponent a basis for challenging the actions therein but does not necessarily void the actions taken by the governing body. In contrast, ordinances do not take effect until they are published or posted as required by law.16
Feb 28, 2009 at 4:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
Parliamentary Procedure: Open Meeting Law
Can a member of a governmental body, as a member of the public, bring up items not specifically designated on the agenda under the period of noticed public comment allowed by the Open Meetings law?
No. Wisconsin Statute sec. 19.84(2) provides a limited exception to the general notice requirements of the Open Meetings law which allows members of the public to bring up items not specifically on the agenda during a period of noticed public comment. It is intended to allow local governments to be responsive to their constituents and to allow the governing body to receive information from members of the public. However, it was not intended to allow members of governmental bodies to bring up items for discussion without placing the items on the agenda and giving notice to the public. Given that members of governmental bodies have ready access to agendas of the body, use by members of the 19.82(4) exception to discuss unnoticed matters will likely be seen as an impermissible attempt to circumvent the notice requirements of the Open Meetings law.
Feb 28, 2009 at 4:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
DebiO & Spoo check this one out:
http://www.lwm-info.org/index.asp?Type=B...
Feb 28, 2009 at 4:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
THIS ONE IS FOR BOBBY BOY...HOPE YOU READ THIS!!!
http://www.lwm-info.org/index.asp?Type=B...
Feb 28, 2009 at 4:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
http://www.lwm-info.org/index.asp?Type=B...
Feb 28, 2009 at 4:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
http://www.lwm-info.org/index.asp?Type=B...
Feb 28, 2009 at 4:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
http://www.lwm-info.org/index.asp?Type=B...
Feb 28, 2009 at 4:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
Not Bad Ann!
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.