The Milwaukee County Board is under seige. Attacked from talk radio, County Executive Abele, a former colleague of theirs turned State Representative, and the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, the County Board has pushed through a change that would reduce their pay to about $40,000.

That’s not reform — that’s appeasement.

Reducing the salary of the board is pure ignorance. If there are supervisors who don’t do their job they do not deserve to be paid. The work is there. Districts are now large and each Supervisor represents over 50,000 people. If they’re not dealing with constituent calls they should be doing park walks, constituent contacts, attending district meetings, working with their colleagues to draft common sense ordinances or eliminating ordinances that don’t make any sense anymore. There are roads to be evaluated, projects to be assessed and community outreach to be done.

If they’re too lazy to do those things, they don’t deserve to be in office. If they are doing those things, they are underpaid. It is not for the lazy ones to agree to a lower salary for the work horses.

I have strong views that a district deserves the representation they have. You vote for a person who doesn’t work hard for you, you forfeit the ability to complain about the effectiveness of the whole body. It’s just that simple. Now we have a County board that is going to make $40,000 next term. That may seem like a fair amount of money to some people, but will it really generate good people to do the work? In the private sector that would be an unequivocal “NO”. People who have real life experiences and put the time in to do research are not going to want to work for that salary. I’m sorry for those who are offended by this statement but I understand the marketplace. What will now happen is that if qualified people run for the job, they will only dedicate themselves to the job part time.

Studies have been done that show that the amount of money a family must make so they do not have money arguments is $70,000. I’m not saying to increase the salary that much. I am saying that there are people on that board who work hard and deserve to at very least maintain their salary of $50,000 per year. To the folks who don’t make that type of salary and look at it with jelousy, here’s a little hard lesson for you — make better decisions in your life. I worked as a County Supervisor for 6 years. At that time I enjoyed the challenges, the constituent work and interactions and working with my collegues. I would not have given that experience up willingly but I will say this — it was probably the best thing that ever happened to me. Yes, it make me more cynical, some would say seasoned. Yes, I follow my instincts now as a business owner more than I ever have. If it doesn’t feel right now, it doesn’t happen. I have no problem telling a customer that we are probably not a good match if I have a bad feeling about it.

But that’s not how the County Board is working.

It’s more like the blind leading the blind.

Amusement. That’s the best way to explain the clowning around that is happening on the County Board these days. They’re passing resolutions in support of things they have no control over. It’s a typical union tactic to coerce Supervisors to support things that have little hope of passing. In fact, it’s pretty much the M.O. of decertified AFSCME union chief Chris Abelson to push for legislation that the county board has no real hope of impacting. All of that pressure, for a lousy campaign donation of about $400 and the promise of campaign volunteers that never show up? Seriously? Are the county board members really that stupid?

Apparently yes. They voted in Supervisor Marina Dimitrijevic as chair. Marina, as she prefers to be known, is an approachable person who has made some smart decisions but has coupled them with facepalm moments. Reporters have said that she attempted to negotiate some sort of contract or agreement with a decertified union. Bonehead Abelson confirms this. Then she denied it. Now I’ll say this — Abeleson’s words are like the slimiest politician. He would sell out his own mother if he thought it would preserve himself and his own job. If he thinks it will give him some time in his job, collecting his salary, it will pass his weaselly pencil lips. Nothing that comes out of Abelson’s mouth should be viewed as true. If reporters are using his word as their primary source, they’re doing a great job honoring the Wisconsin tradition of former Senator Joe McCarthy and the yellow journalism that he was the beneficiary of.

But why has this happened? I shouldn’t even have to say this, but it is happening because there is not a culture of county legislative experience on the board. The great republican purge of 2002 made that possible. It’s the same thing for the County Executive. Poor little Chris Abele, a man with no private sector experience aside from running the family charity and deciding where to dole out an endowment here or there, won by buying the election. Then again, JFK was said to have bought his election so what does it matter?

It actually matters a fairly good amount since Abele has no experience working and playing well with others. I will admit that at first I thought it was just that he had poor communication skills but it goes deeper than that. Lacking any legislative experience, he has no respect for what goes into the legislative process. By eroding the power in another branch of government, his own power is increased. Is this a good thing? Probably not.

So what should have been done? Dimitrijevic should have stepped down as Chair. She was the one who allegedly negotiated against what was clearly the intention of the Governor sponsored Act 10. Since by statute, Counties are more like departments of the state than individual entities, she has to follow the rules. If she doesn’t, there are consequences.

