Contradictory Loan Amounts surface over Mayor's Ryan Creek Sewer Project

In a September 26, 2010, article entitled Franklin: The final frontier, Don Behm of the Journal Sentinel wrote:

…Milwaukee County's last frontier finally would be served in the next few years as part of an agreement between Franklin and the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District[MMSD]. On Monday, MMSD's commission will be asked to approve extending sewer service to the far corners of the city.

Development would follow the pipes, Mayor Tom Taylor said.

The city is seeking nearly $31 million in low-interest Clean Water Fund loans through the state Department of Natural Resources so that it can build a large sewer across the frontier...

On January 10, 2011, our sister publication, BATTLE JOINED wrote an opinion piece entitled:  Questions surround Ryan Creek Interceptor Project and in April THE FRANKLIN INDEPENDENT JOURNAL published an editorial entitled: Is it too good to be true?, which also questioned the prospect of the RCI Project.

Today we learned from City Hall sources that, yesterday, Franklin Mayor Tom Taylor received a letter of approval for not a $31 million loan for this project, but a $38 million loan from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR).

Maureen Huebeler, Financial Assistance Specialist, Environmental Loans Section confirmed the loan approval and amount to THE FRANKLIN INDEPENDENT JOURNAL in a telephone conversation this morning.

In covering the contentious skirmishes over Mayor Taylor’s blitzkrieg to ram this project through the common council and a number of government bodies including Milwaukee County—at the expense of Franklin taxpayers, we sent Mayor Taylor the following email on Friday, May 20 and to-date have received no acknowledgment of our email or answers to our questions posed in it:

Mr. Mayor:

Referring to the Ryan Creek Interceptor Project, this article on JSOnline reported in-part, the following:
 
...Franklin Mayor Tom Taylor said the sewer line would lead to property tax relief by adding homes and businesses to the tax rolls. Strict limits on property tax increases included in Gov. Scott Walker's budget proposal would allow increases based only on the value of new construction or approval by referendum. New development in Franklin would lead to more tax revenue for the county, Taylor said.
 
"You'll get 19% of every new tax dollar that's generated," he told supervisors of the county's share of the revenue that will be generated.
 
He said the sewer line would also open the county-owned property surrounding the County Correctional Facility-South to development. [County Supervisor] Weishan scoffed at that notion, because of the proximity to the lockup. But Taylor said county officials have mulled the idea of moving the correctional facility and eventually selling the land for development.
 
In fairness to you is the reporter's story of the meeting accurate and has he accurately reported your comments?
 
Thank you.

Fred V. Keller, Co-Editor & Publisher
THE FRANKLIN INDEPENDENT JOURNAL

 * * * * 

 Maureen Huebeler in the DNR Environmental Loans Section confirmed to us that the loan application she processed and approved was for $38 million and was submitted on June 1.  If truth has no agenda.  What is the mayor’s agenda when it comes to this project?

Ms. Huebeler also confirmed that the City will make a [taxpayer funded] interest only payment in March 2012 and an interest and principle payment, [also taxpayer funded], in May 2012 along with another interest only payment in May 2012.  At this time, Ms. Huebeler was unable to provide us with the amounts of these payments.

If, as reported, MMSD would begin buying the sewer from Franklin in 2015, under terms of a proposed intergovernmental cooperation agreement. The district would take ownership of the interceptor in 2031, after paying an estimated total of $41.1 million in principal and interest.  How does the new $38 million price tag affect this intergovernmental cooperation agreement?

Will $38 million in "value of new construction" allow the mayor to increase prpoerty taxes without going to a referendum?

Finally, will Franklin taxpayers ever truly know the complete, final cost of this project or its true return on investment?  I would expect our elected city officials would have all the answers to these questions.

Throughout our coverage on the mayor’s project it has become obvious to us that The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, THE FRANKLIN INDEPENDENT JOURNAL and the 35,000 residents of the City of Franklin have been mislead by from the start by Mayor Taylor and the Common Council about the cost of the Ryan creek Interceptor Project.  The mayor’s silence and refusal to respond to our questions only serves to widen the credibility gap between the mayor and the people of Franklin.

