Sprawled Out: The Search for Community in the American Suburb

Fear of the electorate wins: Franklin is latest to pass bizarre ordinance

Shrewd. Franklin has now joined the "anti-sick day" conga line.

Alderman Steve Taylor - - a decidedly pro-business alderman if ever there was one (he is single-handedly responsible for the Staybridge hotel's $9,000 grant from the city; somebody try to tell me different)- - was not present for the vote or debate. He may have been another "no" or "abstain" vote. This issue is so pressing and important, evidently, that the council deemed it appropriate to debate and vote on it without a member present - - the same member who wisely delayed the measure by having it sent for discussion to various commissions and committees.

But, at the same time, it's an unfortunate trade-off for Alderman Steve Olson in that he will not have the bogus "anti-business" bludgeon to wield on Taylor. You can't win 'em all.

So, when you feel the time has come to petition local government for remedy to abuses by an employer or employers in Franklin, remember who voted to take that right away from you just as we ramp up to uncertain and harrowing economic times. (FranklinNow, predictably, missed that element of the ordinance in their "analysis.")

Sick days? The ordinance doesn't even mention them.

Also: Shouldn't any alderman who employs people in a business of his or her own have to abstain from voting on this issue?

From franklinnow.com (complete with inaccurate headline)

Franklin is latest city to ban sick-day mandate

By John Neville, Franklin NOW

The Franklin Common Council Tuesday approved an ordinance that says the city cannot require Franklin private employers to provide "particular wages or benefits" to their employees.

The ordinance tallied "yes" votes from District 1 Alderman Steve Olson, District 2 Alderman Tim Solomon, District 5 Alderman Lyle Sohns and District 6 Alderman Ken Skowronski. District 3 Alderman Kristen Wilhelm, who opposed the measure, abstained. District 4 Alderman Steve Taylor had an excused absence and did not vote.

The Franklin ordinance, proposed by Olson, comes after city of Milwaukee voters in November approved a referendum to create an ordinance that requires employers to provide varying amounts of paid sick leave to their employees. St. Francis, Greenfield, Oak Creek, West Allis and South Milwaukee adopted similar ordinances earlier this year.

Franklin aldermen to take Loyalty Oath tonight: Fear of the electorate prompts "me too" ordinance

On tonight's Common Council agenda, an item reads:

G. Reports and Recommendations
 1. Ordinance to Create Chapter 191 of the Municipal Code Relating to the Non-Regulation
  of Employee Wages or Benefits for Private Businesses (Ald. Olson).

Were it a more honest or prosaic document, the agenda item would more accurately read as follows:

G. Reports and Recommendations
 1. Extraction of Business Loyalty Oaths, election brochure bullet point creation, prevention of unified action by a populous whose potential judgment and actions are feared (Ald. Olson).

To pluck from the array of folksy platitudes that regularly emanate from Alderman Steve Olson: This is "a solution looking for a problem" (I harvested that one from the 2/3/09 Common Council discussion on dog leashes).

It is also clearly an indication that Alderman Olson - who has shrewdly designed the unneeded ordinance so a vote against it seems to be a vote against business -  appears to fear the will of the electorate.

Let's pretend that this ordinance (see below) actually had something to do with paid sick leave.

FACT: There is no Sick Pay law or rule pending in or suggested for Franklin.

FACT: The City of Milwaukee's Sick Pay Law has been suspended by the courts and faces review.

FACT: If a Sick Pay law actually "threatened" to be imposed on Franklin, the Common Council could enact a blocking ordinance in a matter of hours.

FACT: The Franklin electorate has not shown itself to be predisposed toward generating a Paid Sick Leave ordinance, and the needs of the working population of Franklin are different than that of an urban core that very much needs a sick leave law of some sort.

Now, consider this:

Number of times Alderman Olson's proposed ordinance mentions the phrase "paid sick leave": ZERO

Number of times Alderman Olson's proposed ordinance mentions the word "sick": ZERO

This is not an ordinance that surgically prevents Paid Sick Leave. However, the ordinance does eliminate the ability of the electorate to effect direct legislation as it applies to employee wages and benefits.

In other words, the Franklin Common Council is going to enact an ordinance that takes away the power of direct legislation from the people of Franklin - - the ability to petition for reform as needed and requested by the people of the city - - under the guise of simply "preventing paid sick leave."

(This fact has not gone unnoticed by blogger Fred Keller.)