One thing that moderates and liberals are lousy at doing is advocating for what they really want. They give their causes benign little names, their bills get titled things that barely represent what they really are, but they allow the opposition to belittle them.

They need to get tough for a change.

There’s a reason why liberals and even today’s moderates have the reputation for being pussies. There’s no reason why we’re having a discussion about gun control. Many liberals don’t give a damn about gun control. It’s not the guns that are the problem — it’s the efficiency in massacres that various firearm related products afford. High capacity clips for guns make it so that you can mow down a dozen people without even taking the time to reload. With today’s firearms that’s barely the time it takes a person to take a breath. So call it what it is.

The Massacre Prevention Act.

Now that really tells us what it’s about. It’s not about hunters. It’s not about someone being able to protect themselves. Someone can protect themselves from an unwelcome intruder if they keep a 12 gauge shotgun under their bed. Of course they could just as easily waste one of their own family members, but that’s not the issue that is in front of the nation today. The issue is these mass killings — these massacres.

Like it or not, we like to label things. The group that advocates for healthcare for women now is disavowing the label “pro-choice” because they are about so much more than one of two choices. I think they’re a little naive, but then my label of “pro-health” wouldn’t fly with many of those folks just as my label for their opposition wouldn’t fly with those folks.

Labels are here to stay. Slogans are here to stay. As long as people get their news and views from a 15 second TV commercial, political advocates will try to boil down their message to fit within that time frame and still have enough time to get in a bit more about their message.

Plenty of political activists are now suggesting the Milwaukee County Board should censure Sheriff David Clarke for his over the top grandstanding on issues he has no control over.

They are wrong.

There is no reason to give Clarke more of a soapbox. The more attention he is given, the wackier he will become. Clarke is a bully. He thrives on the attention. It doesn’t matter whether it is positive attention or negative attention. Clarke loves to play the martyr. There is no reason and nothing that can be gained by giving Clarke any ammunition that can allow him to play the martyr card.

And really, what would censure do? Nothing. Nothing at all. Censure by the County Board is the equivalent of saying “naughty, naughty”. There are no ramifications.

County Executive Chris Abele has a strained relationship with Clarke — for good reason. Clarke recently said Abele has penis envy. Despite his poor behavior, low class antics and combative attitude, Clarke continues to get re-elected.

Yes, Clarke takes positions on issues he has no control over. For the most part, his department doesn’t fight crime. The Sheriff’s department patrols the freeways, occasionally responds to calls in the parks, and oversees security in the courts and in the jail. Most of the calls in the County are responded to by the most populous city in the County — Milwaukee. That falls under the purview of Milwaukee Police Chief Ed Flynn, not County Sheriff David Clarke. Yet it is Clarke who is urging people to arm themselves and using tax dollars to do so, not Flynn.

The guy who actually is responsible for dealing with people who decide to arm themselves and go on rampages, isn’t Clarke at all. It is the Police Chief of whatever municipality that a problem might arise in. So Clarke really has very little impact on fighting crime.

Clarke is simply like the Emperor with no clothes.

Now why would the County Board choose to be like Clarke? Why would they choose to jump in and take a position on Clarke and his antics when their opinions are just that — opinions. They have no legislative authority to do anything about Clarke’s buffoonery.

If anything, Abele and Clarke are a match made in heaven.

Abele, who has no legislative experience, suggests that he knows best how to reform the legislative branch of county government. Not surprisingly, if he gets his way it will mean that Abele will have more power and more people will pay attention to him. Clarke, who has very little crime fighting experience is now suggesting to homeowners that they should arm themselves. The result here is that if Clarke were to get his way then more people will pay attention to him and he might even get elected to a higher office which will mean he’ll have more power as well.

All of these antics remind me of basic parenting skills. If every time a baby screams, yells or throws a temper tantrum they get picked up and rewarded with attention, they are taught that bad behavior gives them what they wanted in the first place.

I think it’s time for a “time out”.

It was a grand experiment, but adding the layer of County Government that is least connected to the people has turned out to be a dismal failure. It’s time to get back to our roots and eliminate the position of County Executive.

In theory it should have worked out well. In reality it has resulted in contention, dishonesty and a scramble to assess blame rather than accepting personal responsibility.

