10 full-time alders that run every four years with term limits. Zoinks! The Task Force on the Structure of City Government voted on their recommendations last night!
Here’s the video, starts off with chit chat about the mayor and sports . . . while they wait for the meeting to start. At least that is what I hear on the podcast. Looks like they edited the video. You can hear Tractenburg talk about his college girlfriend or former Streets Superintendent getting a call complaining about city wages and the state bar sending people to Cuba for CLE credits. Then it goes quiet.
You can watch the whole thing. I skipped to the good parts.
They explained Alder Skidmore wasn’t there because he had a conflict, Rebecca Kemble had flight delays due to the World War 2 plan crash and that Syed Abbas won’t be attending any of the meetings because he has a standing conflict. Only Alder there was Keith Furman.
No public comment. A member of the public asks for the results of the post it notes from the open houses. Maggie Northrup explains that they were sent to members as email but offer the member of the public to look on her laptop. City Attorney John Strange who staff the committee has a copy. Not sure if they are available to the public or not, didn’t seem like it.
CHANGES RECOMMENDED FOR THE COMMON COUNCIL
The look at page 2 of the subcommittee report where they have a list of issues flagged by the subcommittee. Again, members of the committee don’t have copies. You could try to find a copy here if you’re brave. I found it under attachment 31, then click on attachment 45
This is the list of questions:
The Subcommittee used the issues identified in the Resolution to inform the topics and issues it would discuss:
1. Full vs. part time alders or hybrid;
2. Alder terms (2 v 4 years);
3. Number of alders/districts;
4. Staggered terms;
5. At-large vs. geographic districts or hybrid or numbered districts;
6. Term limits;
7. Redistricting considerations including diversity representation;
8. Compensation levels;
9. Compensation and term of Council President and Vice President;
10. Support staffing levels and training for Council members;
11. Alders serving on BCCs;
12. Appointment of alders to BCCs;
13. Appointment of residents to BCCs;
14. Alders as chairs of BCCs; and
15.Structural and procedural issues relating to equity and meaningful engagement of residents in council decision-making, including time, place and length of Council meetings, budget development, barriers to resident participation and accountability.
She points out the pros and cons are in the report, I will add them as they go along in their discussions.
Part-time vs. Full Time
a. Full-time vs. part-time alders.
The Subcommittee noted that moving to a Common Council with full-time alders could have the following positive effects:
Having alders who are able to dedicate all of their professional time to the work of the city instead of balancing multiple jobs and responsibilities;
-
-
- Making the position of alder more attractive to candidates who may otherwise be unable to participate on a part-time council with part-time pay;
- Having alders who would likely have larger districts, making Madison’s residents per council member closer to other cities, thus possibly changing the level of influence a small group of residents can have on a single alder (could also be viewed as a negative); and
- Having alders who may be better positioned to consider the best interest of the entire city and not necessarily just their individual districts.
-
The Subcommittee also noted possible negative effects of moving to a full-time council, including:
-
-
- Professionalizing the position of alder, resulting in bigger campaigns, more money, and more influence from moneyed interests;
- Creating alders who may be less connected to their constituents and more removed from local or district issues;
- Discouraging individuals from running for alder for fear of leaving a current job and then losing re-election two years later; and
- Risk losing the varied backgrounds and job experiences often found on a larger part- time Common Council.
-
In addition, the Subcommittee noted it was unsure whether moving to a full-time Council would have a tangible impact on representation or participation by communities of color and low income.
Ultimately, the Subcommittee did not reach consensus on whether the TFOGS should recommend moving to full-time alders. However, as noted above, any decision made by TFOGS on this issue would likely drive the decisions on other issues listed below. Accordingly, the Subcommittee recommends that TFOGS strongly consider deciding this issue first.
They talk about if there would be a hybrid-council. Some alders being elected at large and some being elected in specific districts. The hybrid model didn’t talk about part-time vs. full time. Justice Casteneda says that “the story here is” if there were full-time alders and you have some who are geographically based that are part-time, they would still have the challenges that the alders currently have, which is that they don’t have time to be as informed or present or engaged. And it would skew in terms of capacity to government towards the full time folks. He says there is a challenge about who can be on the council and the capacity to perform as an alder, because of the constraints in time and bandwidth.
They decide there was little interest in having some full-time and some part-time alders.
