After speaking with several contacts, many issues came to light revolving around Senate Bill 548. The issues are significant since it caused the bill to land bipartisan support. After the jump will be the list of sponsors as well as some recent history that likely sparked this.
The sponsors are:
WI STATE SENATE
- Senator Lena Taylor (D-Milwaukee)
WI STATE ASSEMBLY
- Rep. Fred Kessler (D-Milwaukee)
- Rep. Donald Friske (R-Merrill)
- Rep. Kelda Helen Roys (D-Madison)
- Rep. Gary Sherman (D-Port Wing)
- Rep. Tamara Grigsby (D-Milwaukee)
- Rep. Annette Williams (D-Milwaukee)
- Rep. Garey Bies (R-Sister Bay)
- Rep. Amy Sue Vruwink (D-Milladore)
- Rep. Joe Parisi (D-Madison)
- Rep. Chris Danou (D-Madison)
- Rep. John Nygren (R-Marinette)
- Rep. Alvin Ott (R-Fort Junction)
- Rep. John Townsend (R-Fond du Lac)
- Rep. Mary Williams (R-Medford)
- Rep. Joan Ballweg (R-Markesan)
- Rep. Jerry Petrowski (R-Marathon)
- Rep. Richard Spanbauer (R-Oshkosh)
- Rep. Jeffrey Wood (I-Chippewa Falls)
- Rep. Barbara Toles (D-Milwaukee)
- Rep. Scott Newcomer (R-Pewaukee)
TOTAL: 10 Democrats (including Senator Taylor), 10 Republicans, 1 Independent
I found out why Senator Taylor was the chief sponsor of this proposal, as well. Senator Taylor is the Chairwoman of the Senate Committees on Judiciary, Corrections, Insurance, Campaign Finance Reform, and Housing. Franklin’s State Senator, Senator Mary Lazich (R-New Berlin), is also on this committee. When I asked my contacts why no other State Senator joined with Senator Taylor with the bill, the response was more-or-less, “Because it’s Senator Taylor.”
Now for the Assembly sponsors of this bill…
Most Democrats who put their names on the bill likely did it for obvious reasons, especially those representing the various sections of Madison. Other Democrats, in particular those from Milwaukee, could have done so after seeing what has unfolded in Green Bay. NE Wisconsin/the Green Bay area is where the majority of Republicans sponsoring this bill hail from, as well.
When Franklin passed the landmark ordinance in 2007, many of our aldermen (and Mayor Taylor) were the first to say that numerous communities mimicked our ordinance throughout Wisconsin. This was especially true in the Green Bay area, where almost every suburb enacted similar sex offender ordinances, and the City of Green Bay, fearing an incursion of sex offenders from the suburbs, carbon-copied Franklin’s ordinance and enacted their own. Thus, the vast majority of the Green Bay area is off-limits to sex offenders released from prison, and now that’s creating issues.
From Green Bay TV station WBAY, which did a report on this bill yesterday:
A state Senate bill may override local sex offender residency rules, creating a statewide standard, trying to address a problem that's come to a slow boil.
"The local ordinances were getting so restrictive that it was driving people underground," state Representative Phil Montgomery, an Ashwaubenon Republican, said.Montgomery cites Green Bay as an example. Its ordinance effectively puts 93-percent of the city off-limits, virtually prohibiting sex offenders from living in the city.
Which is why he and other lawmakers back a bill to override local sex offender residency rules and replace them with an overall, statewide rule.
"What we need to have is statewide standard to protect the children and families of the state, and what this allows for is a uniform interpretation of the law," Montgomery said.
The Green Bay Press Gazette also did a report this morning on this matter:
Green Bay's sex offender residency ordinance prohibits sex offenders from living in nearly 90 percent of the city. The ordinance was approved in 2007 because of concerns that most of Brown County's listed adult sex offenders lived in Green Bay. An analysis that year by the Green Bay Press-Gazette of the state's Sex Offender Registry found 65 percent of adult sex offenders in the county lived in Green Bay.
The increased cost hasn't translated into increased safety for city residents.
Authorities refer about 200 sexual-assault cases to the Brown County District Attorney's Office, a number that hasn't changed much since the ordinance passed.
However, sex offenders refusing to register with the state has more than doubled since the city ordinance went into effect in 2007, according to the state Department of Corrections.
Authorities referred 41 cases of noncompliance to the Brown County District Attorney's Office in 2009, according to the state corrections department. That number jumped from only 14 cases in 2007 and is more than the 38 cases referred in 2008.
"It's a result of the residency restriction because convicted sex offenders can't find a place to live so they would rather go underground," said Tom Smith, Corrections sex offender registration specialist.
Noncompliance is a refusal to provide correct information, including an address. Refusing to register is a felony that carries a $10,000 fine and up to six years in prison.
"They're giving up," Smith said. "They want to comply but can no longer comply because of the restrictions that are held over their head."
Safety zones and loitering ordinances around parks, schools and day cares are some alternatives to the city ordinance, Smith said.
Ben Heiman is a member of the city's Sex Offender Residence Board, which hears the appeals of convicted sex offenders wishing to live within the city of Green Bay. He said noncompliance is a problem but it's not due to the city ordinance.
"That's nonsense as far as I'm concerned. That's a scapegoat and a copout. We're trying to do what we can do, the best we can do, for this city."
Donna Ysebaert of Green Bay is a grandmother and said she worries about not knowing if a sex offender lives next door. The sex offender residence ordinance is a good idea but it needs to be tweaked, she said.
"If they're going to be released, they have to find housing somewhere," she said. "They're really not solving a problem. They're just making another one."
Ysebaert expressed concerns over copycat ordinances by surrounding municipalities and potential overcrowding at the Brown County Jail. She said if people support the ordinance, they can't complain about taxpayers footing the bill.
Jed Neuman supervises 52 probation and parole agents in Brown County. The sex offender ordinance isn't necessary, he said, since agents already require similar restrictions regarding housing and contact with minors.
"They've had to become real estate agents. It really makes our jobs quite difficult," he said.
Agents have to pick up offenders each morning when they stay at the Brown County Jail to help them look for housing, then drop them off each evening. Agents have reduced their caseloads to remain effective at protecting the public and rehabilitating the offenders, he added.
Everett Olson, 23, was convicted of sexually assaulting a 15-year-old girl when he was 19 in 2006. He said the city ordinance is a good idea because it rewards those who are doing something positive while also protecting the community.
"I think it's good because it keeps a lot of the really violent offenders out, and people who have no support or income," he said.
To my knowledge, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has not covered SB 548 yet.
My contacts told me that sex offenders are now trying to locate places to live in the outskirts of Green Bay in the various rural townships. This is provoking the leaders of those townships to take action.
I believe it is necessary for our residents and leaders to know the full background on a legislative bill before taking action. I still stand against SB 548, which imposes rules and regulations that are far-reaching and negatively impact a community’s right to protect its own citizens. I also am supportive of the Franklin Common Council resolution tonight that notifies our representatives in the legislature that the City of Franklin opposes SB 548. However, my contacts notified me that if the bill goes to the legislature there is strong potential that it will pass. Franklin leaders now and in the future need to take the possibility of this bill being approved into consideration for future action and planning.