Budgets fraught with phantom revenues and understated expenses have been sent to the board over the last three decades. The board has been forced to rewrite these budgets to reflect reality. Policies and ordinances have been sent to the board, stripped of critical information and insight with the demand that they be passed nearly sight-unseen. When problems happen it is the board, not the Executive, who has taken the heat.

Power struggles in politics are not uncommon, but adding the layer of County Executive has resulted in more of a fight for power than reasonable arguments over policy. Today County government is faced with a County Executive who cries that reform of the branch of government closest to the people must be reformed. That reform will allow him to concentrate his power.

Since when did concentrating power in the hands of one person become reform? Power mongering is not reform.

Even the elections for Executive have become a corrupted exercise in our democracy. To be elected you must be either wealthy enough to finance your own campaign or well connected enough to a political party that you can raise suitcases full of money from others. Neither option is in the interest of the public.

Optimally county government should be eliminated since legislatively it runs at the will of state government. State politicians overrule the actions of the county, pass along the costs of mandates, and pat themselves on the back for saving money that was never saved. Counties become scapegoats for lazy state politicians. Since politicians would rather diddle around the edges of real reform, county government is here to stay.

Now politicians are lining up to say the board needs to be reduced in size and only compensated with a part time salary. The vast diversity of talent and experiences that could be called upon to solve complex problems will evaporate. Qualified common people will not run for a position that will not even allow them to pay their household expenses. Less oversight and less accountability is not reform.

Still others claim that efficiency will come from reducing salaries. There’s just one problem with their claims — arithmetic. The County Board costs less than 1% of the budget. Eliminating oversight will cost more in missed efficiencies. Less eyes on the problem is not a solution unless you’re the one who wants to hide something.

There once was a time when smaller, local government was considered the best government. Those days are apparently over.

Thinking people across Southeastern Wisconsin are shaking their head in disbelief at the ignorance being sold as “reform” these days. The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel is busy turd polishing big government legislation that rookie State Legislator Joe Sanfelippo wants to drop on Milwaukee County. Sanfelippo thinks that the Milwaukee County board should be downsized and salaries of Supervisors reduced to just $15,000 per year — effectively making it impossible for any of them to continue to serve full time.

Los Angeles County is being held as the panacea. They only have 5 County Supervisors for the whole county, downsizing advocates cry. But here’s the problem — Los Angeles County is not at all like Milwaukee County. First, Los Angeles County has nearly 10 million residents. Milwaukee County has less than a million. A Los Angeles County Supervisor makes $178,789 per year. A Milwaukee County Supervisor makes about $50,000 (the same as it was over a decade ago). Each one of the Los Angeles County Supervisors represents about 2 million people. Try, just try to get them on the phone if one of their constituents calls with a problem. It’s not going to happen. In Milwaukee County, you can usually have your county supervisor call you back the same day — in person.

Financing a campaign for a seat where the incumbent represents 2 million people is ridiculously expensive. In the end, candidates who are not independently wealthy must figure out how to raise millions of dollars to run. Who do you think antes up that kind of cash? Do you seriously think for a minute that these seats will ever be able to be won by the common man with the interest only for the people he represents? The Los Angeles County board has only had one change in a board member since 1998. Effectively, Los Angeles Supervisor incumbents have a fiefdom where they can do what they want. Why would we want that system of government here?

Now why should we care? Really now, from a basic cost perspective, doesn’t it makes sense to reduce the board salaries? If you don’t care much about how government works, and can’t see past the dollar amounts being spent, then the short answer would be yes. Unfortunately that myopic approach just might pass the state legislature.

But there are other factors at play here. First, the entire legislative branch, even at current salaries is less than 1% of the County budget. That 1% gives county residents someone who can, to the best of their ability, assess projects to make sure that they are cost effective. That 1% buys someone who can advocate for issues of importance to district residents who may have otherwise been neglected.

That 1% allows people who have had expertise in an array of fields to come together to debate issues. A Supervisor who was a nurse can lend their expertise to a healthcare issue. A Supervisor who was a programmer can give their expert advice on technical matters in the county. A contractor can offer cost saving ideas for public works projects. Take away those three people and you could spend hundreds of millions of dollars that you didn’t have to.

