The latest from the Clerk's office

With one day left to file, here's what the clerk's office had at 4:30 on Friday. Changes from my last post on this subject are in bold. As of Friday, December 29, here are the folks who have filed at least some papers indicating that they intend to seek office.

* = incumbent
x = all paperwork is in (I'm not sure that the clerks office indicated that on their sheets for Mayoral and School Board Candidates)
exempt = don't intend to raise over $1,000

MAYOR
Dave Cieslewicz* (Cap Times I, Cap Times II, WSJ I, WSJ II, Dane101, Isthmus, Isthmus II)
Ray Allen (Cap Times, WSJ I, WSJ II, Isthmus)
Denise deNure (Isthmus) - Isn't on the list in the clerk's office.
Will Sandstrom, exempt

CITY COUNCIL (WSJ, Isthmus)
District 1
Aaron Backer
Jed Sanborn*

District 2
x Brenda Konkel*

District 3
Lauren Cnare*

District 4
x Mike Verveer*

District 5
Troy Thiel (Cap Times)
Robbie Webber*

District 6 (Judy Olson* not running) (Cap Times, WSJ)
Brooks McGrath (Cap Times)
Marsha Rummel (Cap Times, Dane101)

District 7
Zach Brandon*

District 8 (Austin King* not running) (Cap Times, Isthmus, Dane101)
x Lauren Woods (Isthmus)

District 9
Paul Skidmore*

District 10
x Nick Dorneanu (Cap Times) exempt
Ken Golden* has not filed non-candidacy (Cap Times, WSJ, Dane101)
x Thomas McClure exempt
Chris Ogden exempt
x Brian Solomon (Cap Times, Dane101)

District 11
x Tim Gruber* exempt
Sandra Saul exempt
Christopher Schmidt

District 12 (Brian Benford* not running)
x Michael Basford (Isthmus, Dane101)
x Satya Rhodes-Conway (Cap Times, Isthmus, Dane101)
Mark Deadman (Cap Times, Isthmus)
x Marcus Watson (Isthmus) exempt

District 13 (Isadore Knox* not running) (Cap Times, Isthmus)
x Julia Kerr (Cap Times, Dane101)

District 14
x Tim Bruer* exempt

District 15
Larry Palm* (Cap Times)
Vicky Selkowe (WSJ, Dane101)

District 16
x Judy Compton*

District 17 (Santiago Rosas* not running) (Cap Times)
x Joe Clausius (Cap Times, Isthmus)
Sarah Florino

District 18 (Paul VanRooy* not running)
Andy Lindgren
Michael Schumacher

District 19 (Noel Radomski* not running)
Curt Brink (Isthmus)
x Mark Clear (Cap Times, Isthmus)

District 20 (Cindy Thomas* not running)
Gary Poulson (Cap Times, Isthmus)
x Thuy Pham-Remmele (Cap Times, Isthmus)

SCHOOL BOARD (Isthmus)
Seat 3 (Shwaw Vang* not running)
Pam Cross-Leone
Beth Moss
Rick Thomas

Seat 4
Johnny Winston Jr*
Tom Brew

Seat 5 (Ruth Robarts* not running)
Maya Cole
Marjorie Passman (Cap Times)

I'll try to report on Tuesday after the clerk's office closes and before the council meeting.
Read more!

I am not running for Mayor.

Really. I am not running for Mayor. Seriously.

If I was running for Mayor, you'd know it. I would have been running for months by now. I can't believe regular ol' people and reporters are still asking me at this late date. There is only today and Tuesday left to file papers, but you won't be seeing anything from me except what I have already filed, papers for the aldermanic seat in district 2. Honestly.

And as far as I know, no one from the "left" is running. However, I don't know everything and this is a crazy town and you never know what will happen. I can tell you, no one from "the left" has confided in me that they are filing papers for Mayor. I swear.

Now quit asking, enjoy the long weekend and Happy New Year.
Read more!

