Respectful Dissent

It goes without saying that any person that chooses to brave the treacherous realm of government service has the certainty of drawing fire from others that have an opposing point of view.  This usually sparks debate, which in turn develops into a meaningful understanding of each other’s perspective.  Elected officials should expect dissenting arguments and listen closely for skews that may have escaped the building blocks for their own developed standpoint…but that does not give free rein to use the elected officials as punching bags by others that happen to have a differing outlook on an issue. 

Aldermen in Menasha do not place the one step forward and insert their name in the election hat to derive a hefty income from the city coffers, nor do they have an insatiable craving for power.  If the intentions are to acquire the preceding they are doing it for the wrong reasons and will experience culture shock on how inaccessible both of those aspirations are.  The people who choose to run for elected office are compelled by the inner need to assist a community in a higher capacity than most, and each person that runs and/or is blessed with an election win brings unique concepts and experiences to the table that they feel would aid their community and bring about a positive outcome.  If presented properly, the electors cast ballots with favor and the designated official proceeds to lay claim to the daunting task of city politics.

Dissent is needed and healthy in any democracy, but the ones that are throwing the sandbags cannot loose sight that even elected officials have wives, husbands and children that become collateral damage to a process that excuses reckless rock-throwing in order to achieve a desired result.  Any elected official, or those that strive to become one, that rely on stealth Kamikaze personal attacks to force a viewpoint or stance on any subject should raise a brow or two.

If damaging a family brings no concern to a person tossing mud against a wall to see what sticks, then fearful should be the eyes of the public when that person addresses them. Dissent is good and healthy…but accomplish it with a little respect and class.

Menasha Mayor Vetos Redistricting Plan

The Mayor of Menasha vetoed the Common Council’s redistricting plan today.  Within the official press release he addresses the reasons for his veto strike, but there is a problem…the press release is not being honest describing the situation of the redistricting.  I would like to address the items to let voters make an informed decision whether or not the Common Council made the correct choice for the citizens and taxpayers of Menasha.

2011 Current Representation

Wards: 21

Aldermanic Districts: 8

Percent difference in District populations: 48%

Highest populated District: District 8 with 3523

Lowest populated District: District 2 with 1815

County Supervisory lines crossed: 1

County lines crossed: 1

School lines crossed: 1

Current number of ballots needed: 11

2011 Commission Proposed Plan (Rejected)

Wards: 18

Aldermanic Districts: 8

Percent difference in District populations: 55%

Highest populated District: District 6 with 2443

Lowest populated District: District 8 with 1103

County Supervisory lines crossed: 0

County lines crossed: 1

School lines crossed: 1

Number of ballots needed: 10

2011 Council Plan (Passed)

Wards: 17

Aldermanic Districts: 8

Percent difference in District populations: 19%

Highest populated District: District 7 with 2374

Lowest populated District: District 3 with 1917

County Supervisory lines crossed: 2

County lines crossed: 0

School lines crossed: 1

Number of ballots needed: 11

The redistricting plan that was passed DOES NOT create any increase in ballot printing costs farther than what is currently in place.  There is no added expense to the tax payers.  The plan that was passed by the Common Council allows for the fairest representation for all taxpayers.  The press release from the Mayor’s office is accusatory by stating that the plan that was passed disenfranchises voters on the east side…this is very disingenuous when the plan that the Mayor is backing actually does disenfranchise voters, in fact 93.6% of Menasha’s voters would have received half the representation on the Common Council compared to the other 6.4% if the first proposed plan was passed.

The Mayor also avoids the fact that if substantial growth does occur on the east side before the next redistricting, by Wisconsin State Statute our municipality can adjust our Aldermanic District boundaries to even out the population representation…this can be completed every two years.  The Common Council did approve an agreement with a developer to build UP TO 200 homes near Lake Park Villas, what the press release forgot to mention was the builder is not obligated to build any amount of homes...in fact he does not have to build a single home and can sell off vacant lots if he so chooses, he just will not receive a cash bonus from the city if he does not build 200 homes. The time frame to build those homes is stretched over many years, the developer to this day has not signed the agreement to build any homes, and the city forgot to purchase and retain part of the land that the developer wanted in the first place. 

Now for the cost.  The Mayor stated that the extra ballot cost will total an extra $1,000 each election…this is absolutely false and beyond disingenuous.  Here are the actual facts:

1) There will not be any extra ballots printed than what there are currently printed today.  The cost will remain the same.