To comment privately on this article or any other aspect of this publication CLICK HERE.

Update on Friday, July 1, 2011 at 11:18 AM by Basil Ryan

 Today we received the following cost breakdown for the controversial $38 million Ryan Creek Sewer Project  from a City Hall source:

Loan application amount:  $38,322,000
 
Includes $250,000 for Franklin's local cost for stub sewers; $29,125,000 in
estimated construction costs, the balance is design, G&A, staff and
professionals, easements, contingency, etc.

Contact the mayor or your alderman with any questions or comments you may have on this issue.

Will Mayor Tom Taylor and the Common Council Oppose SB 83?

Based upon documents included in aldermen's “meeting packets, especially a prepared Resolution entitled: A Resolution Opposing the Adoption Senate Bill 83 [SB83] Relating to Various Changes to the Eminent Domain Laws, its obvious that the mayor and the common council were prepared to oppose it at the June 21, Common Council Meeting.

Mayor Tom Taylor, Aldermen Solomon, Taylor and Skowronski appeared panicked at the prospect that SB 83, introduced by State Sen. Mary Lazich (R-New Berlin), if passed, would take an “economic development tool” away from the City, especially as it relates to Tax increment financing (TIF), an intoxicating government tool that allows municipalities to promote economic development by earmarking property tax revenue from increases in assessed values within a designated TIF district. Proponents point to evidence that assessed property value within TIF districts generally grows much faster than in the rest of the municipality and infer that TIF benefits the entire municipality.  As you might imagine there are contrary views on the benefits of TIF districts, particularly as it relates to economic growth.

TIF districts are typically used as one of the primary means to raise money for the public investment portion of the costs of economic growth or revitalization designated areas of a municipality.  TIF districts are touted by its supporters as being without cost, or good for the entire city, or the only way to get a project started, these arguments make sense only to those who see only the immediate effects of something and are unwilling — or unable — to see the secondary effects of this harmful form of government intervention. 

Tax Incremental Financing (TIF) has long been the common council’s preferred way to create economic growth.  Alderman Tim Solomon seemed especially over wrought in his exchange with Senator Lazich.

Based upon the mayor Taylor’s and aldermen’s questions, one would have to question whether he and Council members have actually read SB 83 and know where the bill currently stands in the Senate. To listen to the June 21 Common Council Meeting click here.

Franklin citizen Timothy Dake, an organizer for Wisconsin Grandsons of Liberty spoke in support of SB 83 during citizen comments and also wrote an opinion piece entitled Bill reins in eminent domain abuse published June 20 on JSOnline.

RELATED MATERIAL

• Kelo v. New London: Lawsuit Challenging Eminent Domain Abuse in New London, Connecticut

To comment privately on this article or any other aspect of this publication CLICK HERE.

Franklin Public Schools' '$5.6 Million Deficit' Explained

Based upon the replies we received from Franklin Public School Board Members on June 17 and June 20, especially related to the District’s stated $5.6 million total deficit published on page four of its 2011-12 Budget Draft, we contacted the District’s Director of Business Services, Jim Milzer for an explanation of the multi-million dollar deficit question and how it appears in the budget.  In a telephone conversation Mr. Milzer said the school district does not have a $5.6 million total deficit as indicated on page four of the budget.  Here is how he explained page four and the accompanying bar graph in a subsequent email to us.

The graph on page 4 of the 2011-12 budget presentation shows the deficits that the District eliminated by reducing expenditures and increasing non-tax revenue.  For example, if the District continued all of the programs and services that were offered in the 2002-03 school year again in the 2003-04 school year, this would have resulted in a $1.1 million deficit.  This deficit would have occurred because the District’s costs were rising faster than the allowable increase in revenue.  The District’s tax and general aid revenue is limited by State statutes.  In creating the 2003-04 budget, the District cut $1.1 million in expenditures to balance the budget.  On pages 5, 6, and 7, there is a list of the expenditures that were cut and the sources of extra revenue that were used to balance the budgets in those years.  The District has had a balanced budget each year.

