Dan Cody

Today's announcement of redevelopment near Milwaukee's 794 off ramps is a long time coming. It's based on the (small amount of) work that I was happy to contribute to through the Long-Range Lakefront Planning Committee headed by Sue Black several years ago that was charged with making a more efficient use of our lakefront space near Lincoln Memorial Drive and Michigan Ave.

Some backstory on the committee and plans at the time can be found here.

Lincoln Memorial Drive will be extended into Milwaukee's Historic Third Ward, and ramps on I-794 near the Hoan Bridge will be moved to free up land for development, under a new plan announced Monday by Gov. Scott Walker, Mayor Tom Barrett and County Executive Chris Abele.

The road improvements near the lakefront will include converting two blocks of Clybourn St., between Lincoln Memorial Drive and Van Buren St., from a narrow, underused street into a boulevard, as well as pedestrian bridges that cross Lincoln Memorial Drive and Michigan St. near O'Donnell Park. – jsonline

This is a good example of all three levels of local Government coming together, each chipping something in, and getting something positive done.

While it's not my usual subject matter, I did find this piece by AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka fairly interesting. I have always been interested in organizations and how they react to change. Unions in America are currently undergoing massive amounts of change and their reaction – or lack thereof – to that change has been something I've been able to see partly from the inside.

"To be blunt, our basic system of workplace representation is failing to meet the needs of America’s workers by every critical measure," he acknowledged Thursday, speaking at a conference on New Models for Worker Representation. That fact has been evident for years now; as Trumka went on to say, "The numbers give us all the proof we need. Not even 7 percent of the private workforce in America has the security and stability of a union contract." – dailykos

I think it's a positive sign for organized labor that a union leader is acknowledging the reality of labor in 2013. The number of people belonging for unions has been declining for decades and despite the rallying effect that took place in Wisconsin, Ohio and other states over the past few years that isn't changing. Unions may be more "organized" than ever before, but what's the result other than being more organized?

If you have an opportunity to be a member of a union, what entices you these days to do so? Especially here in Wisconsin, when existing contacts run out and the full effects of Act 10 are in place, what can a union like MTEA do for a teacher in Milwaukee other than offer to sit in with you (if allowed, not in in the contract anymore!) at a disciplinary meeting or negotiate your pay increase (up to 1%)?

For five years, I've seen all the material MTEA sends their members and can't help but think of what Trumka talks about above about the unions failure to meet the needs of it's workers. While they were laser like in their anti-Walker focus over the past four years, I always wondered to Jenny, "So what's their plan B if the recall doesn't work?" and indeed there doesn't seem to have been one. For several years, the focus of MTEA seemed to be more about the recall than it's members.

Combine that with the fact that MTEA (not trying to pick on any one organization here, they're just relevant and I have experience with them) consistently put it's retirees and near retirement members ahead of the rest of it's membership, and you it's obvious why MTEA membership would decline.

If you're a first year teacher entering MPS, what exactly is the benefit of paying union dues to a group that has very limited power to do anything for you anymore?

That's the problem that many unions across the Country face. It's wise of Trumka to acknowledge that and ask, "How is organized labor going to adjust if it plans on existing in any meaningful manner going forward?". While it may pain some for that question to be asked – and there will certainly be a lot of people refusing to believe anything at all is wrong – it is responsible and necessary for an organizations leadership to do so.

Kudos to County Supervisor Pat Jursik for coming out and releasing a statement critical of the Sheriff's recent antics. It used to be common practice that Board members would denounce the Sheriff for his wild childish behavior, but then this happened and some sort of alliance was formed with the agreement of, "You don't be critical of us and we won't be critical of you". Proof of this? During his three hour session hosting the "Mark Belling show" on WISN 1130AM yesterday, he Clarke routinely lashed into County Exec. Abele, Mayor Barrett, the media and Chief County Judge Jeff Kremers.

Not once did I hear him criticize the Milwaukee County Board. A first to be sure.

Sup. Jursik's statement:

“Sheriff Clarke’s recent comments have hit a new low.  While my office has had policy disagreements with the County Executive, these disagreements have always been at the policy level, never about personalities.  Unfortunately Sheriff Clarke has reduced himself to only a personality.  He refuses to engage in real discussion much less cooperation with departments.