The Mayor's Race

Well, the entry of Peter Munoz into the mayor's race has certainly livened things up a bit. I have to say, what was once a predictable spring election has gotten very interesting. I had a feeling this is going to be a campaign where there was alot of "me too" going on. So far it has sounded like the Mayor was going to try to sound like Ray Allen by talking about being business-friendly and Ray Allen was going to be the one talking about affordable housing, workforce mass transit (buses not trolleys!), social services and improvements to Allied Drive. And of course, there was going to be talk about management and style.

Then, enter Peter, and the discussion of management and style took the front seat. He certainly said some powerful and necessary things in his Cap Times interview. I've worked with Peter Munoz and I really like and admire the guy. I also appreciate that he stepped up and is running, even though I don't think he really planned to. That takes courage. More importantly, he's in the race for the right reasons and he's passionate about it. He truly believes the democratic process and bringing people together and that's really refreshing. And, I couldn't disagree more with Austin King's comments in the Wisconsin State Journal

Ald. Austin King, 8th District, a Progressive Dane member, said Munoz's campaign would be handicapped by more than its late start.

"Peter is a very bright guy and pretty well respected," King said. "But his former association with the Common Sense Coalition is a blemish on his record of public service."

King said there also could be questions about Munoz supporting Cieslewicz's mayoral campaign in 2003 and then being turned down for a position in his administration.

"He will have a hard time convincing people that this is not about sour grapes," King said.

These comments made me really sad. I think Peter has alot of integrity and I have alot of respect for him. Remember, he was only the leader of the Common Sense Coalition for a month before he stepped down. The fact that he stepped down speaks volumes. And this most certainly isn't about "sour grapes", this is about seeing something that isn't being done right and knowing that we need to do better and feeling passionate enough about it to try to change things. What more could we ask for in a Mayor. Thank you Peter for running.

Read more!

The Changing Face of the City Council

There are going to be at least 9 new faces on the City Council, and maybe more. This leads many people to ask several questions.

Why is everyone retiring?
I don't think there is any one answer to this question. For some, I think its more work than they thought it would be. For most, it probably has more to do with what is going on in their personal lives. For some, some of the nastiness of the last term may have just made them think "this isn't worth it!". Those retiring are Judy Olson (1995), Austin King (2003), Ken Golden (1989), Brian Benford (2003), Isadore Knox (2005), Santiago Rosas (1993), Paul VanRooy (2001), Noel Radomski (2005) and Cindy Thomas (1999). I think if you were to ask them, they'd each have their own reasons.

What does it mean for the Council?
Here's something that struck me as bizarre. Look at who's left on the Council and when they were elected.

1984 - Tim Bruer
1995 - Mike Verveer
1999 - Judy Compton
2001 - Brenda Konkel, Paul Skidmore
2003 - Zach Brandon, Robbie Webber and Mayor Dave
2005 - Jed Sanborn, Lauren Cnare, Tim Gruber, Larry Palm

With the retirements of Warren Onken and Jean MacCubbin last year and Ken Golden and Judy Olson we are losing alot of institutional memory. There are very few alders mentioned above who have actually introduced a piece of legislation and seen it through to the point where it passes, let alone shepherding through a controversial piece of legislation.

As with life, this presents both tremendous opportunities and at the same time, threats. Opportunities to do things in a new way, hopefully with more respect for the public and how they can give input into decisions we make. Threats because we're probably going to spend alot of time recreating the wheel, getting tangled up in things that we wouldn't if we had more experience around and generally speaking, things will probably take longer as more people have more questions. Staff reports will be more important and carry more influence.

Who's going to be the the leadership on the Council?
Tim Bruer? Judy Compton?
People are spending alot of time talking about if there is going to be a shift to the right or the left. My guess is, there will be a shift in influence of the Mayor's office. With seven full time people to lobby the council plus administrative staff, this could very well end up the Mayor's council. That may or may not be a good or bad thing, but it's definitely a shift. One thing is certain, it will be an interesting year as all of this plays out.


Read more!

Spring Elections: Who's Running? Who's Not?

