Supervisors balk at sex offender proposal
Action delayed to allow sponsors to rewrite plan
The Milwaukee County Board’s judiciary committee on Thursday delayed action on a proposed sex offender relocation information policy to give sponsors time to rewrite the proposal to comply with a county attorney’s opinion that found it unenforceable.
County Corporation Counsel Paul Bargren says in an opinion that the policy drafted by Supervisors Jason Haas and John Weishan Jr. is in conflict with state law and the state constitution.
Supervisor Patricia Jursik, a member of the committee, said her reading of the proposed policy “begs the question of whether the County Board has the statutory authority to direct the county executive to provide this information.”
Bargren did not suggest it would be possible to revise the proposal so that it conforms with state laws. He agreed to meet with Haas and Weishan to attempt a revision before a March 17 committee meeting.
Haas and Weishan are asking the board this month to approve a policy requiring the county executive to inform the board and the sheriff before any department or contractor places a registered sex offender in a county municipality.
The proposal also would require the county executive to notify the sheriff of any relocation to a municipality of someone who has been charged with a sexual offense even if it did not result in a conviction.
Any notice requirement based on a criminal charge alone would violate basic constitutional rights, Bargren says in the opinion.
“The presumption of innocence is the bedrock of our democracy,” Bargren says. “A defendant has certain constitutional rights and is presumed innocent until proven guilty.”
“And Wisconsin law prohibits discrimination based on arrest record,” the opinion says.
At the committee meeting, Weishan acknowledged the policy was drafted in response to the county Department of Health and Human Service’s relocation of two sex offenders from long-term institutional care for mental illness to a group home on Milwaukee’s south side.
Residents of the neighborhood were not informed in advance of the planned move, Weishan and Haas said.
“We’re trying to get more information” to neighbors, Weishan said Thursday of the proposal.
The two men relocated to the group home were among the final four residents moved out of long-term institutional care at the troubled Mental Health Complex.
Haas said the department misled neighbors and local elected officials about its intent to place two sex offenders there. The group home is located in his supervisory district.
On the resolution’s notice requirements, Bargren says the Legislature enacted a Sex Offender Registry Program “to establish uniform, statewide sex offender reporting requirements.”
The state Department of Corrections manages the registry and releases sex offender information to the public.
“Because the state Legislature deemed sexoffender notification a matter of statewide concern, the county’s notification requirements cannot exceed” requirements in state law, Bargren says.
The state law requires a registered sex offender to provide relocation information within 10 days after a change in address, not before a move. Only a sex offender on probation, parole or other extended state supervision is required to notify the state of an address change before a move.
The group home did notify the state of the relocation of the two men. Such information is shared immediately with local and county law enforcement agencies, Deputy Corporation Counsel Colleen Foley said Thursday. The law gives those agencies discretion on whether to inform neighbors, she said.
The Haas and Weishan resolution also came under fire from the ACLU of Wisconsin.
Beyond the violations of state and federal constitutions and conflicts with state laws, “the proposed resolution is terrible public policy,” ACLU of Wisconsin Executive Director Christopher Ahmuty said in a letter to Supervisor Anthony Staskunas, chairman of the judiciary committee.
The required reports would guarantee “public opposition that could make housing of people who have committed a sexual offense even more difficult than it already is,” Ahmuty said.
“This will likely result in more offenders living on the streets where they cannot be monitored, rather than in stable housing where they can receive treatment, services and social support to prevent another offense,” he said.