While he sought longer, District Attorney says he can 'live with' Becker's prison sentence

District Attorney Michael Nieskes said Thursday he wasn't surprised to learn Gary Becker was shopping for women's underwear 15 days before his sentencing hearing.

"I'm not surprised a sex offender who has a history of taking risks and making bad decisions on a regular basis on how to conduct themselves continued that behavior," Nieskes said.

DA Michael Nieskes making a point during hearing

Nieskes' office secured a three-year prison sentence for Becker on Wednesday on crimes related to the former mayor's arrest in an Internet sex sting in January 2009. The District Attorney had recommended Becker serve five years in prison for the crimes.

Judge Stephen Simanek sentenced Becker to three years in prison after learning Becker shopped at Boston Store last month for nine items of women's lingerie. Simanek said before learning about the shopping trip he was prepared to give Becker probation for his crimes.

Nieskes said Thursday the revelation of Becker's shopping trip didn't change his recommendation of five years in prison.

"My recommendation didn't change, but it strengthened my argument," Nieskes said.

As for Simanek's decision, Nieskes said he stood by his recommendation for the five years in prison. But he added he had no comment for or against Judge Stephen Simanek's sentencing.

"The judge made his determination. I don't feel it's appropriate to comment one way or the other," Nieskes said. "The judge had a different interpretation. It's a ruling I'll live with."

Becker's attorney, Patrick Cafferty, said Wednesday he would talk with Becker about appealing the judge's ruling. Nieskes said there's not much to appeal. Becker plead guilty to the two felonies he was sentenced on, and the state gives circuit court judges a great deal of power over sentencing.

"I don't know what the basis of the appeal would be," Nieskes said. "I feel this case is a very solid case. The record is clear. It doesn't mean someone won't file an appeal."

As for the revelation during the hearing that Becker admitted to having an affair with two city employees while mayor, Nieskes said the information came from a written statement by Becker and medical reports taken while Becker was receiving treatment.

All of the documents that report Becker's affairs were sealed by the court and unavailable to the public, Nieskes said. This is typical in criminal trials, he said.

DA won't charge mayor, aldermen for secret meeting violation

District Attorney Mike Nieskes will not pursue a violation of the open meetings law against Mayor John Dickert, City Attorney Rob Weber and five members of the Racine City Council.

In a letter (full text below) to Pete Karas, who filed the complaint with the DA's office, Nieskes rejected Karas' arguments and criticized him for bringing the alleged violation to the attention of the media.

... when we met for the first time on August 5, 2009, you indicated to me that you had already been to the media at that time. This caused me to question your statement that you were interested in open and informed government. If you were truly interested in that process, I believe you should at the minimum give law enforcement the opportunity to review those matters prior to giving an interview to the press.

Karas said Monday he was disappointed, but not surprised, by Nieskes' ruling.

"I had a feeling the DA wouldn't do his duty to defend open government," he said. "... it certainly appears his decision not to go forward was a political decision."

(Read the JT's version of the story here.)

With Nieskes declining to pursue charges, Karas is now allowed to file his complaint directly with a Racine County judge. Karas said he met with an attorney who specializes in open meetings cases and is considering his options. He also intends to monitor city government for further violations.

Karas' complaint dates back to a July 7 meeting of the city's Executive Committee, which met in closed session to discuss City Administrator Tom Friedel's contract. The committee gave public notice of the meeting less than 24 hours in advance of the start time, held a quorum of the full City Council and gave no specifics about what would be discussed at the meeting.

City officials defended the meeting saying they could call an "emergency meeting" to discuss Friedel's contract, which allowed them to bypass the requirement for 24-hour notice of a public meeting.

Nieskes dismissed the quorum argument without addressing the fact that enough members of the council attended the Executive Committee meeting for it, basically, to be considered a City Council meeting. He simply said the Executive Committee and City Council, which met right after the committee meeting, were separate bodies. State law forbids the City Council from meeting twice within 12 hours.