(I've added campaign websites that I could find.)
Not everyone who has filed papers to run has been the subject of news articles. And some news outlets have reported more than others. As of Friday at 5:00 here are the folks who have filed at least some papers indicating that they intend to seek office, or, in the case of the incumbents, failed to file papers saying they were not running.

* = incumbent

MAYOR
Dave Cieslewicz* (Cap Times I, Cap Times II, WSJ I, WSJ II, Dane101, Isthmus, Isthmus II)
Ray Allen (Cap Times, WSJ I, WSJ II, Isthmus)
Denise deNure (Isthmus)

CITY COUNCIL (WSJ, Isthmus)
District 1
Aaron Backer
Jed Sanborn*

District 2
Brenda Konkel*

District 3
Lauren Cnare*

District 4
Mike Verveer*

District 5
Troy Thiel (Cap Times)
Robbie Webber*

District 6 (Judy Olson* not running) (Cap Times, WSJ)
Brooks McGrath (Cap Times)
Marsha Rummel (Cap Times, Dane101)

District 7
Zach Brandon*

District 8 (Austin King* not running) (Cap Times, Isthmus, Dane101)
Lauren Woods (Isthmus)

District 9
Paul Skidmore*

District 10
Nick Dorneanu (Cap Times)
Ken Golden* (failed to file non-candidacy papers) (Cap Times, WSJ, Dane101)
Thomas McClure
Chris Ogden
Brian Solomon (Cap Times, Dane101)

District 11
Tim Gruber*
Sandra Saul
Christopher Schmidt

District 12 (Brian Benford* not running)
Michael Basford (Isthmus, Dane101)
Satya Rhodes-Conway (Cap Times, Isthmus, Dane101)
Mark Deadman (Cap Times, Isthmus)
Marcus Watson (Isthmus)

District 13 (Isadore Knox* not running) (Cap Times, Isthmus)
Julia Kerr (Cap Times, Dane101)

District 14
Tim Bruer*

District 15
Larry Palm* (Cap Times)
Vicky Selkowe (WSJ, Dane101)

District 16
Judy Compton*

District 17 (Santiago Rosas* not running) (Cap Times)
Joe Clausius (Cap Times, Isthmus)

District 18 (Paul VanRooy* not running)
Andy Lindgren
Michael Schumacher

District 19 (Noel Radomski* not running)
Curt Brink (Isthmus)
Mark Clear (Cap Times, Isthmus)

District 20 (Cindy Thomas* not running)
Gary Poulson (Cap Times, Isthmus)
Thuy Pham-Remmele (Cap Times, Isthmus)

SCHOOL BOARD (Isthmus)
Seat 3 (Shwaw Vang* not running)
Pam Cross-Leone
Beth Moss
Rick Thomas

Seat 4
Johnny Winston Jr*
Tom Brew

Seat 5 (Ruth Robarts* not running)
Maya Cole
Marjorie Passman (Cap Times)

Perhaps, when the WSJ complains of low voter turn out this spring, they can look at how they contributed to an uninformed public.

Note: If you think I missed something, feel free to let me know.
Read more!

Allied - What's the real story?

Living on Allied Drive is not easy. Sometimes, "the City" doesn't "help".

At their last meeting, the Allied Drive Task Force voted to give a portion of their money ($4,500) to help Allied Drive residents who were either being evicted or their month to month leases were being terminated by a private landlord who was afraid the City would start a nuisance action against them. The task force directed the money to go through the Community Action Coalition (CAC). The Mayor's office then added $1,900 in additional funds to help the residents.

Sounds wonderful doesn't it.