NOTE: In some years the District had expenditures carried over from the previous year when the revenue was collected in one year and the expenditure did not occur until the following year.  These adjustments were made to the balanced budget in that year which may make it appear incorrectly that the budget was slightly out of balance.

When asked how the average citizen would know this, Mr. Milzer said that this was explained to those who attended the budget presentation.  When asked why there wasn’t a note on page four explaining this for those looking at the budget without the benefit of attending the presentation meeting, he indicated changes would be made in the future budgets to avoid this sort of confusion.

To comment privately on this article or any other aspect of this publication CLICK HERE.

Bialk and Nielson Explain their vote to Approve FPS 2011-12 Budget

Last Thursday following the Franklin School Board’s special meeting to vote on its 2011-12 Budget Draft #1, we spoke with school board member Janet Evans to get her take on Wednesday night’s Special School Board Meeting and find out who voted for and against the 2011-12 Budget Draft #1, the FRANKLIN INDEPENDENT JOURNAL also sent emails to each school board member asking them to explain their vote, including Mrs. Evans.

On Friday, Jun17, we published replies from Board president Debbie Larson and memberMelissa Klein and Janet Evans.

Over the weekend we received answers from Judith Bialk and Tim Nielson. As of this writing Board vice president Jeff Traylor is the only school board member who has not responded to our request. Board member Linda Witkowski was excused from the Jun 15 meeting and did not vote on the budget and therefore was not contacted by the editors.

Here is Judith Bialk’s reply followed by Mr. Nielson’s

Mr. Keller'

This is my first opportunity to respond to your message regarding approval of the 2011-12 FPS budget.  I believe that Mrs. Larson has adequately addressed some misconceptions you had regarding the deficit figures in that budget, so I do not need to speak to that.  Because I was not present for the June 8th meeting, I had a lengthy conversation with Mr. Jim Milzer, and based upon our shairing [sic] of budgetary facts, I openly stated at the June 15th meeting that I was voting in the affirmative for the 2011-12 budget based on three reasons: 1. The budget is balanced.  2.  There are no cuts represented in this budget, and 3.  The tax levy for our community is going down this year.  I considered those facts significant enough to cast my "Yes" vote for this budget.  I also realize that the budget will not be in its final form unti [sic] October of 2011 and this gives the BOE time to make any significant changes should the occasion arise.

Judith Bialk

* * * *

Mr Keller:
 
Thank you for reaching out to me regarding the 2011-12 proposed budget.  This is my first public office and your communication is welcomed.  My answer would echo what Mrs Larson wrote to you with regard to explaining the graph you referenced.  This proposed budget is balanced with no program cuts that I am aware of--which is good for the kids.
 
My 'yes' vote was more due to the fact that this is a proposed budget that will be coming before the board again in July with the opportunity to make changes if desired.  I am looking forward to diving into the numbers even further and making sure the final budget product is a good one.  If there are any particular changes you would like to see or concerns you have, I would be happy to discuss them with you.
Regards,
 
Tim Nielson
School Board Member
Franklin Public Schools

 Thank you to all those school board members who gave our readers the courtesy of an answer to our question.

To comment privately on this article or any other aspect of this publication CLICK HERE.

School Board President Explains Vote to approve $50 Million Operating Budget

This morning we received responses from three school board members explaining their vote on the District’s $50 million 2011-12 budget Draft #1.

Yesterday, THE FRANKLIN INDEPENDENT JOURNAL reported the Board’s action to approve the budget during its June15 Special Meeting.

Board members Jeff Traylor, Judith Bialk and Tim Nielson have yet to respond.  Board member Linda Witkowski was excused from the Jun 15 meeting and didn’t vote on the budget and therefore was not contacted by the editors.

The following explanation came from School Board President, Debbie Larson.

