Franklin Alderman Steve Olson Seeks to Deny Franklin Citizens First Amendment Rights
Saturday, January 31, 2009 at 9:24AM Grab a cup of coffee or your favorite adult-beverage. This is a long, but I believe, very worth-readng post.
The City of Franklin’s staunch, “pro-business” Alderman, Steve Olson and his like-minded minions on the Franklin Common Council, are seeking to outwit the People of Franklin and thwart their Rights under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
I can’t help but think that the City’s namesake – and one of our county’s Founding Fathers – Benjamin Franklin, is spinning in his grave like a rotisserie chicken at Sendik’s Market, at the thought of Franklin’s Common Council adopting Alderman Olson’s flawed and ill-conceived, “pro-business” ordinance, named oddly enough—"Non-Regulation of Employee Wages or Benefits for Private Businesses."
In the draft I’ve read, Alderman Olson’s proposed Ordinance seeks to affirm that the Franklin Common Council wishes to foster a positive and growing business climate within the City, and that Franklin is currently home to many small and medium-sized businesses.
To convince existing and future businesses that Franklin is “pro-business,” Olson’s Ordinance further states that the Franklin Common Council recognizes its responsibility in promoting a free market and limited government intrusion into private enterprise. (Emphasis added) I’ll have more to say on this at the end of this piece.
Olson’s Ordinance also includes, that the Mayor and the Franklin Common Council through this Ordinance enact the limitation of municipal regulation. And therefore, no Ordinance of the City of Franklin nor any other municipal Ordinance, rule, or regulation shall mandate that any business entity, other than the City itself, shall provide certain wages or benefits to its employees, or set forth the amount or type of any employee wages or benefits provided by an employer located within the city limits of Franklin.
In other words, what's good for private business in the City of Franklin, doesn't apply to the City, whose employees' salaries and benefits are paid by taxpayers like you and I!
Here is more from the Ordinance, and what I believe is the set-up for Olson's power grab:
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. And furthermore, all Ordinances and parts of Ordinances in contravention [violation of this Ordinance] are hereby repealed.
I think Alderman Olson could use a refresher course in Civics, and how American democracy works. For me, this is a very serious breach of Constitutional law and public trust, and clearly not how our Founding Fathers envisioned our Republic.
CONTINUED FROM PAGE ONE...
For the most part, Americans rely on their elected representatives to conduct the affairs and business of the nation, individual states, counties and cities, but the right of the people to directly petition the government for relief remains a basic Right for all American Citizens.
As previously noted, that right is guaranteed in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. And it is also guaranteed by the Constitution of the State of Wisconsin under Article I, §4 Right to assemble and petition. Section 4.:
The right of the people peaceably to assemble, to consult for the common good, and to petition the government, or any department thereof, shall never be abridged.
As I see it, Alderman Olson’s Ordinance tramples these Constitutional guarantees. Again,Section 2 of his Ordinance states:
“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."
In essence -- and I may be wrong -- this languuage takes away the rights of Franklin citizens to “peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
I have little doubt that if questioned on this, Alderman Olson would proclaim this "ridiculous," and no doubt attempt to "spin" this in such a way as to make it sound as if his Ordinance were enacted, it would -- because it's "pro-business," -- miraculously reduce property taxes in Franklin. Isn't that the standard lie line?
However, I have a copy of the January 6, 2009, REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION which states:
Attached is a draft ordinance as above-entitled and as requested by Aldermen Olson. Also attached are copies of news reports of like ordinances being adopted by the Cities of South Milwaukee and West Allis, and of litigation being commenced against the City of Milwaukee to enjoin the enforcement of certain direct legislation, where a November 2008 referendum produced the direct legislation which requires private businesses in Milwaukee to provide sick pay benefits to employees. The South Milwaukee and West Allis legislation are presumably based upon the following rule of law in an attempt to in effect preempt any direct legislation in those municipalities as had occurred in Milwaukee. Direct legislation cannot be used to compel a city council to repeal an existing ordinance or resolution or to compel the passage of an ordinance which would be in clear conflict with one already in existence, such that it would act as a repealer of the existing ordinance. Heitman v. City of Mauston Common Council, 226 Wis.2d 542, 595 N.W.2d 450 (Ct. App. 1999), review denied 604 N.W.2d 572, 230 Wis.2d 275.