2) The plan crosses three lines, exactly the same as today.

3) The plan has one polling place with three ballots while all others have two, exactly the same as today

Ballot Costs of Last Three Years with Three Border Crossings

2011 - $1,451 for entire year for entire city

2010 - $1,095 for entire year for entire city

2009 - $422 for entire year for entire city

Ballot Costs of Last Three Years Before Moving County District Lines Causing An Extra Ballot - With Two Border Crossings

2007 - $578.15 for entire year for entire city

2006 - $824.51 for entire year for entire city

2005 - $437.80 for entire year for entire city

Average ballot costs after county redistricting in 2007 (2009 to 2011, Excluding Presidential Elections): $989 for each year for entire city

Average ballot costs before county redistricting in 2007 (2000 to 2007, Excluding Presidential Elections): $1030 for each year for entire city

Total Yearly Cost of Menasha Election Ballots

2011 - $1,451 ~ 11 separate ballots

2010 - $1,095 ~ 11 separate ballots

2009 - $422 ~ 11 separate ballots

2008 - $4,613 ~ 11 separate ballots (Presidential election Obama v. McCain)

2007 - $578.15 ~10 separate ballots

2006 - $824.51 ~10 separate ballots

2005 - $437.80 ~10 separate ballots

2004 - $2,541.86 ~10 separate ballots (Presidential election Bush v. Kerry)

2003 - $893.48 ~10 separate ballots

2002 - $1,954.12 ~10 separate ballots

2001 - $1,492.82 ~10 separate ballots

2000 - $1,332.52 (Presidential election Bush v. Gore)

1999 - $509.10

A large added ballot increase did not exist when Menasha had to add an extra ballot to our elections due to the County Supervisory Lines being re-drawn in 2007 causing Aldermanic District 7 to be cut in the middle.  Stating that the one ballot that would remain in place with the passed plan would cause a $1,000 increase in ballot cost is false and borders a complete lie.

It boils down to this…the Common Council drew a plan that keeps everyone’s vote and representation as equal as possible, and I for one am proud to defend against the diluting of anyone’s representation or vote!  The plan supported by the Mayor literally does dilute the representation and vote of 93.6% of Menasha residents giving 6.4% of the city’s population a 2-to-1 advantage on the Common Council.

I plant my feet firmly on the side of fair and equal representation for everyone, others would prefer to give a fraction of the population more clout and more power of representation on the Common Council.  It is up to you to decide in the up coming elections, is your vote meant to be equal as your neighbor’s, or is your neighbor allowed to be counted twice because of where they live?  It is your choice.

The Menasha Redistricting Debate

To start things off one must have a solid grip on the concept and reason for redistricting.

Redistricting is not intended to streamline the election process, nor is it intended to keep ballot costs down.  The sole intent and reason for the redistricting process is to establish election districts which provide representational equality for all potential voters…period, nothing more and nothing less.  It is almost an embarrassment that a simple procedure that is intended to provide you as a voter reassurance that your vote will count equally as your neighbor’s can, and often does, turn into a political circus. 

Voting equality is the base for our democracy.  There are laws that work in conjunction with our Constitution that protect your vote from becoming diluted down, this is achieved by not allowing a section of the population to obtain an unfair advantage over another in governmental representation. Elected officials are to represent people…not areas.

The original proposed redistricting plan that came from the established Redistricting Committee for Menasha diluted 93% of the population’s representation which flies in the face of a fair and equal democracy. The original plan, by default, advocated one portion of the population within the city deserves twice the amount of representation on the city council than all others.  This is a one-person-one-vote system, the redistricting map initially presented to the council gave District 8 voters a one-person-one-vote representation on the council while all other Districts had to have 2+ voters to equal the representation that one voter in District 8 would receive.  This is clearly not within statutes and frankly is quite disturbing that there were people, including elected officials,  advocating that the 6.4% of the population in proposed District 8 should receive 1/8 of the representation, while all other remaining districts contained 13.4% of the population each and would only receive the same 1/8 representation.  Think about that for a moment, 6.4% of the population would receive 12.5% of the representation while all others would equate to 13.4% receiving the same 12.5% representation. 

There are laws that govern redistricting and many written documents that clearly state what must be followed. 