Unfortunately, here's where things start to fall apart. Now, I'm handicapped in that the information surrounding the facts here are confounding. I have been told that there are 11 households involved, as opposed to the 14 originally reported. That seems to be the one consistent fact. There are either 3 or 8 or 5 or 6 families that were "part of the problem" and have too many police calls according to the City Attorney and therefore the funds cannot be used for those families (This wasn't part of the motion of the Task Force). So the funds can only help 3 or 5 or 6 or 8 households. Channel 3 reported 8 families are being helped, and that is consistent with what I thought (that only three of the households were "part of the problem") . . . but . . . yesterday after the meeting where the task force tried to ask questions about what happened to the money they gave, a staff person from the CDBG office told me that the contract says that CAC cannot use the money for 8 of the 11 households and that they are specifically listed in the contract. And the $1900 is being used for families that moved into Prairie Crossing because Prairie Crossing hasn't recieved their "sticky" section 8 vouchers yet. (The City is trying to set up some deal with WHEDA and I think that the vouchers can only be used if the WHEDA funding comes through. The vouchers would stay with the apartment instead of allowing the tenant to move and take the section 8 voucher with them, that's why it is "sticky".)

This gets further complicated in that either the City or CAC has insisted that they use "their rules" meaning:
1) The client can only get assistance 1 time in 2 years or 2 times in 5 years
2) The client has to have a sudden and temporary loss of income that lead to their non-payment of rent and show that they will have income to afford their apartment in the future
3) CAC won't pay for more than one month's rent

So, of the families that the City Attorney has agreed that the City and CAC can help (3, 5, 6 or 8 families), there are households that don't qualify and/or if they take the assistance, won't qualify in the future.

And here is where it gets even more complicated for me . . . putting on my hat as Executive Director of the Tenant Resource Center . . . we have funds to help people and three CAC case managers have called and asked the Tenant Resource Center for funds to help at least one, but possibly more families on Allied Drive, but they're the agency that has the $4,500 . . . and they apparently can't use it to help these families! (By the way, when I found out about all of the "rule" confusion and that is was only $300, I offered to pay for it out of the Housing Crisis Fund, which is entirely funded by donations from individuals, but apparently the County is going to pay it instead.)

To add to the mass confusion, most people are on vacation and I can't get any direct answers to any of my questions. And much more importantly, this is causing way too much stress for the families involved and further eroding what little trust the Allied Drive residents have in the City.
Read more!

It's agreed, we're "Skeptical"

Last night, at the Progressive Dane General Membership meeting, we had a little discussion on trolleys. Some of our candidates were hearing quite a bit of anger over the trolleys when they were knocking on doors and we decided to get a sense of the membership. Needless to say, there wasn't anyone willing to stand up and tell us why trolleys were a good idea. Some of the comments are as follows:

1. We want affordable, accessible, frequent and 24 hour transportation choices and we're not convinced trolleys can be affordable.
2. What is the problem we're trying to solve? The busses already run where the trolleys would run. Why would loyal bus riders get off the busses and pay more to ride the trolley?
3. A thought that there were other options to be explored and while we want to consider innovative and new ideas, this doesn't seem to be the answer.
4. Experiences in other cities might not be all they are saying that they are, we heard anecdotes of people not liking the expensive trolleys and their construction in other cities.
5. The only argument for them are that they are "cool" and that's not enough.
6. Many weren't convinced that the argument that this would create economic development was a solid argument.
7. There are questions about how trolleys interact with bike lanes and the danger of crossing the tracks for our many bikers in this City.
8. Will the overhead wires lead to more butchering of our trees ala MG&E?
9. There's no demand for trolleys.
10. While we are "skeptical", no one seemed ready to vote against them until we saw the results of the study.

I'm sure you can add many other things to this list like trolley tracks can't be flexible, fix the bus system instead, why would we rip up streets we just reconstructed (State St and E. Washington), they should run to the airport and downtown hotels if we're going to do it and much giggling over Shelbyville and the monorail. And I'm sure there are many more comments. Bottom line is, I'm hard pressed to find people in this City that are behind the trolleys. And at best, people are skeptical.
Read more!

City Ordinances

Our ordinances should be easier to read. I went to law school, I can read them and decipher them most of the time, however I have trouble with them from time to time. Problem is . . . you shouldn't have to decipher them. We need them to be more clearly written and more obvious as to the intent.