The note that the issues are all tied together and it’s hard to decide issue by issue.
Ron Tractenburg says if they stay at a district model, it could be full-time or part-time. If its at-large they are pushing themselves to a full-time model.
Roger Goodwin wants to add more cons to the list in the report. He says that there would be a significant budgetary impact. Once you go to a full-time council its just a question of time before they are going to have at least 2 staff, and aide and an administrative staff person, plus they are going to have an office. So the budgetary impact is significant. Second of all, he would be concerned about corruption from outside money, but also the fear of it corrupting staff. One of the things he observed when he was a manager was that one of his fellow managers gave a $500 contribution to a mayoral candidate, which up to that point was unprecedented. He believes if you go to big money campaigns with full-time council members, its only a question of time before staff are coerced into making contributions to council members in order to stay on their good side. Right now there are too many council members to buy so there aren’t enough outside money going to the council members, but if you shrink it down to a relatively small number, he thinks you are just inviting that. There is a helluva lot more money these days coming into cities than there used to be from things like Lyft and Uber and electronic cycles and AirBnB. There is big money being dropped in New York City and other places trying to lobby the council’s on these kinds of issues. We don’t have that problem right now and I don’t want to see it. Finally, he says if nothing is done about reducing the numbers of boards, commissions and committees, and he’s skeptical about the council’s willingness to do that, will a full time council with a much smaller council, there is going to be even less citizen input than there is now because there simply will be more boards, committees and commissions meeting during the day instead of at night. He will not support going to a smaller full-time council.
Justice Casteneda says that the idea that if there is a full time council there will be corruption is conjecture at best. He says they didn’t see that as a reality in the examples. Money in elections and money in politics, you can find some of that depending upon where you look, but if you look across the board, it looked like the bigger markets had more money whether it was a full- or part-time council. He says that one of the ways to excellerate a smaller BCC (boards, committees and commissions) structure is having a full-time council that is smaller. He thinks that will accelerate the process of reducing the BCCs because of the logistical concerns. He says right now the alders are full-time. The ones that are engaged, when you look at their attendance, they are putting in 40 plus hours into their office of an alder. If you are not able to do that, he doesn’t know their financial status, but if you are working full-time and have a family, you are not able to do that in the way that the alders who otherwise don’t have those obligations are able to. Right now we have a system that favors a demographic is the definition of corruption. And having a system that excludes a swath of our population from serving as elected officials is corrupt and allowing that to happen, de facto, is corrupt. He says they did not see anything that says that moving to a full-time council increases corruption, that is something that was “pedaled” but it was never shown or substantiated.
Ron Tractenburg says he likes smaller volunteer type governments. The thing he liked most about serving on the council was the diversity of the people he served with. They came from all different backgrounds, some were government people, some were private sector people, some were non-profit people. And they all did it as a volunteer job. He is concerned if they go to a full-time council they will get more “the legislative aide of senator so-and-so” with people looking to punch their ticket politically to climb the ladder. And that we will lose that very diversity that he enjoyed and that he thought served the city well. Having said that, he understands that the council has to do some things otherwise they will push themselves to full-time or burn out. He still would rather stay at a part-time model, recognizing that it will tend to discourage some socio-economic groups from running, but overall he thinks it is beneficial to the city.
Maggie Northrup agrees with Justice that in theory is sounds amazing. The diversity, the volunteer and people are willingly and passionately donating their time for the good of the city, it sounds amazing. On paper it does, but in reality we do see exactly what Justice was just describing, a huge proportion of our population is shut out of this opportunity. As a parent with family she has considered running, and she is as privileged as any of us come in this city, and she would not be able to run for council if she decides to go along with that under the current structure, for another 10 years probably. How many people have families, a huge proportion, and not many of us under the current structure are actually able to take the time to do this. And looking at social-economic status the picture gets even worse. In theory it is great, but we lose out on diversity that way too.