-There is case law with the United States Supreme Court (Wesberry vs. Sanders) where the high court found in Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution a command that in the election of Members of the House of Representatives districts were to be made up of substantially equal numbers of persons…and they extended that ruling and requirement to all legislative bodies in the United States including municipal councils.

-Robert Marchant, Legislative Attorney for the Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau in 2001 (He is currently the Chief Clerk for the Wisconsin Senate) clearly states within the pages of “The Basic Legal Requirements of Local Redistricting” dated April of 2001 that “City Aldermanic Districts must be as equal in population as practicable” and goes further to state that past case law established that “Article 1, Section 1 of the Wisconsin Constitution guarantees persons the right not to have their votes diluted by unequal distribution of local legislative seats.”

- Within the pages of the Wisconsin Counties Association’ “WCA 2011 County Redistricting Guide” it states “Aldermanic Districts have to be substantially equal in population” and defines substantial as “an over all deviation of 10%”

- You would have to ignore the US Supreme Court, the Wisconsin Constitution, the past Legislative Attorney for the Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau and the Wisconsin Counties Association in order to arrive at the conclusion that a difference in population at the magnitude of 55%, as was presented in the initial proposed map, was acceptable.  Even in light of solid fact that the city of Menasha could, without a doubt, adhere much closer to the statutes and requirements of redistricting. 

-         My proposed plan did not increase ballot cost.  The exact number of different ballots that are produced right now is equivalent to the amount of different ballots required for my new plan. As of today District 7 crosses county supervisory lines causing two ballots, District 8 crosses an actual county line causing an extra ballot and District 8 has two school districts causing an extra ballot…a total of 3 extra ballots.

-         My proposed plan has District 2 crossing a county supervisory line causing an extra ballot, District 6 crosses a supervisory line causing an extra ballot and District 8 still has the dual school districts causing an extra ballot…a total of 3 extra ballots.  There is no added cost to the tax payers and no added ballots.

-         Currently there is one polling place (Clovis School) that has three ballots to deal with during every other election year, the rest have two a piece.  My plan drops the Clovis ballot count to 1 ballot allowing District 5 voting to be moved to that school (which was part of the committees original plan by recommending the closing of Jefferson School as a polling location) leaving every polling place with two ballots except for the polling place for District 1 and 2 which would now have the 3 ballots instead…the exact ballot count as we currently have.

I must repeat…there is no added cost to the taxpayers above what we currently have for voting.

The Mayor threatened the use of his veto pen to this proposal and he listed three requirements to avoid a veto.

1)      No wards could cross County Supervisory lines…the proposed plan has no ward crossing county lines

2)      It could not create multiple ballots resulting in additional, unnecessary costs…the proposed plan contains the same amount of various ballots that exists in our elections today and keeps polling places with the same amount of ballot distribution as it exists today.

3)      It cannot create a Calumet County Aldermanic District larger than the average of the Winnebago Districts…unfortunately this requirement is statistically impossible to achieve.  Calumet County has 2204 Menasha residents and Winnebago County has 15,233…if you divided that number by 7 aldermanic districts you have 2,176 people per Winnebago district on average.

Cost is not the concern.  If it were, the mayor would have vetoed the recent purchase of a $24,000 parking lot by the previous council.  This purchase will cost another $20,000 for repairs and removes $1,400 of taxes each year from the levy which residents will have to make up.  There was no concern about spending costs over ten years of a $70,000 un-needed parking lot because there was no veto…cost cannot be the concern here.

My proposed plan has the District 8 population amount sitting right at the median of all the District populations, half of the Districts have a higher population and half the Districts have a lower population.  Alderman Benner’s population will be 239 people lower than if he had the proposed District 6 that was suggested in the map that was rejected by the council.  District 8 is also comprised of neighborhoods with covenants, which by nature reduce most of the common complaints and concerns related with older sections of the city.

This is a good plan, a feasible plan and a fair plan for the residents of Menasha.  Redistricting is to make your vote count just as equally as your neighbor.  That cannot happen when your neighbor’s vote counts twice as much as yours for the same representation on this governing body.  It is simple…one-person-one-vote…a very low population cannot have an equal representation on the city council as a population twice it’s size.  This is common sense and the law…and quite honestly should send shivers up people’s spines to know there are elected officials out there that have no problem with diluting your vote for the benefit of others.

I am extremely proud to have put in the 52 hours of research and phone calls it took to protect your vote, and I would have no qualms of doing it again.