This sounds to me as though Olson’s Ordinance – as written and presented to the Common Council – is intended to preempt, block, or otherwise prevent, any future direct legislation such as a citizen initiated referendum which is defined as follows:
The right reserved to the people to approve or reject an act of the legislature, or the right of the people to approve or reject legislation that has been referred to them by the legislature.
The referendum power is created by state constitutions and is conferred on the citizens of a state or a local subdivision of the state. Referendum provides the people with a means of expressing their opinion on proposed legislation before it becomes operative as a law. The power of referendum does not permit the people to invalidate a law that is already operative but suspends or annuls a law that has not yet gone into effect. In this sense, referendum is similar to a governor's Veto power. Also, by referendum the people may reinstate an act that the legislature has expressly repealed... More >>
In my research I also came across the following in the Civics Library of the Missouri Bar:
As with any constitutional provision, the courts of the nation have continued to interpret the meaning of the right to petition the government. U. S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas broadened the meaning of the provision with his opinion in the 1966 case of ADDERLEY ET AL. v. FLORIDA:
"The right to petition for redress of grievances has an ancient history, and is not limited to writing a letter or sending a telegram to Congressman; it is not confined to appearing before local city council, or writing letters to the President or Governor or Mayor. Conventional methods of petitioning may be, and often have been, shut off to large groups of our citizens. Legislators may turn deaf ears, formal complaints may be routed endlessly through a bureaucratic maze; courts may let the wheels of justice grind very slowly. Those who do not control television and radio, those who cannot afford to advertise in newspapers or circulate elaborate pamphlets may only have a limited type of access to public officials. Their methods should not be condemned as tactics of obstruction and harassment as long as the assembly and petition are peaceable . . ."
The expansion of the definition of legitimate methods of petitioning the government ensures that Americans will not have their grievances ignored, as were those of the American colonists two centuries ago.
Although the First Amendment explicitly prohibits only the named rights from being abridged by laws made by the Congress, the Supreme Court has interpreted it as applying more broadly. As the first sentence in the body of the Constitution reserves all legislative authority to the Congress, the courts have held that the First Amendment's terms also extend to the executive and judicial branches.
Additionally, in the 20th century the Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies the limitations of the First Amendment to each state, including any local government within a state.
I am pro- business, but not at the cost of any of my Constitutional Rights. Too many brave men and women have died to preserve our Rights and Freedoms.
Alderman Steve Olson has over-stepped his authority and power, which is merely on-loan to him from the People of Franklin.
Concerned Franklin Citizens should call Alderman Olson at 414-425-9060, and ask him for a detailed explanation of what he is attempting to accomplish with this Ordinance, as well as Mayor Taylor, at 414-425-7500, to voice your concerns about the language and legal nuances of this Ordinance. You might also call your individual Alderman and tell them to vote against Alderman Olson’s “Non-Regulation of Employee Wages or Benefits for Private Businesses” Ordinance.
On a lighter note; if you do talk to any of these representatives you might ask them the following two questions:
- How can this Ordinance, that essentially stifles free market competition, simultaneously promote a free market?
- Who’s the “Einstein” that came up with name for this Ordinance? “'Non-Regulation' of Employee Wages or Benefits for Private Businesses,” This runs contrary to pro-business conservatism and free market capitalism. Government intrusion into private enterprise must be limited. Now where have I heard that before? “Non-regulating” regulation of private enterprise! Right... or should I say"Left?"
Reader Comments (2)
Once again, the city benefits from careful analysis by a "mere blogger." These are the things that, not too long ago, used to sneak by without opposition or comment.
I'm truely hoping that the new composition of the Common Council will allow for a principled stand against this ordinance. It is NOT anti-business to put the kibosh on an ordinance that is little more than a manifestation of Alderman Olson's apparent FEAR and APPREHENSION of his fellow Franklin citizens and their potential collective will.
I, for one, have no "fear" whatsoever of my fellow citizens bringing forward or enacting a local sick pay law. I understand that the needs of a suburb like Franklin are different than the city of Milwaukee, which will very much benefit in the long run from the sick pay law once it's tweaked (and it WILL be tweaked, due to the pending court case).
Olson wants the CC vote on this to be a de facto pro-business Loyalty Oath. Maybe that's what would have happened a year ago. He's in for a surprise, I think, this time around.
"Olson wants the CC vote on this to be a de facto pro-business Loyalty Oath."
No question. He will attempt to paint those on the Council opposing his power-grab as "anti-business," when in reality they are voting to protect their constituents' Contstitutional right to "petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”