Think of it: As we face the most seismic economic event of our lifetimes; as blue- and white-color workers alike begin to flood the unemployment pool; as uncertainty looms large in the months and years ahead: Alderman Olson is saying NONREGULATION is our only hope, and we need to take away the right of the people to petition directly for reform as the situation unfolds.

Ludicrous. But the ordinance will pass because Olson is savvy enough to position this as a Loyalty Oath for members of the Common Council. He has briefed his public relations blogger (who has apparently not even read the ordinance but managed to dutifully pass along a veiled threat nonetheless: "If an alderman or two vote against this pro-business, pro-jobs measure, it will be very telling"), and rest assured Alderman Olson already has draft language of his "pro-business stand" in his re-election brochure. He will vilify any aldermen who dare see this ordinance for what it is and properly move to set it aside or vote against it.

I predict that no alderman will vote against it. I could speak against the ordinance and vote against recommending it as an Economic Development Commissioner because my position there is not an elective office; I have much more latitude than an alderman. Barring a miracle, this will pass tonight, easily.

So, what's in this ordinance for us? The loss of one of our basic rights as citizens as we enter "interesting times." What's in it for certain members of the Common Council? Re-election fodder.

One company that will be very pleased and will once again contribute to the re-election efforts of those aldermen who toe the line will be Wal-Mart.

Because of paid sick leave? No - were it only so simple. With their enormous cash reserves and monolithic leverage against suppliers, Wal-Mart may well emerge the "last man standing" in retail and grocery for a period of time as businesses fold and pull back. They will be looking at an enormous pool of former full-time workers looking for new full-time work, and when you have 50 people applying for five full-time positions, you can do things like eliminate ALL full-time positions and convert everyone to part-time.

Think they won't do it? Guess again.

And what will the citizens of Franklin - - who can rightly assert that waivers, subsidies, and other benefits granted by the city to Wal-Mart should be repaid in the form of at least a few full-time jobs - -  be able to do about that situation if this ordinance passes?

Nothing. That right is stripped from the populous by this ordinance.

Because someone fears the potential will of the people.

Below, the ordinance minus the "whereas's":

Proposed ORDINANCE NO. 2009-_____

AN ORDINANCE TO CREATE CHAPTER 191 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO THE NON-REGULATION OF EMPLOYEE WAGES OR BENEFITS FOR PRIVATE BUSINESSES

SECTION 1:     Chapter 191 of the Municipal Code of the City of Franklin, Wisconsin, is hereby created to read as follows:

“Chapter 191 PRIVATE BUSINESS EMPLOYEE WAGE AND BENEFIT NON-REGULATION

§191-1.  Limitation of municipal regulation.
No ordinance of the City of Franklin or any other municipal ordinance, rule, or regulation shall require that any private employer provide particular wages or benefits to its employees or set forth the amount or type of any employee wage or benefit provided an employee working within the City or doing business with the City, except as may be required by another governmental agency funded project, such as the Community Development Block Grant program or the like, or by way of State or Federal statute or administrative code or rule.  ”

SECTION 2:     The terms and provisions of this ordinance are severable.  Should any term or provision of this ordinance be found to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining terms and provisions shall remain in full force and effect.

SECTION 3:    All ordinances and parts of ordinances in contravention to this ordinance are hereby repealed.

SECTION 4:    This ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after its passage and publication.

Never too late for incentives in Franklin?

Last night the Franklin Common Council voted 4-1 to approve a $9,000 "grant" for a Class B reserve liquor license for Staybridge Suites Hotel (Alderman Olson voted no).

In other words, Staybridge will not have to pay $9,000 of the $10,000 fee.

The FranklinNOW online story states: Alderman Timothy Solomon said the hotel would bring much needed new revenue to the city.

"Would bring...". Not "will." So, Staybridge Suites is convinced to break ground now that this incentive is in place, right?

No - - Staybridge Suites is scheduled to open next month - - anyone driving past the corner of Ryan and 27th Street can see the structure pretty much ready to go.

Wha...?

Call me crazy, but perhaps a $9k "grant" could be better spent incentivizing a commercial opportunity in Franklin that is not days from opening!

As promised, I've submitted the issue for discussion as an agenda item for the next Economic Development Commission meeting (January 26).

In the meantime, Mark Hansen
 Director of Sales and Marketing
 Staybridge Suites has posted a comment on Greg Kowalski's Franklin Today blog which raises more questions than it answers.