I only bring this up because last night at the plan commission there was an ordinance that was up that I had requested some changes and they weren't made. There were, of course, logical explanations for each of missing items. However, what I really wanted was for the public to be able to pick up the ordinance and read the intent, which was why I added the language. (Admittedly, it wasn't well crafted, which is why two weeks ago I sought the advice of staff instead of simply making motions from the floor.) In several places I added language because the staff and others said what the ordinance would do, but it wasn't in writing in the ordinance. One shouldn't have to go back and review the video of the plan commission to figure out what the intent is, they should be able to look in the ordinance and find it.

I know it seems nitpicky when I ask questions about the way things are written. I know it seems like micromanaging, but in the case last night, and in several others, simply saying what we mean makes it much simpler for the citizens who have to read our ordinances. I think its time we start drafting our ordinances in more plain language and adding those extra lines so the intent is clear. One could even make the argument that it's business friendly!
Read more!

Trolleys - Not a Progressive Dane Initiative

Someone, please tell Mitch Henck that the trolleys are not a Progressive Dane idea. Please!

I have no idea why he's been ranting on his radio show or in today's State Journal about Progressive Dane's trolleys. I happen to be the co-chair of the party and I can tell you that we have never taken a position on trolleys, or streetcars as I am told I am supposed to call them. They are not in our platform. They haven't been a part of our slightly out of date priorities. I've been asking around within the membership and there doesn't seem to be strong support but instead skepticism and luke warm support at best, with one or two exceptions. Unfortunately, one of them is Mayor Dave himself, which is why no one wants to speak up too loudly against the trolleys.

I am here to tell you unequivocally, Progressive Dane has not taken a position in support of trolleys. I dare you to try to find anything on our website that says otherwise. Folks I have talked to in the party are more interested in a bus system that runs more frequently and later at night. Also, more interested in light rail options that would use existing tracks.

So Mitch, please stop spreading lies. Trolleys are not actively supported by Progressive Dane. I think as a member of the media, you have a responsibility to be more accurate in what you say.
Read more!

Allied Drive - 50% Homeownership

Well, here we go, some of the issues I have raised about affordable housing on Allied Drive, the property the City bought there and how the city will handle Allied Drive redevelopment are finally coming to a head. Two things have happened recently, that have Allied Drive residents on edge.

First, was when Jeff Meyer, of Able Management (coincidentally, the property manager that the City hired to manage the properties we bought) exercised some poor judgement and served eviction notices and non-renewal notices on 3 buildings full of people, 14 families in all. (These were not the City owned buildings.)

Second, was when the City handed out an "Issues Statements and Proposed City Review Criteria Related to the City-Owned Properties on Allied Drive" document that said, "At least fifty percent, or a critical mass, of the housing units should be owner-occupied."

So, Allied Drive residents held a press conference yesterday, asking the City (City Council and the Mayor) to make a commitment to make sure that as the community redevelops, that they are not priced out of the neighborhood. Here's some of the background.

JEFF MEYER/ABLE MANAGEMENT
The City has been having problems with police calls and lack of repairs on three buildings on Allied Drive. The properties have changed hands and the City was pursuing a nuisance abatement process and as a result were asking them to evict three problem tenants. Instead of dealing with the folks who were causing problems, the owner, through its management company first gave eviction notices to everyone they could give them to. Then, the next day, they sent notices to all the month to month tenants ending their tenancy by giving them a 28-day notice to leave, ending the leases with all 14 households.

One has to ask, what kind of landlord does this in December? Yes, it might be legal, but what was this experienced manager thinking? This manager has been working in Allied Drive for years and had to have known this wasn't a very politic thing to do.

Anyways, turns out now, after intervention from the Mayor's office, that several of the families can stay and they have extended the time for others to move. Plus, the Allied Drive Task Force has decided to use their $4,500 to help the families that have to move. (However, they gave the money to the Community Action Coalition and clients who use this money will be prohibited from getting housing assistance from that agency for another 2 years, which is absurd. This money should be exempt from their program requirements.)