As for notification, Nieskes said the city didn't need to give specifics about what would be discussed the meeting. Nieskes wrote in his letter that Dickert didn't want media to attend because "no final decision had been made as to who was chosen for the job." Dickert announced he had chosen Friedel for the job on June 25 - nearly two weeks before the July 7 meeting.

The ironic aspect of this issue is the meeting backfired on Dickert. The new mayor hoped to build consensus on the issue before the council's vote on Friedel's contract, but questions still emerged from the secret meeting.

Alderman Jeff Coe, feeling trapped by the council's rules, took the unusual step on July 22 using the council's public comment period to suggest the committee had agreed to pay Friedel $85,000 per year, only to later learn (after the vote) that Friedel was making $95,000 per year.

If Dickert and the council had simply met in open session, hashed out a deal and moved forward, none of this confusion would have happened. It's much easier to govern in the sunshine than in the shadows.

Here's Nieskes' full letter:


August 26, 2009
Mr. Pete Karas
821 Blame Avenue
Racine, WI 53405


Dear Sir:
On August 6, 2009, you filed a complaint under the Open Meeting statute 19.84, regarding the Public Notice of Meetings of Governmental bodies. Your allegations were
that a meeting of the Executive Committee on July 7, 2009, in the City of Racine, was in violation of those statutes and asked that a portion of the individuals attending the meeting be held responsible and a forfeiture action to recover a penalty against them be initiated. You had come to this office on the previous day, had a discussion with me regarding the complaint; when various errors in the complaint were pointed out, you were asked whether or not you wanted an investigation to begin or wait until you filed a complaint. You indicated you would be filing a complaint in the future. I informed you that I would begin my legal review of the materials promptly. That afternoon there were conversations with a lawyer from the Attorney General’s staff. We reviewed specifically the provisions of Chapter 19.84(3) which require notice of any governmental body be given at least 24 hours prior to the commencement of said meeting unless for good cause, such notice is impossible or impractical, in which case a shorter notice may be given, but in no case may the notice of the meeting be provided in less than 2 hours in advance of
the meeting.

The next day, I requested that an investigator from the Sheriff’s Department review these matters and conduct an investigation. Later that day, the verified complaint was received at my office with the corrections that we discussed being included.
The following is my accurate summary of the matter:

On July 6, 2009, Mayor John Dickert asked his Administrative Assistant Greg Bach to
notify aldermen if they had questions about the issue of appointment of the City
Administrator that he would be in his office at 5:30 until 7:00 p.m. on July 7th to discuss this matter.

At approximately 4:58 p.m. on that day, Mr. Bach sent an email to the aldermen indicating there would be a “meeting” in the Mayor’s office.

Mayor Dickert states that he had discussed the matter with the City Attorney. Mayor Dickert said City Attorney Weber advised the meeting needed to be noticed and there
was a discussion about the meeting being closed. Mayor Dickert, when interviewed by
the investigator stated that he wanted to include the aldermen in the process of electing a new city administrator but did not have to and desired to have their input. He stated he also did not want the media at the meeting as no final decision had been made as to who was chosen for the job and therefore asked for the meeting to be closed.

Alderman David Maack responded at approximately 9:48 p.m., on July 6, 2009, that given the nature of Greg Bach’s email that this meeting needed to be noticed.

City Attorney Rob Weber states, based on David Maack’s email that on July 7, 2009, at 8:58 p.m., he informed the Deputy Clerk to notice the meeting to be as a closed meeting of the Executive Council beginning at 5:30. The purpose of being in closed session was to discuss a personnel matter, an exemption under the statute for having a meeting in closed session.

A meeting was held of the Executive Council of which a number of members of the City Council attended including the Mayor. The meeting was in closed session.

Mr. Karas, you complain about three violations. First, is that it was improperly posted as an emergency meeting. Under Wis. Stats. Chapter 19, there is no use of the phrase “emergency meeting.” Under 19.84(3), a partial quote reads: “Unless for good cause, such notice is impossible or impractical, in which case shorter notice may be given, but in no case may the notice be provided less than 2 hours in advance of the meeting.”

