Silver Lake Village Board sets rules for police contract hearing

kcsd-and-slpd-doors-combinedSilver Lake Village Board members on Wednesday settled on a set of rules and procedures for an upcoming public hearing on April 14 regarding the possibility of contracting with the Kenosha County Sheriff’s Department for police protection.

The Silver Lake Police Department has had two chiefs resign within the last six months. The villages of Paddock Lake and Bristol currently contract for police protection with KCSD.

The hearing will begin at 7 p.m. at Riverview School.

The complete set of rules was not made available to us Wednesday, but will be after it is completed, said village attorney Robert Mulcahey. But here are some of the points that were discussed and agreed to at Wednesday’s Committee of the Whole meeting:

Sheriff will give overview — So far, little is known about the details of what an agreement for extra patrol of the village would include or cost. But Mulcahey said the plan is to have Sheriff David Beth give an outline of the proposed agreement at the beginning of the April 14 meeting, and then open the floor to comments

Three-minute limit for comments — An original draft of the rules suggested a five-minute limit for each person’s comments. On Wednesday, Trustee Pat Dunn suggest a two-minute limit instead, saying that was enough time to present a case. Trustee Carolyn Dodge said she felt two minutes was too short. The board settled on a three-minute limit.

Discourage redundancy — Mulcahey suggested building in language that discouraged people from making points already made and that speakers seek to make original comments.

Residents and taxpayers only — The board agreed, at Mulcahey’s strong suggestion, to limit comments to residents and taxpayers — as in property owners. The village president, as the chairman of the meeting, will be able to make exceptions, such as for Sheriff Beth, who is not a village resident.

Order to be maintained — Mulcahey said a sergeant at arms — the police chief or his designee — will be present to take care of anyone that gets unruly.

Board to be “out of the weeds” — Mulcahey suggested the board give everyone at least one chance to speak, but that the board at this meeting should refrain from statements endorsing any particular course of action, debating with speakers or among themselves or answering any questions other than simple factual ones such as “what is the police budget?” Said Mulcahey to the board: “You’ve got to stay out of the weeds … you’re there to listen … this is a very difficult topic and I think you want to hear from the public what they’re thinking.”

No vote — There will be no vote on the contract at the April 14 meeting. There will be a regular Village Board meeting on April 15, which also will be at the school, with the expectation that the issue will be on that agenda. However, after Wednesday’s meeting Mulcahey said he felt the complexity of this issue could mean that the board is not ready for a decision the next day and it could be working on the issue for some time.

Village President Sue Gerber and Trustees Chris Willkomm and Michael Decker were absent at Wednesday’s meeting.

6 Shares

14 Comments

  1. non-resident? says:

    So as a renter, I have no rights according to the village board. Seems they continue to feel this way about people who have not lived in the village forever. What they don’t understand is that property owners pass the taxes on to the renters as part of their rent. So technically we are taxpayers. We’re ok to live here just as long as we are seen and not heard. I sure hope this changes with a new board on April 7th.

    1. @non-resident?: A renter would be considered a resident, as far as I understood the board’s intent. I thought I had made it clear, but maybe I didn’t. The board included the language of taxpayer to include people who own property in the village, and therefore pay village taxes, but don’t live in the village, like say a business owner or I guess your landlord. I hope that clarifies the meaning as I understood them to mean it.

  2. Bernard Punsley says:

    WOW!

  3. SL Goverment Gone Wild says:

    This make since. It will bring professionalism to the SLPD and more resources. It will also make a nice home for our full time police officers. I know this was suggested a few years ago by the Ad-Committee and the board blew it off. Now I am told the PD is falling apart fast. I know the police officers themselves went to the Sherriff for help. The Sherriff knows exactly what he is doing. A good word of advice. Follow the Sheriffs lead. Do what the professional tells you. He does know what is best for the village.

  4. Bernard Punsley says:

    This meeting is an “informational” meeting. The board has already met privately with Sheriff Beth, this is an opportunity for EVERYONE interested to attend, listen to what the LAW ENFORCEMENT PROFESSIONAL has to say, have an opportunity to ask pertinent questions, and in general, see what options are available to provide police protection for our village. The board will NOT be voting on the “issue” at this meeting. If you read any of the comments on the “Villager” websites, they are urging a big turnout to “show support for the Silver Lake police department” and basically maintain the STATUS QUO. OK, that is their right. But this is an INFORMATIONAL MEETING!!!!!!! Come and LISTEN to what Sheriff Beth has to offer. Do it with an open mind. Remember folks..the VILLAGE BOARD INVITED THE SHERIFF TO THIS MEETING!! So come listen, learn, and leave INFORMED. If the KCSD proposal is not a viable alternative to what the SLPD provides now, then so be it…..we are not BOUND to accept any offer to “contract out”. I’d be most interested to hear what our current SLPD Chief thinks of the idea, along with his officers.