Mr. Keller,

The graph that you are referring to on page 4 shows the deficits that the District would have faced had it not made reductions in expenditures or added revenue in the five previous budget years indicated. It has nothing to do with the 2011-12 budget. In each of those previous years the District reduced expenditures and added revenue as it indicates on pages 5, 6, and 7. Looking at the five years in total, the District added $1,237,097 in revenue and reduced expenditures by $4,332,201 to make sure that the budget was balanced. These two amounts total $5,569,298, which was rounded to $5.6 million, or the total amount of the projected deficits. All of these pages in the budget presentation deal with past budgets and not the 2011-12 budget. I voted for the 2011-12 budget because it maintains excellent educational programs for the students of the Franklin Public Schools and it reduces property taxes.

Sincerely,

Debra M. Larson

Franklin Board of Education-President

We received this explaination from school board member Melissa Klein.

Mr. Keller,

Thank you for contacting me for clarification regarding the budget that was approved last night. The $5.6 million deficit that I believe that you are referring to is what the cumulative (since the 2003-2004 school year) budget deficit would have been had the district not made $4.3 million in cuts and also added $1.2 million in revenue during the same time period (this is detailed in pages 5-7 of the budget document). Last week the district's business director, Jim Milzer, and I discussed changing the title of the graph on page 4 to make it more clear in future versions of the budget. I apologize for any confusion that this may have caused.

I voted in favor of this budget because it is balanced, it reduces the tax levy and tax levy rates, and also because it does not cut current programs or services for our students. I am very thankful that, due to past sound fiscal decisions, we are able to maintain class sizes and programming for the coming school year, unlike many of our surrounding school districts who will be required to make significant cuts to balance their budgets.

Please don't hesitate to contact me in the future if you have any additional questions.

Sincerely,

Melissa Klein

Here is school board member Janet Evans’ response.

Dear Mr. Keller,

Thank you for inquiring as to my reason(s) for voting NO in the adoption of the Franklin Public Schools 2011-12 Preliminary Budget at our Special Board meeting June 15, 2011.  As you are aware, the Board originally voted 3-3 on the budget on June 8th.  The budget presented on the 15th did not contain any changes from the June 8th budget.

My reasons for voting NO on the 8th and the 15th were due to what I view as a lack of transparency in the budget and the budgeting for a 2.68% wage increase.  Also, after listening to Board member requests at both meetings to revisit the budget in July for the purpose of making possible adjustments (rather than waiting until October as listed in our Budget timeline) I am not confident a look at the budget in July will see any changes come to fruition.  The responses during the discussions at both meetings were peppered with the words, “not enough time.”

I will thoroughly weigh all activity between July through the final adoption of the budget in October before I cast my vote.  While I acknowledge the budget does not raise property taxes (as mandated by the Budget Repair Bill/Act 10) and the budget is balanced, I believe there is still room for improvement in the budget.

Regards,

Janet Evans

RELATED STORY

• Franklin School District facing $2.5 million decrease in state funding

 We're interested in hearing your comments on this story and the School District's budget.  Please click here to give us your opinion.

Don’t Know Much About History

“[W]e ought to deprecate the hazard attending ardent and susceptible minds, from being too strongly, and too early prepossessed in favor of other political systems, before they are capable of appreciating their own..”

—George Washington, letter to the Commissioners of the District of Columbia, January 28, 1795.

WSJ's Stephanie Banchero has details of a National Assessment of Educational Progress study showing students at the fourth, eighth and twelfth grade levels struggle with basic history questions.

Less than a quarter of American 12th-graders knew China was North Korea's ally during the Korean War, and only 35% of fourth-graders knew the purpose of the Declaration of Independence, according to national history-test scores released Tuesday.

The results from the National Assessment of Educational Progress revealed that U.S. schoolchildren have made little progress since 2006 in their understanding of key historical themes, including the basic principles of democracy and America's role in the world…

The news was even more dire in high school, where 12% of 12th-graders were proficient, unchanged since 2006. More than half of all seniors posted scores at the lowest achievement level, "below basic." While the nation's fourth- and eighth-graders have seen a slight uptick in scores since the exam was first administered in 1994, 12th-graders haven't. Read Students Stumble Again on the Basics of History and try your hand at some of the questions on the NAEP history tests.