Here is the text of my agenda item (with downloadable PDF as well); Download Staybridge EDC agenda item

As the issue has immediate and far-ranging impact on economic development policy and procedure in Franklin, I would like to submit as an agenda discussion item the following:

STAYBRIDGE SUITES:
$9000 LIQUOR LICENSE “GRANT” ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

It’s my goal to examine this specific instance in proper detail in order to improve policy and communications regarding economic development measures under consideration now and in the future.

Suggested non-commission participants:
    Mayor Tom Taylor
   
Our discussion should include, but not limit itself to, the following:

1) Define the parameters of the “grant”

2) Create a detailed timeline showing
•    Where and how this proposal was generated
•    Who made the primary approach (did this originate from STAYBRIDGE or the City of Franklin?)
•    At what point was this issue discussed by/brought before the EDC, if at all? What, if any, was the EDC’s recommendation?
   
3) Communication issues
•    Why is a comment on a blog the first place people read/hear about the specific details of this grant (see attachment: “Franklin Today” blog comment: Mark Hansen
 Director of Sales and Marketing
 Staybridge Suites Franklin)
•    Is Hansen’s description accurate?

4) Precedent issues: pro and con
•    Strategy: Does this “grant” bind the City of Franklin in discussions with other developers?
•    Legal: Does this “grant” bind the City of Franklin in discussions with other developers?
•    Fairness: Can this “grant,” or one like it, be offered as an incentive to a locally-owned business?
•    Example: Coffee/snack shop in front of Franklin library on Drexel/Loomis corner to spur community/commercial development in a focused area of public space.

5) Benefits
•    How does the $9000 “grant” create a better economic development situation for Franklin?

6) Deficits
•    How could the $9000 “grant” adversely affect Franklin?

7) Straw poll
•    EDC membership votes “for” or “against” the Staybridge “grant” in nonbinding open vote

Submitted 1/7/09.

Free liquor license for Franklin hotel? So much for taking enforcement seriously

As a member of the Franklin Economic Development Commission, I say "NO." Then I ask, "Why are we even considering this?"

If this strange measure passes, I will ask to put the issue on the agenda of one of the EDC's infrequent meetings and get a big white board out so we can list all of the "advantages" of handing Staybridge Suites 10k that they apparently didn't even ask for.

The white board will likely remain pretty darn white, if I indeed even get the cap off the dry-erase marker.

Then we can talk about how the Buckhorn Inn, the bar right across the street from Staybridge (though you'd be crazy to attempt to walk there), also didn't take its liquor license so seriously.

Want to give Staybridge $10,000 that we evidently have laying around in petty cash? Write 'em a check and print a picture of the presentation in the NOW community newspaper. Don't, however, thumb your nose at the serious responsibility that comes with serving alcohol on the premises by waving off the fee.

Why should any other business bother paying any fees to the city?

From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

Jan. 5, 2009 | Franklin Mayor Tom Taylor will ask the Common Council on Tuesday to reconsider giving the city's first hotel a $10,000 liquor license for free.

The proposal for Staybridge Suites first was considered by the council Dec. 16 and failed on a 4-3 vote. Taylor cast the tie-breaking vote, but said today that he would like the council to reconsider the matter.

Taylor said the extended-stay hotel, which is due to open at 9527 S. 27th St. next month, is different from taverns that pay for liquor licenses. He noted that the city collects room taxes from the hotel and that Staybridge offers the possibility of drawing first-time visitors to Franklin.

Taylor said he didn't know whether the city had ever waived the liquor license fee before.

Wal-Mart's thrifty charity work vs. genuine community outreach

Here's something interesting I learned in the book Deep Economy: The three heirs to the Wal-Mart fortune are among the ten richest people on the earth, worth $90 billion. According to Fortune magazine, the city of Bentonville, Arkansas, where their family began to make their fortunes, home of Wal-Mart, runs a budget deficit and can't afford a new sewage treatment plant.

I guess it should be no surprise, then, to read (via Fred Keller's BULLSEYE blog) that Franklin's Wal-Mart and Sam's Club combined to donate a whopping $8,000 $5,000 to various Franklin institutions and charities. {Sharp-eyed reader Scott Thinnes called my attention to some awkward language in the NOW story below; I actually erroniously added the TOTAL of two grants to the two amounts that comprised it.)

From FranklinNOW.com:

On Friday, December 5th, 2008, the City of Franklin received a donation of $3,000 from Sam's Club/Walmart. A grant of $2,000 to the Franklin Public Library towards replacement of the children's computers in the children's library area was received by Barbara Roark, Franklin Public Library Director.