“Clarke’s recent remarks regarding the County Executive and now the City of Milwaukee Police Chief are below the belt, but also entirely out of line for an elected official.  If anyone owes an apology, it is the Sheriff for his comments last week regarding the County Executive.

“Many Supervisors, including my office, have limited their comments after a heated budget process regarding the Sheriff’s department.  Initially, the Sheriff promised the County Board during budget deliberations that he would support returning the House of Correction to a Superintendent, following evidence-based best practices in the realm of corrections.  Now reneging on his promise, Clarke’s recent filing of a lawsuit to block the restoration of a Superintendent is proving costly to the County.  Clarke’s attempt to control the jail and turn the House of Correction into a second County jail run by his department is at the expense of the taxpayer.  Clarke’s hiring of a lawyer to use the courts to force delays is an about-face by the Sheriff who usually criticizes the judiciary.  Apparently Clarke is not above using the third branch of government when it suits his view of the world.

“My office applauds the County Executive for appointing an interim Superintendent.  The Sheriff must not be permitted to bully the Executive, bully the Board, and bully the taxpayer.  Bullies do not get to win because they are better at name-calling.  The County Executive is following the policy and deadline set out in the budget.  Returning a Superintendent will save money and shut down this dishonest attempt by Sheriff Clarke to thwart the will of the people as expressed through their duly elected representatives in passing a budgetary policy to reestablish a House of Correction run by a Superintendent.  Clarke, himself, forced this move because he has proven that he cannot work cooperatively with others.  It’s time to put an end to these expensive stall tactics and move forward together.”

Daniel Bice has the following piece in today's Journal Sentinel noting that Sheriff Clarke – who often gives his "opinion" about everything going on in Milwaukee whether or not it's related to his department – has been oddly silent regarding the Milwaukee County reform bill working it's way through the legislature in Madison.

But now that state lawmakers are talking about actual legislation that could cut the pay and funding for County Board members, the sheriff has been noticeably quiet.

He has been offering his thoughts on Milwaukee County judges, background checks for gun purchases, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett and even the Journal Sentinel Editorial Board.

But he has said almost nothing about state Rep. Joe Sanfelippo's proposed legislation to cut supervisors' salaries roughly in half to about $24,000 if voters agreed in an April 2014 binding referendum. The board's budget also would be trimmed by about half next year to some $3.5 million and decline 30% more starting in 2016.

So where does Clarke stand on the plan, which has the strong backing of Clarke's allies on talk radio?

"The pay and duties of the Board are not my concern," Clarke said in an email sent Friday. "I'm observing for now."

I can say with absolute certainty that is not the case.

I was in Madison a few weeks ago talking with legislators on both sides of the aisle and at least four of them asked me why Sheriff Clarke was personally calling them and asking them to vote against Rep. Sanfelippo's bill.

They were confused because as Bice points out in his column Clarke has rarely had a good thing to say about County government and the Board in particular over the last eight years. So why was he now calling and lobbying State Senators to kill the reform bill?

I won't attempt to speculate as to the reason the Sheriff doesn't want the reform bill to go through. But I will point out the Sheriff has toned down his criticism of the County Board since last fall and the Board has been virtually silent about Clarke and some of his nutball comments (gun control, etc) lately as well. Supervisor Weishan has been the only Board member to criticize Clarke in recent months.

It's unfortunate this is the case right now as every public official in Milwaukee should be getting behind Clarke's challenger Chris Moews instead of cutting deals with Sheriff Clarke.

Unfortunately, this sudden truce between the Sheriff and the County Board is nothing more than attempts by both sides to maintain the status quo and playing the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" style of politics.

One thing is clear though: despite a lack of press releases siding one way or the other on the County Board reform, Milwaukee County Sheriff has been anything but silent with State lawmakers.

The Founding Fathers would have sided with the Milwaukee County Board argument is back in this mornings paper. I had a few comments when this line of argument first came up last month (Despite plea from County Supervisors, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson might not agree with Milwaukee County Board governance) so I won't be repeating what I had to say back then.

However, I will pass along some famous quotes I posted on Twitter today from other historical figures who also were staunch opponents of Milwaukee County reforms, just like our founding fathers apparently were. Who knew!? Happy Friday!