  5. Bernard Punsley says:

    Attorney Mulcahey advises that “order must be maintained”. Apparently, he’s never attended one of these meetings where the “RED JACKETS” pack the back row..and the wailing and gnashing of teeth can be heard all the way in the front row. This should be interesting. Our local elected Sheriff is coming to our local grade school to give a presentation that our local elected officials asked/invited him to do so, and we not only need a list of “rules” that we must abide by, we have a “contingency plan” in place in case the meeting gets unruly. Well, it is Silver Lake!!! Dispute that, folks!

  6. puzzeld says:

    What police cheif??????????????????????

  7. PUBLIC HEARING says:

    PUBLIC. Resident or non-resident, both are the public. Apparently people going thru and working in Silver Lake have no standing, yet they depend on the policing and could well have a valid opinion.

    I would suggest that the hearing be given a more specific name. If it isn’t a Public Hearing, then change it’s name. It sounds like Mulcahey is not an advocate for open government. It is unfortunate that the village attorney is a better President.

    Committee of the Whole but THREE don’t attend. Close to not having a quorum. Pitiful.

    All of this is standard presiding officer practice. Too bad it isn’t applied often enough to be the norm in Silver Lake.

  8. Good old Pat Dunn says:

    It sure was swell that Pat Dunn suggested that residents should only get 2 minutes to “present their case”. If he doesn’t want to sit on any committees and doesn’t want to listen to the people who elected him, maybe we need to vote him out next week so he has more time to do whatever it is he would rather be doing.

  9. DID YOU KNOW..... says:

    …that Silver Lake “Does Not” have to have a police department or contract with one?

    From the above story;
    “Sheriff will give overview — So far, little is known about the details of what an agreement for extra patrol of the village would include or cost.”

    That’s right folks, EXTRA PATROL.

    A “Village” in the state of Wisconsin “only” has to provide police protection when they have a population of over 5,000. Otherwise the county sheriff is obligated to do it. (The sheriff can always go anywhere in the county he wants, police department or not.)

    Every county resident pays taxes for the sheriff as part of their county tax bill. Silver Lake residents don’t get a rebate from the county for not needing sheriff’s coverage! Their county tax bill is the same as anybody else’s.

    So ask the sheriff if Silver Lake closed down their police department, what his obligation would be to the tax payers of Silver Lake and what if anything it would cost them extra.

    Sure, the “Village” of Paddock Lake “pays” for “extra” service to the sheriff’s department. Bristol too. But neither of them has to.

    If Salem ever became a “Village” they “would” have to because they have over 5,000 residents.

    So take that police department money and see if that would balance your budget. Or at least buy some tires!

  10. Political Pundit says:

    I must chuckle that these WOTI postings are now being used to demean Pat Dunn, when the issues featured in the article have NOTHING do to with his running for office! Mr. Dunn has been a beacon of light for our community and steadfastly REFUSES to bend to the pressure of the “good ol boys(& gals)club”.

  11. Bernard Punsley says:

    @”puzzeld”. Fact: We DO have a police “cheif”. Apparently, you were living in a cave when 2 police chiefs were appointed to share the duties part time to replace our former full time police chief. I’d suggest you start reading a newspaper and buy yourself a dictionary. You can avail yourself to both for free when our new library opens.

  12. Maintaining the Muzzle says:

    According to the guidelines developed by our attorney, if a meeting goer is not a “resident or taxpayer”, they will not be allowed to speak. Does this mean our current police chief and/or officers will be muzzled..if they are not “residents or taxpayers”? I’d like to hear what THEY have to say about the issue!

  13. To Political says:

    I’m sorry, was it someone else who was quoted as saying he only wanted to give residents 2 minutes to speak? How can Mr. Dunn be a beacon of light if he refuses to his job? The only thing he’s been “steadfast” at is to continue to collect his trustee check despite the fact he won’t do the job he was elected to do.

  • Follow us on

  • Archives