To find out whether FPS District students participate in this testing program we recommend checking with your child’s school principal or a member of the Franklin School Board.

To comment privately on this article or any other aspect of this publication CLICK HERE.

Franklin School Board Approves $50 Million 2011-12 Budget Draft

We spoke with school board member Janet Evans today to get her take on last night’s Special School Board Meeting and find out who voted for and against the 2011-12 Budget Draft #1.

Mrs. Evans was the only board member to vote “no” on this $50 million budget which included $5.6 million (Page 4) in total budget deficits, even after FPS Director of Finance stated in this budget draft, a total budget reduction of $4.3 million (Page 7).

THE FRANKLIN INDEPENDENT JOURNAL has sent emails to every school board member asking them to explain why they voted the way they did, including Mrs. Evans and will report their answers in the days to come.

To comment privately on this article or any other aspect of this publication CLICK HERE.

Special School Board Meeting Tonight

The Franklin school board will meet tonight a 6:00PM to vote on its 2011-2012 Budget.  Also included on its  agenda, the Board will also discuss strategic and negotiations issues for possible negotiations with represented [union] bargaining units.  Wisconsin law permits, by majority vote, the Board to convene in closed session for this agenda item.  The vote on 2011-2012 Budget is essentially the last item on the agenda.

To comment privately on this article or any other aspect of this publication CLICK HERE.

Ryan Creek Sewer Project clogged by County Parks Commission

During a hearing this morning the Milwaukee County Parks Commission voted 4-3 to send the City of Franklin’s proposed easement request for the Ryan Creek Interceptor (RCI) Project to the Milwaukee Corporation Council to ensure that the plan submitted by Franklin officials complies with county guidelines and all applicable county legal requirements.

County Supervisor John Weishan, Jr., 16th District, spoke in strong opposition to this controversial $41 million taxpayer funded project which has met with very little support from residents and land owners in the project’s defined area and suggested that MMSD ought to revaluate its priorities in light of ongoing sewer back ups in homes  in several  suburbs throughout Milwaukee County, and flooding problems like those affecting Franklin not long ago.

A presentation by Mayor Tom Taylor and City Engineer Jack Bennett, failed to persuade a majority of commissioners to approve the City’s plan which would have put the matter before the full Milwaukee County Board for consideration.  At one point in his presentation Mayor Taylor went so far as to suggest that this project and other future office developments in this area could be enough to entice Kohl's Corp. to relocate its new headquarters in Franklin.

Former Franklin Alderman and editor and publisher of THE FRANKLIN INDEPENDENT JOURNAL, Basil Ryan, also addressed commissioners voicing his opposition to RCI and challenging the Mayor’s unsubstantiated revenue figures provided the RCI were built as proposed.  Ryan also questioned whether outdated, 12-year old reports like the Ticknor and the Franklin First had any validity in today’s decision making process especially with regard to economic development.

Supervisor Marina Dimitrijevic, 4th District made the motion to send the matter to the Corporation (Milwaukee County attourneys) Council for its legal opinion.  Supervisors Jason Haas, 14th District and  Nikiya Harris, 2nd District voted with Dimitrijevic with Chair, Gerry Broderick, 3rd District, breaking the 3-3 tie.  Supervisors Cesarz, Sanfelippo and Jursik all voted no.

RELATED STORIES

• Is it too good to be true?
• MMSD considers land purchase in Ryan Creek headwaters
• Sewer project OK'd for undeveloped area of Franklin
• Franklin: The final frontier
• Negotiations begin on sewer to city's future

To comment privately on this article or any other aspect of this publication CLICK HERE.