In Milwaukee County, the great danger is, that the majority may not sufficiently respect the rights of the minority. – James Madison

Milwaukee County is the only form of government which is not eternally at open or secret war with the rights of mankind. – Thomas Jefferson

If God is just, I tremble for my country and Milwaukee County. – Thomas Jefferson

Laws made by common consent must not be trampled on by individuals in Milwaukee County. – George Washington

Liberty cannot be preserved without general knowledge among the people in Milwaukee County. – John Adams

I'm William Wallace, and the rest of you will be spared. Go back to Madison and tell them…Milwaukee County is FREEEE! – William Wallace

Any man or institution that tries to rob me of my dignity in Milwaukee County will lose. – Nelson Mandela

Milwaukee County Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one. – Thomas Paine

George Bush hates black people in Milwaukee County. – Kayne West

The only thing we have to fear is fear itself in Milwaukee County. – Franklin D. Roosevelt

I want to come with you to Milwaukee County. I want to learn the ways of the Force and become a Jedi like my father. – Luke Skywalker

"Not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved Milwaukee County more". Julius Caesar (Act III, Scene II).

Actually I don't remember being born in Milwaukee County, it must have happened during one of my black outs. – Jim Morrison

 

The issue of widening a section of I-94 in Milwaukee between 70th and 25th streets has been simmering for as long as I've lived here. Whether or not you agree with the premise that another lane in each direction would solve Milwaukee's traffic "problem" (it won't), it's not worth the cost of interring buried veterans at the Wood National Cemetery.

I hope this proposal gets shot down once and for all in the upcoming budget.

Gov. Scott Walker's budget bill includes a provision that would repeal a law that prohibits a freeway rehabilitation project from adding vehicle lanes on I-94 adjacent to Wood National Cemetery.

Like other parts of the region's freeway system, the stretch of I-94 between N. 25th and N. 70th Sts., is deteriorating. But planning for that stretch of roadway, including plans for widening, met with opposition from neighbors living in the Story Hill neighborhood.

Many grave sites in Wood are adjacent to the shoulder of the freeway. Widening the freeway in that stretch would require moving the graves. – jsonline

Bruce Murphy has an excellent article today out that really clears up a lot of the confusion surrounding the County Board reforms. A lot of heat has been generated over the past week because of what was reported in Wisconsin's largest daily newspaper regarding the "takeover" by the County Executive of the Milwaukee County Board.

Judging by the reactions by many to the story that covered the legislation, we're one step away from fascist Italy.

Murphy lays out in detail why that's not exactly the case despite what was reported in the newspaper and reacted to in press releases and on other websites.

Schultze, for instance, claims the bill gives the executive “the authority to hire as many staff as he wishes for the county executive’s office.” Nonsense. The executive’s budget would have to be approved, as before, by the county board. “The most powerful control the board has is the power of the purse strings,” Sanfelippo notes. “What Schultze wrote is completely misleading.”

Schultze also wrote that the county exec “would gain power through authority for all contracts.” Also misleading. The exec can now approve any contract worth less than $50,000. The legislation would increase that to $100,000. For any contract worth $100,000 to $300,000, if just one board member objected, a full vote of the board would then be required to approve it. And for any contract of more than $300,000, board approval is automatically required.

Schultze writes that the board “also would lose its power to change terms of any proposed sale or lease of county property.” True, the board would not be able to renegotiate deals, but it would retain the power to set the parameters and policies for any sale or lease agreement, and the executive would have to follow those. Once a deal is negotiated within those parameters, the board would have the choice of approving the deal or not. “This forces the executive to work more closely with the board to make sure the deal gets approved,” Sanfelippo notes.

Schultze writes that the executive would gain more power by being put in charge of the county’s lobbyists. That’s true, but a tad misleading: it simply returns the county to what was true for decades; the exec always hired and fired the lobbyists until the board grabbed this power less than a decade ago.

The whole piece is worth a read and provides a good sense of balance to the issue. A great example is not a lot of people know that it was only recently that the Board voted to consolidate County lobbying efforts under itself, before that, the Exec. had that "power". Or how the Exec. already has the "power" to approve contracts up to a certain level.

For the record, I completely agree that the JS reporter in question suffers from the same problem most in his profession do: he can't burn his sources. It's true in sports reporting and political reporting and has been rearing it's head in local political reporting for years before this issue. That said, I find Steve to be a nice guy who works hard and have nothing against him.

What's become interesting to me about this whole issue is just how willing some third party groups are willing to make this their Waterloo.