A second grant of $1,000 was received by City of Franklin Police Chief, Rick Oliva, who stated that the grant would be used for public programs such as National Night Out and Bicycle Safety programs.

Sam's Club/Walmart finished the grants presentation at the Franklin Sam's Club location with a $2,000 grant to the Salvation Army to be used for holiday donations to over 400 families.

As I noted in the BULLSEYE comment section: Color me unimpressed. $5,000? Not great, I'm afraid. Wal-Mart can find 8k under their fingernails at the end of a day. You do better if you're a politician with a blog: Wal-Mart gave Mary Lazich $1,000, and got for their money, among other favors, an ostensibly Lazich-authored blog entitled "Wal-Mart to the Rescue"(!)

Bottom line: 5k is certainly not compensation for the corporate socialism Wal-Mart extracts from the local and federal government.

And, to my friend Bryan Maersch (now blogging here) who commented: ""Right or Wrong, Walmart is a big part of our economy," I have to say just this:

Right or wrong? I don't care how "big" you are; I believe we should expect RIGHT in all cases.

Let's contrast Wal-Mart's, er, thriftyness with the generosity of Dave Hahn of the Greenfield Outback Steak House. He was honored last night by the Greenfield Chamber of Commerce as Business of the Year.

This is what Mr. Hahn does: Each year, he chooses ten charities and community groups to host a fundraiser. The fundraiser costs are set by the charity or organization, and what they collect they get to keep, free and clear. This year's beneficiaries were Greenfield Friends of Music, Greenfield Education Association, Wisconsin String Teachers, Downs Syndrome Association, National Campaign for Muscular Dystrophy/Friedrich Ataxia, and local churches.

Outback Steak House is a chain, but Dave Hahn is a local franchisee who recognizes his community's needs and takes positive, ongoing, focused action. His kind of giving takes an appreciable bite from his personal bottom line, but creates the kind of goodwill that gets people like me (and everyone I talk to for the next month or so) over to his restaurant for a dinner or two, or three.

As for Wal-Mart; they'll do fine without me.

Cudahy rejects Wal-Mart Supercenter proposal - JSOnline

No more rubber stamps for the retail giant?

Cudahy rejects Wal-Mart Supercenter proposal - JSOnline:

By Tom Daykin of the Journal Sentinel

Posted: Dec. 3, 2008 11:08 a.m.

A Wal-Mart Supercenter proposed for Cudahy ran into a big roadblock Tuesday night when the Common Council voted against approving the framework for the project's development agreement.

Council members rejected a proposed "memorandum of understanding" between the city and developer Continental Properties Co.

Approving the memorandum would pave the way for a more detailed development agreement with Continental, which wants to build the Cudahy Station retail development on 26 acres, south of E. Layton Ave., between S. Nicholson Ave. and Sweet Applewood Lane. The development would be anchored by the 134,000-square-foot Supercenter, a combined supermarket and discount store.

The project isn't necessarily dead as a result of the vote. But, as the delays pile up, "the less likely it is to happen," said Steve Wagner, Continental's vice president for retail leasing.

"We're evaluating all of our options," Wagner said today. A Wal-Mart executive couldn't be immediately reached for comment.

Ald. Mary Schissel said she voted against the memorandum because her constituents told her they didn't want a Wal-Mart, partly due to objections they had over the retailer's wages.

"They didn't see it as an improvement," she said.

Continental's original plan included development of an indoor soccer training academy operated by the Milwaukee Wave soccer team. But plans for the soccer facility have been delayed, with Continental seeking to begin construction next summer on the Supercenter.

The project site is home to the failed Iceport indoor skating complex.

Consumerist Insiders: Is Walmart Price-Gouging Hurricane Victims?

As someone who dealt with a flooding event back in June, I know all too well what it means to have to quickly purchase items needed for day-to-day existence. You don't have time to shop around (I even bought ethernet wire at Best Buy, which is insane, pricewise) and you are very much at the mercy of decisions made by suppliers and retailers. Fortunately - - except for a run on dehumidifiers - - our local area was not so uniformly hit that shortages or gouging occurred.

Not so in larger weather events, unfortunately. The story below notes that Wal-Mart's sudden price hike on cellphone chargers may have been a coincidence, but anyone who has studied Wal-Mart's sophisticated "just in time" pricing and inventory system knows that nothing happens there by chance. They know how many boxes of Cheerios are on a shelf at store number 2354 in Peoria right this second.