Hopefully, this situation will partially resolve itself. Tho, if you were one of the families that just went through this whole mess, I'm sure that even if it is resolved, it has caused a whole lot of unnecessary stress during this holiday season. I can't believe someone who exercises such poor judgement is managing the Cities properties in this area. Maybe that's why there are less than 50 families left there.

50% HOMEOWNERSHIP
Since day one, residents of Allied Drive have been asking, when the neighborhood gets all these improvements, will I be priced out of the neighborhood? Are these improvements for us, or for people who will move here in the future?

Good questions. No answers.

And a partial answer, came in the form of a statement drafted by someone in the City that said that at least 50% of the new units would be owner-occupied. To many Allied Drive residents this translates to "I'm being pushed out of my neighborhood".

The bigger question is who in the City made this decision? And why has it taken so long to answer the residents questions about this? I suspect, it is because, as one of my colleagues said, "Why don't we just tell the residents the truth, this isn't going to be affordable, we can't afford it." (I can't believe that made it into my blog!)

I'm still waiting to see numbers connected to the three designs that the architects came up with to determine if it will be feasible to be affordable or not. We need that information sooner rather than later. I continue to think it was a big mistake to tell the architects to just design the building, regardless of what the affordability is, and that we would figure out how to finance it later. When doing affordable housing, you need to use every tool you have to make it more affordable, starting with design.

We need to get answers to the residents questions, this has been going on long enough and we shouldn't be part of the stress on these residents during the holiday season.
Read more!

Salvation Army outdoes themselves!

Obviously, I was already of the opinion that the Salvation Army has no shame . . . and you'd think they'd stop with their unethical fundraising tactics, but no . . .

A friend of mine pointed out this article that came out on December 6th (note that date) in the Neighbors insert that the Madison Newspapers does:

Warming Shelter Needed for homeless families
The community has asked The Salvation Army to provide a warming shelter for Dane County's homeless families who have no place to go. During the winter months it becomes too cold for families to live in their vehicles while on the waiting list for a room in a homeless shelter.

"The Salvation Army does not have money in our budget to cover the cost of the warming shelter without sacrificing our other important services. I am asking the community to assist us in keeping these families safe and warm," said Maj. Paul Moore, Dane County coordinator."

The estimated cost to operate the warming shelter for five months is $30,000. The Salvation Army estimates 775 shelter nights will be used and 1,550 meals served over the next five months.

And the story goes on. What gave me pause was the fact that the City gave them $25,000 in this year's budget for the warming shelter. That budget passed on November 16th. And the County gave them $20,000. The County's budget also passed on November 16th. So they have $45,000 to run their $30,000 program and three weeks later they're still asking the public for money?

I'm just disgusted, but not surprised. These types of fundraising tactics should be illegal. Maybe if they raise some extra money they could at least pay their bellringers a living wage instead of $6.50 per hour?
Read more!

The Spring of the Absentee Ballot

It is not just the University that will be on Spring Break during the Spring elections (Mayor, School Board, Alders) . . . it is the Madison Metropolitan School District as well. This is sure to change campaigns, not just in the heart of downtown, but on the periphery of the City as well where many school age children live. Imagine the surprise to one of my colleagues when I informed that person of this on Saturday night at the Council Holiday Party. They had previously been laughing about the University fiasco, when I informed this person about MMSD and this persons laughter quickly turned to concern as they muttered "that effects my district". Yup.

What does this mean for spring elections? It means driving turnout on election day isn't going to be the only GOTV (get out the vote) efforts, it means a mass education about absentee ballots. If that doesn't happen, these elections could have a record low turnout for Madison. That's not good for anyone. Hopefully, we can get the assistance of the City Clerk, the University, the School District and the local media in educating the public. After all, no matter where you fall on the political spectrum, low voter turn out is bad for democracy, and its bad for our City and its bad for our schools.


Read more!

Neighborhood Officer Showdown . . . And More

Will Chief Noble Wray listen to the City Council or do his own thing? And if he does, what does that mean?