Here it appears that when the oversight was determined based upon the email of Alderperson Maack, the meeting was noticed at that point, it was impossible to give it notice of 24 hours or greater, and still held the meeting. In my review with the Assistant Attorney General, there is no Wisconsin case law or opinions by the Attorney General on the definition of this portion of the statute regarding impractical and impossible, nor is there any definitions of what qualifies it as an emergency. While the better practice would have been to postpone the discussion until a point where the 24-hour notice could have been given, inasmuch as the Mayor and members of the City Council were acting upon the advice of counsel in how to handle this matter at that point, I cannot believe that a forfeiture matter would prevail. The lack of direction by prior case law, by opinions of the Attorney General, and the fact that the individuals’ counsel was consulted and determined the course of action, demonstrates that all the individuals acted in good faith in holding of the meeting.

Therefore, it is the determination of the District Attorney’s Office that there is no action that lies on this issue.

Your next complaint is that violation does not properly notice the discussion. As I stated previously, it is an exemption from the Open Meetings portion of the statute that personnel matters can be discussed in closed sessions pursuant to Chapter 19.85(1 )(c). I believe the description that is found in the minutes posted albeit before 9:00 a.m. on the morning of the meeting on July 7, 2009, accurately described the subject matter. The subject matter is, “It is intended the Executive Committee will convene in closed session pursuant to Wis. Stat. Sec. 19. 85(1)(c) to consider the employment compensation of the public employee over which the common Council has jurisdiction or exercise ability.” By my reading and my review with the Assistant Attorney General, that is an adequate notification. To have further information would erase the allowable purpose of closed session matters. Therefore, I cannot find there was a violation of the Open Meetings statute pursuant to that matter.

The final complaint is the two meetings were one body within 12 hours. If the argument is that these are actually one meeting of the Common Council occurring in closed and open sessions of each other, I find that that allegation has no basis in fact. These are two separate meetings of two separate bodies. The fact the bodies have overlapping members do not make it a meeting of one body.

Based on my review and findings, there is no basis for a prosecution for a forfeiture
action against any of the individuals and none will be filed by this office. In addition, I feel I must comment on two matters regarding this complaint. First, as the complainant you have acknowledged to me that you knew of other individuals who attended your alleged improper meeting, but you were electing not to file a complaint against them. I am somewhat disappointed that you would pick and choose only certain attendees to pursue any action against. I don’t know the basis for your selective complaint, but I do not believe it would be an appropriate action if this office had engaged in the same sort of behavior. Second, is my disappointment that when we met for the first time on August 5, 2009, you indicated to me that you had already been to the media at that time. This caused me to question your statement that you were interested in open and informed government. If you were truly interested in that process, I believe you should at the minimum give law enforcement the opportunity to review those matters prior to giving an interview to the press. While a review by the press is an important component to an open government with an informed electorate, I believe these actions call into question your actual motives.

Sincerely,


MICHAEL E. NIESKES
Racine County District Attorney

cc
John Dickert, Mayor, City of Racine, City Hall, 730 Washington Ave., Racine, WI 53403
Greg Helding, Alderperson, City of Racine, City Hall, 730 Washington Ave., Racine, WI
53403
Aron Wisneski, Alderperson, City of Racine, City HaIl, 730 Washington Ave., Racine,
WI
Sandy Weidner, Alderperson, City of Racine, City Hall, 730 Washington Ave., Racine,
WI 53403
James Spangenberg, Alderperson, City of Racine, City Hall, 730 Washington Ave.,
Racine, WI 53403
Rob Weber, City Attorney, City Hall, 730 Washington Ave., Racine, WI 53403

More money for police, but churches must step up

City and county press conference on rising crime:
Zarzecki, Carlson, Nieskes, McReynolds, Wahlen and Becker

County and city officials presented a united front today, promising more resources to fight crime in Racine.

