Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Trustees debate proposed 'do-not-solicit' registry; no final action taken
Summary
Trustees discussed creating a do-not-solicit registry that staff would maintain and provide to permitted solicitors. Village counsel said exemptions (political canvassing, charitable activity, children) would remain; trustees raised concerns about resident confusion and impacts on youth fundraisers. The board did not adopt the registry tonight.
Board members considered whether the village should maintain a do-not-solicit registry to be provided to door-to-door solicitors who hold permits.
"All this really does is if you call and say, I wanna be on the no solicit list, add my name," the attorney Nathan explained. "And then when somebody comes in and they say they are applying for a permit, they hand them the list and they tell them these are properties you're supposed to skip." Nathan said existing code already contains exemptions for political canvassing, charitable organizations and similar activities.
Jim Farmer, a resident who spoke during public comment, told the board he believed a posted "no solicitation" sign should be sufficient and suggested a trial using signs before requiring a registry. Several trustees raised concerns that messaging could confuse residents and inadvertently restrict exempt activities such as children selling goods or political canvassing.
Staff said that, if the board approves a registry in the future, communications would include a social media post and a notice in the Brown Deer magazine and that the clerk would maintain the list; staff also offered to provide a template for do-not-solicit signs if residents want them. The board engaged in policy discussion and asked staff to include the topic in future tracking and to report back if the board wants updates after implementation; no formal motion to adopt a registry passed during the meeting.