During the budget, we added $50,000 for a staffing study for the police department. That staffing study is different that the previous staffing oversight committees that the Common Council has set up to provide a report to us. This time, we're hiring an outside consultant and it is unclear if there will be an public oversight committee or not.

During the budget, I originally introduced an amendment saying that the 10 new police officers should be neighborhood police officers, but I replaced it with an amendment that said:

A police staffing subcommittee shall be established by the Common Council to review the police staffing report funded in the 2007 budget, if completed, and shall make recommendations to the Common Council and Police Chief which shall include, but not be limited to recommendations regarding the number of neighborhood officers, the staffing levels for Community Policing Teams and other community policing initiatives. This committee shall report back to the Common Council by October 1, 2007.

It was the subject of much debate and it ultimately was the one amendment I introduced that failed. For more details, see amendment #13 here.

Interestingly enough, I later get a phone call from Paul Skidmore (who supported my amendment) asking me to support his resolution that asks the Chief to not pull the neighborhood officers until the staffing report it done. And I agreed.

Chief Wray maintains that these neighborhoods no longer need the police officers. Others think that they are part of what is stabilizing the neighborhoods and removing them from these fragile neighborhoods may cause the progress the neighborhoods have made to go backwards. But, behind those arguments, is the one about if the Council should have a role in what happens in the police department or if we just give over your tax dollars and let them do their thing the rest of the year without any input.

Tonight at the council meeting, we'll get to sort through what this all means and find out where relations with Common Council and the Police Chief are at. And if Mike Hanson was speaking for the Chief when he recently made these statements in the Isthmus:

Alders to cops: Don’t go!

Wray opposes the measure. “The chief of police, and only the chief of police, can assign personnel,” says MPD spokesman Mike Hanson. “So it wouldn’t be prudent for the Common Council to start advising him where police resources are to be allocated.”

Hanson adds that police can’t wait for the staffing study to be completed in 2007, because the department needs to reassign staff in January. “Those resources are needed back on patrol and for implementing another community police team for the south side.”

Or is Chief Wray interested in our input and that of the public? Should be interesting.
Read more!

The New Department of Economic and Community Development

So, we are on a slow moving train to changing the Department of Planning and Development to the Department of Economic and Community Development. Why?

The more I think about this, the more I lose the "why" of doing this. What are we accomplishing? Are we becoming more efficient? Are we saving money? Are we helping staff in some kind of way? Are we addressing issues of management of this huge department that currently exist? To me, the answer to all of those are no. So what are we doing?

I've blogged about this before, twice. I continue to think the public input on this was botched pretty badly, as evidenced by the business community, who gets their paid lobbyists to have closed doors meetings, showing up and thanking the Mayor and expressing their pleasure in this reorganization. Meanwhile, members of the public and neighborhood associations and community groups, while thanking the Mayor as well, were still trying to figure out what was going on and how this would effect them. Many hadn't waded through the 108 page document to figure it all out, and who has the time to do that, besides the paid lobbyists?

Truth of the matter is, no one knows how the neighborhoods and community services are going to work in this plan. Meanwhile the economic development/business community piece of this has some clear actions that will happen as a result of this reorganization. Community services are simply being shoved around in an organizational chart that just doesn't make sense. At the same time there is talk of combining city committees for Seniors, Childcare, Community Services and Block Grant (which by the way, is insane, no one would ever serve on the committee due to the workload), there is also a pilot project that includes the Housing, Block Grant and Community Services working together which is probably a good idea, but Housing remains their own separate entity. Meanwhile the Senior Center, which no one seems to know what to do with is being put with the Office of Community Services and Community Block Grant offices. It's not logical.

The "neighborhood" piece is equally chaotic. The offices of Community Services and Community Block Grant that do very different things, but deal with the hands on day to day work with low-income neighborhoods but are on a different track than the Planning Unit, that deals with mostly middle class neighborhoods that can raise the money and have volunteers to do neighborhood planning. We need to find a way to deal with neighborhoods in a comprehensive way. If developers get a "one stop shop" with multiple staff to help their developments make their way through the city bureaucracy, shouldn't neighborhoods have just one person that could be an entry point to the city bureaucracy? Shouldn't they have their own "one stop shop"?

