franklinnow.com
search all things local
Rummage MapseHarmony
weather

64°

Partly Cloudy | 5MPH

NEWSROOM * CIRCULATION * ADVERTISING

Friday

July 2009

3

Blog Home |  Email Author  |        Welcome to MyCommunityNOW - Blogs Sign in | Join

This Just In...

Kevin Fischer is an award-winning veteran broadcaster who has been seen and heard on Milwaukee TV and radio stations for nearly three decades.
Kevin, who is a legislative aide to state Sen. Mary Lazich (R-New Berlin), can be seen offering his views on the news on the public affairs program, “InterCHANGE,” on Milwaukee Public Television Channel 10, and heard filling in on Newstalk 1130 WISN. He lives with his wife, Jennifer, and their baby daughter, Kyla Audrey, in Franklin.

So, why do we need a special prosecutor?

By Kevin Fischer
Tuesday, Feb 19 2008, 09:20 PM

When I first read this on FranklinNOW, I was surprised:

The Franklin Common Council voted Monday night to hire a special prosecutor to investigate the Buckhorn Tavern, 9461 S. 27th St.

The panel unanimously agreed to retain Roger C. Pyzyk, a private practice attorney who also is the Greenfield city attorney, to see if Franklin officials can take action, including lifting its liquor license, against the tavern.”

My first thought was, don’t we have our own City Attorney to make these kinds of decisions?

We do.

But the Franklin City Attorney is also the legal counsel to the members of the Franklin Common Council who, in this case, are the judges. So there’s an obvious conflict of interest.

The resolution adopted by the Franklin Common Council calls for spending up to $5000 on the special prosecutor.  The appropriation will come out of the City Attorney’s budget.

The Common Council will decide its next move after it reviews the special prosecutor’s findings.

I understand a certain process must take place. But the Mayor and Aldermen should, and probably do understand that the public wants to see some action take place. I suspect residents aren’t real patient, and I don’t blame them.

In the meantime, I just happened to see this in the office mail today. Most of you probably could care less but I think you Common Council members might find some interest in this.

Comments

Scott Thinnes   

From the Wisconsin State Statutes - Chapter 125

125.12(1)(a)      

(a) Except as provided in this subsection, any municipality or the department may revoke, suspend or refuse to renew any license or permit under this chapter, as provided in this section.

125.12(2)(ag)      

(ag) Complaint. Any resident of a municipality issuing licenses under this chapter may file a sworn written complaint with the clerk of the municipality alleging one or more of the following about a person holding a license issued under this chapter by the municipality:

125.12(2)(ag)3.      

3. The person has sold or given away alcohol beverages to known habitual drunkards.

125.12(2)(ar)      

(ar) Summons. Upon the filing of the complaint, the municipal governing body or a duly authorized committee of a city council shall issue a summons, signed by the clerk and directed to any peace officer in the municipality. The summons shall command the licensee complained of to appear before the municipal governing body or the committee on a day and place named in the summons, not less than 3 days and not more than 10 days from the date of issuance, and show cause why his or her license should not be revoked or suspended. The summons and a copy of the complaint shall be served on the licensee at least 3 days before the time at which the licensee is commanded to appear. Service shall be in the manner provided under ch. 801 for service in civil actions in circuit court.

125.12(2)(b)2.      

2. If the licensee appears as required by the summons and denies the complaint, both the complainant and the licensee may produce witnesses, cross-examine witnesses and be represented by counsel. The licensee shall be provided a written transcript of the hearing at his or her expense. If the hearing is held before the municipal governing body and the complaint is found to be true, the license shall either be suspended for not less than 10 days nor more than 90 days or revoked, except that, if a complaint under par. (ag) 4. is found to be true with respect to a license issued under s. 125.51 (4) (v), the license shall be revoked.

There's more, but this is the basics. The statutes are on line and are searchable. Read for yourselves.

Due process is fine. But this shouldn't take an act of God, a Special Prosecutor or $5000.00 of the city's money.

Why hasn't our police department filed the required complaint after their investigation and got this process moving. I don't understand.

February 19, 2008 10:37 PM

Scott Thinnes   

Also, for those who may be interested:

An update on the Eddie Lynn Keck case.

The scheduling conference was Tuesday 2/12/2008.

Schedule:

Discovery Review Hearing 3/18/2008.

Final Pre-Trial Motions 3/31/2008.

Final Pre-Trial Hearing 5/13/2008.

Jury Trial Begins 6/23/2008  8:15 AM

Judge: Jeffery A. Wagner - Branch 38

February 19, 2008 10:45 PM

Fred Keller   

Scott Thinness just answered the City’s question.

“…to see if Franklin officials can take action, including lifting its liquor license, against the tavern.”

FOR FREE!

What is the City waiting for?  File the complaint Mayor Taylor, issue the summons, Council, and start due process.

February 21, 2008 8:08 AM

In the Race   

That’s right…the Franklin Common Council gets the BIGGEST yawn ever... I attended the meeting of the

April 7, 2008 6:15 AM

Leave a Comment

Please Sign In to post comment.

Posts

Your browser must support javascript to use the posts pager. Please enable javascript or return to the home page to page through posts.
Newer Older

Tags

Search the Blogs