Public Education in America: What’s Wrong With Our Schools, Part Six

This is the final video in our series Public Education in America: What’s Wrong With Our Schools, in which we presented the free market views on Education of Milton Friedman, American economist and statistician at the University of Chicago, and Nobel Prize laureate.  The series also included the views of Friedman’s detractors (See parts three through six).

We hope you found this presentation thought provoking and that you gained a deeper insight into the crisis in Education in America through this series.

To comment privately on this article or any other aspect of this publication CLICK HERE.

Public Education in America: What’s Wrong With Our Schools, Part Five

In Part Five, the debate between Education bureaucrats and Milton Friedman continues with bureaucrats defending the status quo and Friedman countering with his free market views on Education reform for America.

Click to view the previous stories in this special series.

To comment privately on this article or any other aspect of this publication CLICK HERE.

On This Day in History: WWII Allied forces landed on the beaches of Normandy

The term D-Day is used routinely as military lingo for the day an operation or event will take place, for many it is also synonymous with June 6, 1944, the day the WWII Allied powers crossed the English Channel and landed on the beaches of Normandy, France, beginning the liberation of Western Europe from Nazi control.  Within three months, the northern part of France would be freed and the invasion force would be preparing to enter Germany, where they would meet up with Soviet forces moving in from the east.

To comment privately on this article or any other aspect of this publication CLICK HERE.



Public Education in America: What’s Wrong With Our Schools, Part Four

The debate between Milton Friedman and gathered Education bureaucrats continues in Part Four with  bureaucrats explaining the many problems they face compared to private schools with regard to special education and government regulations.

Click to view parts 1-3 in this special series.

To comment privately on this article or any other aspect of this publication CLICK HERE.

FPS 2011-12 Budget Draft Hints at Potential November Referendum

On her FranklinNOW blog, Franklin School Board Member Janet Evans wrote that the Franklin School District’s first draft of its 2011-12 Budget was presented to the Board at its Wednesday, June 1 meeting. For the convenience of her constituents and readers, Janet also included a link to the draft budget in her post, as well as email links to FPS’ top two administrators and those of all school board members.

We took some time this weekend to review the 67-page document.   The format this year is very different from past budgets produced by this body politic.

The total proposed property tax levy in the 2011-12 draft budget is $31,531,293 (Page 24).  Page four indicates that District budget deficits have steadily increased since 2004-05.  Page seven shows $1,237,097 in total added revenue and $5,569,298 in total budget deficits; this after the District pointed out on the same page, total budget reductions of $4,332,201.

The 2011-12 budget draft also included under the heading Information Technology Budget Summary (Page 53).

General Information

The total annual Information Technology budget, excluding salaries & benefits, is approximately 1 million dollars or approximately 2 percent of the total District budget.

The Information Technology budget is developed collaboratively with input from the IT staff, curriculum coordinators, Directors of Curriculum & Instruction and Assessment, building administrators, technology coaches, and the District Technology Committee. 

The District Technology Coordinator, LuAnn Zielinski develops & manages the budget around the needs of the District and the goals set forth in the Information & Technology Literacy plan…

Page 53 also included the following paragraph under the heading 2011-2012 IT Budget (emphasis added).

Wireless. The District-wide wireless network is the third part of the infrastructure overhaul that began two years ago. It will include wireless access in all District facilities except for Forest Park. Forest Park is temporarily on hold until after the results of the potential referendum in November. The managed wireless system will create both a public guest network and a private network throughout the District. The wireless network will provide flexibility for students, staff, and guests to our facilities to have Wi-Fi access from District owned and personal devices. The managed system will include load balancing to provide increased bandwidth in areas when demand is higher and less bandwidth when demand is lower.

RELATED READING 

• School Board Vice President unsure of how to be 'fiscally responsible'
• Franklin School District facing $2.5 million decrease in state funding
• Facility upgrades in near future at Franklin schools (FranklinNOW)

To comment privately on this article or any other aspect of this publication CLICK HERE.