There are frankly a lot bigger fish to fry in Wisconsin and in Milwaukee than the makeup and power of an outdated and overinflated form of municipal government. It would be great to see some of the same groups that feel the need to hold rallies and protests over this issue get involved in things like lowering Milwaukee gun violence or dealing with the massive problem we have in human trafficking and underage prostitution or of inner-city police brutality.

Those things impact this City and County a heck of a lot more than County Board reform, but where are the protests and press releases about those issues?

The legislation to reform the Milwaukee County Board was introduced today and has a number of substantial changes in it meant to address some of the legitimate concerns that people had brought up. It's also worth nothing that Democratic State Senator Lena Taylor has signed on as a co-sponsor in addition to Senator Alberta Darling (R-River Hills), State Representative Dale Kooyenga (R-Brookfield) & State Representative Joe Sanfelippo (R-West Allis).

Those changes include:

• Compensation cap has been bumped from $15,000 to $24,051, which is the county’s per capita income. The chair could receive up to 150% of that number
• The county board budget remains capped at 0.4 percent of the tax levy. However, it excludes board salary until April 2016 and the legacy benefits that each department must pay for.
• The compensation cap is still dependent on the voters approving it in a referendum; the referendum will be moved to April 2014.
• Supervisor terms will change from 4 to 2 years. This is in line with every other county in the state.
• The changes to board compensation would take place at the end of the current term, in 2016. Other budgetary changes would take place in 2014.
• The legislation now includes a section on clarifying board and county executive functions. These would take effect upon passage of the legislation.

Before the legislation was released, these were some major sticking points among some of my progressive friends. I also shared in some of those concerns. Now that they've been addressed, we'll see if these concessions are enough for people to get on board, or if the Board continues to fight against this so it can kick the can down the road again with their "OUR Milwaukee" plan.

Speaking of which, it's been a week since that plan was announced. Has there been any movement on that plan since it was announced?

I came across this video today that explains away the "empty bus!" myth that a lot of people (like a number of right-wing radio talk show hosts) use to criticize mass transit.

It's not from Milwaukee County transit but does a great job explaining why the "empty bus" myth is just a myth.

Not politics!

In order to fill my copious amount of free time I decided to totally rip out the basement staircase. There had been a very ugly yellowish linoleum covering them for as long as we've lived here, and at first I thought I'd just remove that and maybe put some new boards down. Turns out, the wood underneath the linoleum and tar paper was actually birds eye maple, a very high end and expensive wood. We have some birds eye maple flooring at the very front entrance of our mid 1910's bungalow and were told when we bought our home that it was common to only use birds eye maple at the front of the house due to it's cost as a way to impress guests.

So I was quite surprised to find the wood under the linoleum and going down to the stairs.

Naturally, what started out as a quick one day project turned into a week long project which I want to document. Here are the pictures, step by step. Click to zoom.

So you can see the linoleum on the top two steps still and the remnants of the tar paper on the bottom two. I tried a number of methods to remove the tar paper including highly toxic stripper, vinegar soaking, citrus stripper etc.

At the end of the day the best solution was a heat gun and a scrapper and a lot of patience and elbow grease. Each step took between 40-60 minutes to remove the tar paper and even then a gooey residue remained.

Here we have all the steps pretty much cleaned up and tar paper is removed. Odd thing about the steps was that each one was made up of two pieces of wood. Unsure why. This is the point at which I decided to rehab what was in place instead of installing replacements. That meant tearing everything apart.

I don't know why, but I decided to start with the top steps and work down. Getting them apart took a bit of work, made easier with a crowbar, but they all came up fairly easily and in good shape.

Because of the sticky residue the tar paper left behind, it took about 1 50 grain sanding belt per stair to get them cleaned up. Obviously the sanding wouldn't have been as complete if I didn't take the stairs out. I then went over them again with a 240 grain orbital sander to prep for the finish.

Due to their age (97 years) they did have a bit of wear on them. There were also an unnecassary number of nails used to attach them to the risers which resulted in a lot of the black dots you see.

Finishing went fairly quick. I put on four coats of Zar oil based semi-gloss polyurethane with a two hour dry time and very light sanding between coats.

With the stairs off it was easy to remove the risers for sanding.

It was a challenge to get back up stairs while the stairs were drying. Sanding on the risers was a lot easier as they weren't covered in tar paper residue.

Couple quick coats of a base white latex.

Everything is starting to come together and the contrast between the finished steps and the unfinished ones is remarkable. A few of the steps took some coaxing with a rubber mallet to get back into position.