I’m going to get specific here. In the interest of full disclosure I used to serve on the Milwaukee County Board. When I was a Supervisor we had a project come before us for the repaving of Lincoln Memorial Drive. Now I don’t recall the exact numbers, but I do remember that what was being proposed by the County Executive at the time was a simple repaving. It would have put 3 inches of asphalt over the entire roadway. For the sake of simplicity let’s say that the cost would have been 5 million. Now me and several of my colleagues looked into this. The project would have had to be repaved in another 6 years which, conveniently, was when the County Executive at the time planned to retire. We discovered that the engineers were calling the road bed “swiss cheese”. We found out that if we would spend about 8 million, we could have the road re-engineered and reconstructed and the new road would not only fix drainage problems but would last in excess of 20 years.

Now let’s do a little simple math.

The way the Exec wanted to go would have cost taxpayers $5 million divided by the 6 years it was estimated to have lasted. That is a cost of $833,333 per year to keep the road going but not fixing any structural problems.

The way the County Board wanted go (and what was eventually adopted) was a cost of $8 million divided by 20 years. That is a cost of $400,000 per year — less than half the per year cost!

There were other benefits. The new plan added much needed parking and also had several traffic slowing features which made the road safer for what is basically a parkway which many used to use as a high speed freeway. This improved the road and made it safer for bicyclists, pedestrians and motorists alike.

With that one project alone, the Milwaukee County Board more than paid for itself as well as provided ongoing legislative representation for each of the 50,000 constituents that each of them represent.

But that’s not the only example over oversight and efficiency that an effective board can bring. Personally I recall sitting in a parks committee meeting. A railroad came by and needed local approval so they could access federal funds for a multi-million dollar enhancement to part of their railroad. The Parks Department was in favor of it. Simple enough right?

Not so fast.

There was a piece of land that the county had wanted to purchase from the railroad for a long time. The railroad was not using it. The railroad was not even returning calls. Why the parks department did not come out and connect the dots here, I don’t know, but I objected to us approving their grant proposal until they worked out an agreement with the Parks Department for the County to at least have a right of way to put a bike path adjacent to the land the railroad wasn’t even using. The railroad lobbyist was irate. I didn’t care. He was being paid plenty well and it was Milwaukee County residents who were getting the shaft. I asked for the item to be laid over until the railroad came back with an agreement with the parks department. That’s what a partnership is. That’s what an effective Supervisor can do.

There are many other examples of efficiencies that an effective full-time Supervisor can bring. But the point is that the public doesn’t know about these sorts of improvements. The media doesn’t publicize them because a longer lasting road isn’t a sexy issue.

Newsmen often say “if it bleeds, it leads”. Well, road improvements at lower costs don’t bleed.

Thinking people will understand that ramrodding Sanfelippo’s plan through isn’t a reform. It’s just a change. Sometimes change is good. Sometimes it isn’t. This one isn’t.

Government is at its best when it is small and local — at least that was the sentiment when Ronald Reagan was the head of the Republican party. Now, well let’s just say not so much.

Rookie State Representative Joe Sanfelippo has decided to make his mark by pushing through legislation that would bring about one of the largest top down, statist controls that has ever happened in Wisconsin history.

Statist Sanfelippo, who serves as a Republican in the legislative branch of state government making more than $50,000 per year, wants to reduce size of the Milwaukee County Board (but not other, larger county boards in Wisconsin). Sanfelippo represents about 50,000 people, or roughly the same amount as he represented when he served one term on the Milwaukee County board.

It stands to reason that if Sanfelippo believes that he has earned the right to cut the salary of someone in another legislative branch who represents the same amount of people, that Sanfelippo would cut his own salary to just $15,000 per year as well, but don’t hold your breath. Sanfelippo follows the “do as I say, not as I do” approach to governing.

He wants to do this now because it will no longer affect him. This is not uncommon. Many politicians like to take away the benefits from other people who may serve in the future, but never themselves. As early as just over a year ago, former Milwaukee County Supervisor turned State Senator Chris Larsen took a parting shot at his colleagues by introducing legislation in that body to limit benefits for the County Board. When asked about this issue by the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, Larsen says he prefer to let local government make these kind of decisions.

Now Milwaukee County Executive Chris Abele has weighed in supporting Sanfelippo’s idea. Abele knows full well that this would neuter the current board of Supervisors. They would no longer be able to devote their full time attention to either district needs or to amending the budget that is sent to them from the County Executive each year. The board would be reduced to people who, like Abele, were not reliant upon a salary to serve and who had sufficient time on their hands. For the most part, a restructured County Board would consist of government hobbyists, individuals bought and paid for by contributors and wealthy retirees.