Public Education in America: What’s Wrong With Our Schools, Part Three

In Part Three of our six-part series on education in America, Milton Friedman continues his comparison of state universities (UCLA) and private colleges (Dartmouth) and outlines the student success and failure factors at both institutions.  Part Three concludes with a discussion between Friedman and several of his   detractors; professtionals in the field of education opposed to his free market ideas on education.

Click to view parts one and two in this special series.

To comment privately on this article or any other aspect of this publication CLICK HERE.

Public Education in America: What’s Wrong With Our Schools, Part Two

If you missed Part One in our six-part video series focusing on Milton Friedman’s views on public education, click here.  In this video, pay close attention to teachers' beliefs and outright comtempt for parents.  Friedman also examines Higher education using a comparison of state universities (UCLA) and private institutions (Dartmouth) and sums up the comparative return on investment and value to the student (customer) in Part Three.

To comment privately on this article or any other aspect of this publication CLICK HERE.

EDC Redux

It you haven’t read Bryan Maersch’s opinion piece on “Wag The Dog” concerning the Council’s determination to reform, in one way or another, the City’s Economic Development Commission (EDC), we strongly suggest you do so.  Bryan lays things out very well, identifies the competing proposals and the politicians backing these proposals.  The piece also includes video from the May 17 Common Council Meeting of Joe Haselow, EDC acting Chair, addressing the Council proposals currently being considered.  Click to read:  Economic Development in Franklin – Try Number II

To comment privately on this article or any other aspect of this publication CLICK HERE.

Public Education in America: What’s Wrong With Our Schools, Part One

Today we begin our six-part video series focusing on Milton Friedman’s views on public education.  Part One addrresses what's wrong with our schools.  Milton Friedman was an American economist and statistician at the University of Chicago, and recipient of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences.

You’ll notice that the videos in this series are dated (late 1960s), but  the problems plaguing Education in America have changed very little for the better, despite all the political  hogwash and billions of taxpayer dollars thrown at Education by both parties in the past 40-years.

To comment privately on this article or any other aspect of this publication CLICK HERE.

Evers out of touch with Parents and Students?

If you have been following the news lately you know that in a recent memo, State Superintendent Tony Evers urged the Legislature's Joint Finance Committee to restore funding for public schools and work collaboratively to improve the quality of all Milwaukee schools before considering any voucher (parental school choice) expansion, calling voucher expansion “morally wrong.”

Is Evers’ opposition to expanding Wisconsin’s voucher program really an issue founded on moral principles or is he more fearful of losing power and state funding for failing schools?  You will have to decide that for yourself.

School Choice Wisconsin, which supports the voucher program, responded to Evers' memo with one of its own.  For the full JSOnline story read: Evers calls voucher expansion 'morally wrong' in memo

Tomorrow we begin a six-part video series focusing on Milton Friedman’s views on public education.  Here’s Friedman’s view on school choice.  As you may know, Friedman was considered by many as the twentieth century’s most prominent advocate of free markets.

 Click to read more on Milton Friedman.

To comment privately on this article or any other aspect of this publication CLICK HERE.

SUPPOPRT Our Troops: Baseball Gloves Needed For Marines in Afghanistan

There is still plenty of time to donate new or good-condition, adult-size baseball gloves (left and right-handed) to a group of our Marines serving in Afghanistan.

Karen Grochowski made the initial community-wide request a couple of weeks ago on FranklinNOW, noting that “so much of a military deployment is "hurry up....and wait,” adding waiting is the toughest part for Marines.

Through June 15th we are collecting new or good-condition, adult-size baseball gloves to fulfill a request by a group of Marines in Afghanistan. It really helps them pass the time. So much of a military deployment is "hurry up....and wait" and the waiting is the toughest part for many Marines. The request simply states “Baseballs gloves (one or two left handed ones as well as many right handed ones.)” We hope fill a box with gloves for these Marines at our big packing event on May 23rd, but will continue the collection through June 15th.

Baseball glove donations will continue to be accepted through June 15 in the “Support Our Troops” barrel in the Franklin Public Library lobby.

To comment privately on this article or any other aspect of this publication click here.