I had a pretty good process going by this point of finishing, sanding and painting the risers.

Pretty much complete at this point. I used 1.5 inch finishing nails to reattach both pieces of the stairs. You can notice a few gaps on the stairs and between the riser and the stair in a few spots. I tried to get everything as closed in as possible, but when it comes down to it, I'm remodeling in a 100 year old house and not doing new construction. Nothing ever fits back exactly, but I used a few shims to get things to stop creaking.

And here the whole set is complete. The bottom step had a bit of water damage so it was slightly discolored near the wall. All in all a massive improvement!

Which means of course I had to move on to the next set of steps right above these that go from our back door to our kitchen entry. They weren't in as bad of shape as the others, buy 6 years of a hyper black lab and kids put a lot of hurt on them as well. I figured it would be a quick win.

These are the before shots of the larger steps (they curve up to the kitchen). You can see the claw scratches from the dog. It didn't take as many sanding belts this time due to the lack of tar paper residue.

So skip ahead another day and the new steps are back in place. Huge difference and the birds eye maple really pops out now.

The finished staircase going to the kitchen.

All in all, this was one of the more worthwhile and satisfying projects I've done on our house. It was a huge surprise to find the exotic wood sealed under throwaway linoleum and I'm glad I was able to restore it to it's former beauty.

Half of the Milwaukee County Board held a press conference today to announce their own plan for reform in reaction to legislation from Madison to do the same:

Milwaukee County Board Chairwoman Marina Dimitrijevic and eight other supervisors announced their own county reform push Friday, with a heavy emphasis on gathering public input on such things as downsizing the board and cutting its budget, as well as finding a new way to pay for parks, transit and even a new basketball arena for the Milwaukee Bucks.

The effort, dubbed "OUR Milwaukee," will include outreach to citizens around the county, as well as meetings with city and suburban leaders on potential service consolidations.

The OUR Milwaukee initiative will include a private audit of county government, which was approved Thursday by the board. Dimitrijevic said she hopes to hire a firm in the next week or two to review the board, the county executive and other areas of county government.

She said it's important to get a "data-driven, fact-based independent analysis in a timely manner" before rushing to judgment on changes. Though Dimitrijevic will choose the auditor, she said the study scope must be approved by Scott Manske, the county's elected comptroller. That will ensure the review isn't biased, she said. – jsonline

I haven't seen any of the details of the plan other than what's been reported although I'm sure a similarly worded press release is close behind, but I do have a few comments based on the report so far…

On the issue of public input and listening sessions, didn't the Chair just complete a well publicized series of public listening sessions across the County? How many sets of listening sessions do we need to have on the same subjects? Does the public input include the referendums that passed in 12 municipalities last year which called for a smaller part time Board and passed with between 73% and 92% support, even in places like liberally voting Shorewood?

I also think it's interesting about this new interest in "service consolidation". The last time this came up in the form of a proposed park patrol program supported by every other municipal body in the County, the Board shot it down and in the process became sudden BFF's with Sheriff Clarke. Unless the "consolidation" happens to land more control in the laps of Supervisors, they're not interested. Secondly, why did it take proposed legislation that would cut Supervisors pay to get this sudden interest in "service consolidation"?

It's frustrating to hear more rhetoric about things like, "new way to pay for parks". I've documented time and again that County governance has directly coincided with the downturn in our public parks. The County is responsible for providing funding for parks and transit. Yet for the past decade they've refused to make a commitment to a secure and dedicated funding source for our parks or to provide real property tax money (yes, increases!) when it comes to budget time. It's irresponsible for a governing body to try to blame their lack of commitment to funding on everyone except themselves.

To be clear, I think accountability and audits are great. But this will be the fourth audit of County Government in the past ten years. What happened to the recommendations of those past audits? Nothing for the most part. They're used, and continue to be used, as nothing but stalling tactics so press releases can be sent out with serious "calls" for reform while the people we elected to make tough decisions about reform kick the can down the road.

Again.

So color me a skeptic when it comes to the latest reaction from a group who've had the last year, the last 4 years and the last 10 years to reform themselves in meaningful ways. While this latest smoke screen might provide enough time for several of the more ambitious Supervisors to run for State or municipal office, those of us who rely on County services are left behind with the same issues we've faced for years. And nothing will get done.

Until the next audit.