The more I look at this, the more questions I have and the less answers I have for those are asking me what we should do. This issue is being discussed this week at the following times and places, and I'd encourage you to attend if you are interested:

Economic Development Commission (At University Research Park) Wednesday at 5:00
Community Development Block Grant Commission (In Room 260 Municipal Building) Thursday at 6:15





Read more!

A new side of Mayor Dave?

Mayor Dave is a nice guy. Or so they say.

My experience with him has been quite different. We have definitely had our struggles over the past nearly 4 years. Sometimes very public, more often, not so public at all. Things have gotten to the point where we rarely speak as a result, and when we do, its because I call him and he often just yells about what he wants and how he wants it done and isn't willing to listen. This lack of communication is quite ridiculous given that we agree on 95% of the issues and should be allies. Sure, there are differences between us, some notable ones are:

• He cares about trolleys, swamps and the form a city takes, more from an intellectual or academic point of view. I, on the other hand, care about improving the lives of the people who live in a City, and see some of those things as ways to improve the quality of life of the people who live here.
  
• He is somewhat annoyed by the "Madison process" and wants to see us work more like the state legislature and spends time trying to do things his own way. I, on the other hand, embrace and honor the "Madison process" and want to see it improve and be both more efficient, and more user friendly.
  
• He's willing to call something a "compromise" for the media, knowing fully well that it is not and having purposefully excluded various parties from the discussions. I'm willing to sit down and talk with anyone and try to be inclusive see if there is a compromise to be had, until it becomes clear that we're not going to get there or I feel my core values have been lost and then I choose to just argue my point of view and win or lose and move on.
  
• He's constantly campaigning and obsessing over what the media reports and what people blog. I focus on getting things done and I do what I do and let the media do what it does, and blog to get my own side of the story out, in my own words.
• He's willing to spend millions on trolleys and swamps, but not $200,000 on the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. I'd spend the money on busses, Cherokee Marsh and the Affordable Housing Trust Fund.
• He wants to move the houses in James Madison Park for more park land that we can't take care of and so visitors in cars driving through have a nice view of the lake. I think the historic houses should stay and that moving them compromises their historic integrity. I also think that selling them for a good price, instead of $1 to be moved, should allow us to use some of that money to improve this and other parks.
• He's happy with the Department of Planning and Development reorganization to please the business community. I think that all we dealt with was the business community concerns and we did not think enough about community and neighborhood services and that is not acceptable.

These differences can we worked on and shouldn't stand in the way of good communication and good working relationships. And, when necessary, we should be able to agree to disagree without taking it so personally.

You might wonder why I'm being so blunt about this. I guess I was encouraged to be more public about this after reading this story in the Wisconsin State Journal. More specifically, where Mayor Dave discloses:

For his part, Cieslewicz admits that pride led to bluster last fall.

"I think I did spend a little bit of time in '05 trying to be (Chicago Mayor) Richard Daley," Cieslewicz said Wednesday. "And I think that resulted in some snapback and some lack of success. I'm not Richard Daley. I'm not the kind of guy who generally blusters and threatens people, and I don't think Madison is the kind of city that wants to be run that way."

To some extent, Cieslewicz said, the experiment was prompted by hubris. "I'd been pretty successful for two and a half years," he said, "and that's something that went to my head a little bit. ... In '05, on too many issues I tried to say, This is the way it's going to be.' And I didn't actually get anything accomplished."

In addition, he said, last fall he felt frustrated by another tumultuous Halloween on State Street and the slowness of city government. "All that evolved into a style toward the end of '05 that wasn't serving me very well," he said.

Cieslewicz said he decided to reach out more to members of the City Council and the community, and it has worked.

Wow. That was quite the public admission by Mayor Dave and hopefully a good sign for the City as a whole. He hasn't reached out to me so far, tho I've repeatedly tried with him. Perhaps there is hope yet?
Read more!