Raise the price to avert shortages? It wasn't long ago that Wal-Mart apologists were back-slapping the retailer for utilizing their sophisticated inventory and stocking system to be pin-point prepared for Katrina. The Wall Street Journal gushed:

Wal-Mart mined its vast databases of past purchases to compile lists of goods most desired after a hurricane. (Among the top items? Strawberry pop tarts.) Because of its advance logistics planning, the big retail chain was able to quickly move in to devastated areas with mini Wal-Marts to hand out goods. Other firms leveraged similar supply-chain capabilities; Pfizer dispensed pharmaceuticals via Wal-Mart and other retailers. "What companies do is solve problems," says Johanna Schneider, an executive director at the Business Roundtable.

Pop Tarts? Check. Wait a minute; are they strawberry? Check!

Ooops - - forgot to order extra .... battery chargers? Guess they would have been "desirable."

From the Consumerist:

Is Walmart Price-Gouging Hurricane Victims? [Insiders]:

(Photo: chasingfun)

A Walmart insider tells us that the price of cellphone chargers nearly doubled on orders from Walmart HQ in the wake of Hurricane Ike. Before the hurricane, chargers cost from $10-$15, but afterwards, they rose to a uniform $19.

"Study": Wal-Mart causes weight loss! Hooray! In other news: Rattlesnake bites cause weight loss!

A reader directed me to this pile of pap at the "MSN moneyblog topstocks" (boy, that sounds promising) site.

One can easily imagine a recent phone conversation between this "article's" author and Bentonville, home of Wal-Mart:

"Just make that check out to Anthony Mirhaydari, Spelled m-i-r-h-a-y-d-a-r-i. No, I won't take in-store credit ..."

(UPDATE: Another reader tells me that my tipster may have seen the Wal-Mart story here. Oops - I guess one man's "hero" is another man's blood-sucking, corporate socialist.)

MSN Money:

Wal-Mart Causing Weight Loss
By Anthony Mirhaydari

In the latest surprise to come out of the halls of academia, researchers have found "robust evidence" that Wal-Mart is responsible for slimming down not only its shoppers, but the people of the community surrounding it.

As I discussed in my first-ever post on Top Stocks, Wal-Mart is able to expand real incomes thanks to its zealous commitment to low prices. A separate study has found that there is up to a 1.2% reduction in grocery prices at competing locations when Wal-Mart enters a market. So even if you don't shop at one, you're still benefiting.

According to the research, people armed with greater purchasing power substitute healthier, higher quality foods like fresh fruits and vegetables into their diets while avoiding processed foods high in fat. For every 100,000 residents, the addition of one Wal-Mart increases produce consumption by 2%, to roughly four servings per day. This causes a statistically significant weight loss of half a pound.

An even bigger impact is made on lower-income shoppers, who spend a larger percentage of their disposable income on food and household goods. These folks are also traditionally more likely to suffer from obesity.

The key is whether or not unhealthy foods are considered "inferior goods" in the eyes of consumers. If so, than income gains caused by Wal-Mart will decrease consumption in favor of healthier foods. If not, than people will just buy more junk food with their extra money. At this point, the evidence seems to support the former.

Another caveat, sure to be mentioned frequently in the comments below, is whether Wal-Mart negatively affects actual earned incomes by forcing small businesses to close. Research in this area is mixed, I will admit. For the sake of argument, and citing a study that finds net job creation in the near-term, the authors assume Wal-Mart's presence is a positive.

If you seem underwhelmed by the result, know that the weight drop could've been much larger: An additional Wal-Mart is related to a 2.9% reduction in the probability of engaging in regular exercise. Most likely, the researchers report, people didn't have that nagging urge to hit the gym as a better diet kept their weight down naturally.

Still, every little bit helps. Plus, these findings play into Wal-Mart's continued efforts to rebrand itself as a benevolent corporate entity and appeal to those urban and suburban shoppers that avoid the retailer -- and the gym, for that matter.

Be sure to join in the discussion, either in the comment field below or on the MSN Money message boards.

(Disclosure: I don’t control a position in any of the companies mentioned)

Read the rest - - and especially the comments - - at MSN Money.

Then read this:

Surprise: Wal-Mart attempts to rally its employees against Democratic victory

From that liberal rag, The Wall Street Journal:

Wal-Mart Warns of Democratic Win

By ANN ZIMMERMAN and KRIS MAHER

August 1, 2008; Page A1

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is mobilizing its store managers and department supervisors around the country to warn that if Democrats win power in November, they'll likely change federal law to make it easier for workers to unionize companies -- including Wal-Mart.