Mayor Gary Becker said the city will provide an additional $200,000 to cover Racine Police overtime; County Executive Bill McReynolds said the county will give $150,000 to County Sheriff Bob Carlson, who said it will provide an extra deputy, another criminal investigator and support staff for a "suppression effort." Mount Pleasant Police Chief Tim Zarzecki said the village will cover overtime for his forces to patrol the four-blocks on the east side of the village that abutt Racine's crime area.

"I want to relieve the fears of the community, which has been fed a steady diet of crime in the local media," said Racine Police Chief Kurt Wahlen. "I want to reassure the community: we have things under control. Members of the community should not live in fear."

Becker said, "I stand 100% behind this chief and the police force. He's been creative and aggressive."

McReynolds said, "Public safety is the No. 1 job of any elected official. Racine County will not tolerate lawlessness."

But the "six white men" - as one person in the audience referred to Becker, McReynolds, Wahlen, Zarzecki, Carlson and District Attorney Michael Nieskes - got into trouble with some in the audience of about 70. The press conference at City Hall got heated after the officials called one too many times for help from the "faith-based community," and more action within the African-American community.

Wahlen said, "The long-range solution: it's a community problem. The faith-based community must step up. Where are the African-American males?" he asked rhetorically, referring to a peace march he attended Saturday at which no more than a half-dozen of the 100 adults present were black. Becker, too, called upon the "faith-based community" -- PC code for black churches: "Others have a responsibility to provide opportunities, to give people hope."

Added Wahlen: "Good people do not steal from one another; good people do not shoot one another." He said, "We all have our part to do. Kids are not being taken care of; they're sleeping in their clothes on the floor, watching violent videos, playing violent video games." There's been, he said, "a breakdown of the family, no dad in the house. We need family and the faith-based community to solve it."

Journal Times reporter Janine Anderson asked, "Why lay so much on the faith-based community?" Wahlen responded, "Only a spiritual endeavor can change a heart. They need to step forward and put their money where their faith is."

Former District 1 alderman Keith Fair, who is now the local NAACP's political action chair, called Wahlen out on his statement that blacks must step forward. Wahlen replied, "It's a fact they're not stepping up to the plate." Fair responded, "We never call for those black men until there's an event like this. Don't make an indictment against this community."

The discussion also touched on poverty, joblessness and economics, and the culture of our times.

The chief said he saw the new Batman movie. It was good, he said, but part of "a very violent culture, a gun-toting culture."

Poverty and unemployment were major themes. A woman from Mount Pleasant spoke up and said, "We need jobs. You can't support a family on $5 and $6 an hour."

Becker replied, "There are 600 to 700 jobs posted at the Workforce Development Center." But they're not for the unskilled, as in years past, when he said hard work was enough.

"This is a brutal economy, and there's nothing I can do to change it," the mayor said.

But he insisted, "Crime is not kids stealing to help mom." And Wahlen noted, "We've not had anyone busted for going into a grocery store stealing bread."

Other points discussed:

Sheriff Carlson: "This used to be a rural county; no longer. We are going to redeploy a number of our patrol staff to the City of Racine. We cannot go on like this; it creates a climate that is unacceptable."

District Attorney Nieskes: "There are a lot of initiatives, a lot of efforts under way. Two shootings in one week: that really, truly is not the norm." But he said it's not as bad compared to '92-'96. "This is not something that occurred overnight; it took decades...and in two decades, the new mayor and county executive will still be dealing with the problem."

Chief Wahlen said, "Obviously, I'm not happy about the 2008 statistics." He said the crime stats are well above 2007's, "but that year was the lowest since 1967." robberies are on a six-year trend up, unemployment is up. But vehicle theft has dropped 40%, he said, "perhaps because people cannot afford gas."

He said he has been patrolling the streets, visiting neighborhoods where the latest shootings occurred. "I want to reassure the neighborhoods that these are not random acts." He pointed out that the two latest slayings started "behind closed doors." The implication was that police could not have prevented them.