In recent weeks, thousands of Wal-Mart store managers and department heads have been summoned to mandatory meetings at which the retailer stresses the downside for workers if stores were to be unionized.

According to about a dozen Wal-Mart employees who attended such meetings in seven states, Wal-Mart executives claim that employees at unionized stores would have to pay hefty union dues while getting nothing in return, and may have to go on strike without compensation. Also, unionization could mean fewer jobs as labor costs rise.

Not to mention three fewer vacation homes for the CEO. God forbid workers make a living wage. I'd love to see the PowerPoint presentation that goes with this little campaign.

Read the rest here.

Victory for government transparency: "Beaver Dam Area Development Corp." exposed

Imagine learning that Wal-Mart is plopping a huge distribution center into your community only after your City Council approves - - without discussion - - an agreement with the company that includes zoning changes, water service, fire protection, and $6.18 million in incentives.

Imagine further that a group of people met secretly for months to set up that situation, and you have no right to know they exist or the content of their meetings. Nor can you identify elected officials on that shadow committee who have banked large financial contributions from the Walton family and their affiliates.

A developer's paradise - - now endangered by a wise court ruling.

From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

High court says Beaver Dam meetings should be public

By DAN BENSON

dbenson@journalsentinel.com

A state Supreme Court ruling that a Beaver Dam economic development group is a quasi-governmental organization and must obey the state’s open meetings and open records laws has been hailed as a victory for open government and criticized as a threat to economic development.

The Beaver Dam Area Development Corp. secretly negotiated for months in 2003 with Wal-Mart to build a $55 million, 1.2-million-square-foot distribution center on about 400 acres north of the city. The group negotiated zoning changes, water service, fire protection and other items, including $6.18 million in incentives.

Those details did not become public until the City Council approved without discussion a 13-page memorandum of understanding with Wal-Mart.

Bill Lueders, president of the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council, called the 4-2 decision “a good ruling,” saying the development agency “had no legitimate right to claim that it was exempt” from the open meetings and records laws.

Jim Hough, a consultant to the Wisconsin Economic Development Association, said “there’s not a lot of guidance” in the court’s decision, which held that whether a group is quasi-governmental needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis.

“This case has left everybody confused,” Hough said.

“It’s hard to provide legal advice in light of that decision. It’s difficult, if not impossible."

Legislative action?

The association’s board of directors met Wednesday to discuss drafting legislation to clarify rules governing private-public development partnerships.

The issue is important because hundreds of counties and municipalities across the state employ private economic development groups to attract industry, coordinate development, and, as in Beaver Dam’s case, negotiate on the local government’s behalf.

Case history

Then-Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager sued the city in 2004, saying the corporation was a quasi-governmental body subject to state open records and meetings laws because its offices were in city hall, the city was its only client, and elected officials sat on its board of directors.

In March 2006, a circuit court judge ruled against the state, saying the development group was not created by city ordinance, does not make decisions on behalf of the city, and operated independently from the city and was therefore not subject to those laws.

The state appealed.

In its July 11 ruling, the court said factors that can be used to determine whether a private corporation is subject to the records and meetings laws are its source of financing; whether it serves a public function; whether it is subject to government control; and whether the public thinks it’s a government entity.

Criteria may be vague

Lueders agreed that the justices failed to define the exact legal boundaries for economic development groups.

“Basically, it says if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck, it’s probably a duck. It didn’t precisely define what a duck is, however, so there’s always a chance someone will look at the duck and say it’s a goose,” Lueders said.

Hough said, however, that the two criteria that the court should have looked at and that should be addressed in any new legislation are: “Does the local government control the economic development corporation, or does the corporation have the authority to bind government?”

Hough and others said it’s possible the court’s ruling could have a chilling effect on Wisconsin development

Some confidentiality

“Very clearly there needs to be a measure of transparency when government funds are being allocated for economic development,” said Jim Paetsch, director of corporate expansion and relocation for The Milwaukee 7, a consortium of private investors and local governments in the Milwaukee metro area.

“But if we can’t hold confidential what a corporation’s plans are (regarding future development), we’re dead in the water. No way you can compete in that arena if you’re a leaky ship,” he said.

Lueders said it’s best for groups to err on the side of openness.

“If people are in doubt, they should conduct themselves with the maximum degree of openness,” he said. “Doing so will breed trust and support for what they are doing.”