John Rothschild started out thinking and still does agree a lot with Roger and Ron, his preference would be that this government could still be run on a part-time basis with people doing it. He has reached the conclusion with the alders that are currently doing it, the alders that left and looking at all the things that Justice and Maggie have indicated with the disparities . . . one of the things they did not talk about a lot was looking at the alders on committees and there are 7 that are on 8 or more committees. And there are 5 that are on 4 or less. That is another inequity thing. He would be that the people who serve on fewer committees are people that have jobs that do not have the luxury of freedom of hours or are retired or are otherwise wealthy or whatever. It gets the sense that the alders currently serving are not willing to make the changes that are necessary now to make the job of a part-time alder doable. They aren’t willing to change taking alders off committees. So, ultimately he thinks there are things that could be done short-term, but long-term we are going to end up with a full-time council one way or the other. He thinks they need to start making a transition. He wants to talk about the things they can do short-term, but long-term, 6 years out or something like that we go to a full-time council.
Casteneda says that if there was a full-time council would not attract diverse people, he understands as a rhetorical device, but that is not what they saw when they looked at the case studies in other places. This is the same thing with the idea of inviting corruption. That is not something that they are actually seeing across the country. They are also not seeing the idea that when they are paid that they are not attracting people from other places. Right now we are so hyper-political in the national sense, the individual cases wouldn’t be helpful to discuss, but we are seeing situations like one person from the Bronx, where people who otherwise would not be able to be involved in politics, are getting involved in politics. Younger folks who are coming from all kinds of walks of life and the reason they can do it is because it is a paid position and they can come into that thing. They are seeing that more and more. Right now we are seeing the situation that if you are form a demographic group that is not financially privileged, it is prohibiting your capacity to serve. And he would say that if you have system that prevents a swath of your population from participating in democratic processes and institutions it’s not right. And we should do everything we can to make sure that we can fix that.
Goodwin says that when he speaks of corruption all you have to do is look a block from here. Look at what is happening in the State Capital since they went to a full-time state legislature. The people in that building will do anything to get re-elected because it is their livelihood. He’s still in love with the concept of a citizen legislature. A main street business person, a neighborhood activist and I think you are kidding yourself to think you are going to increase the number of people from various under-represented groups who are going to get these positions. You’re going to end up with professional politicians that know how to run campaigns, know how to raise money and its going to be just like the state house. He wouldn’t be surprised to see redistricting efforts, gerrymandering. I mean the example that they have set, in his mind, is corrupt. It isn’t people walking around with bags of cash, doing quid pro quo things, but its more subtle and its definitely what happens. And he doesn’t want to see that happen in the City of Madison. If anything, the one comment that I’ve heard and even saw it on the comments, I think we might even be better going to a bigger council, with smaller districts so more people have a chance and don’t have to spend as much time. There are some things here that we are recommending that would reduce the workload of council members, such as the issues connected to BCCs, increasing the length of time they are elected for.
Keith Furman says he spend a lot of time at the committee level and he saw some concerns that he didn’t think about previously and he appreciates the discussion. He thinks unless they make some serious structural changes to our government, and he’s not convinced that is what is going to happen with this process. He thinks being an alder is a full-time job. He say you are required to figure out a lot of things about a lot of things and if you want to do the job well, its a full-time job. And there are some people that are privileged that are able to do it, and there are others that do it part-time and the people in districts that have part-time alders certainly suffer for that. He fully supports the idea of full-time. Unfortunately there is no perfect solution. He thinks there are pros and cons to everything. He takes a little exception to being compared to the state and he thinks they could sit there and come up with some great examples of full-time councils that haven’t worked out. Chicago comes to mind. And you could probably come up with plenty of examples of where it is working. It’s up to the residents to figure out if that works and how it will work, but he does think that based on where they are today, there is not equality in the ability to be an alder and being full-time would go a considerable way to making it a more attractive position for more people in the community.
Tractenburg says either way, and if they go to full-time, there is going to be real pressure that people not have a second job or if people have a second job they are going to be very suspect, whether or not they are being full-time. It’s not like some of our full-time legislators down the street. Either way, we are going to take a segment of our population our of running for office. I don’t know what we are proposing or what the council would come up with for pay. They may offer people a whopping $60,000. Now for some people that is a lot of money, that’s only 60% of adjusted median income in Dane County. So what you are doing is taking people that would be making over, which is a large segment of the population (discussion ensues about if that number is accurate, Ron is using the number for a family of four and they eventually agree that is right for a family of 4, that is not the number for individuals.) Tractenburg says that you will take a number of people with a certain skill set, who can earn more income, and take them out of governance of this city and he doesn’t think that is appropriate either. Maybe there are things we can do like providing child care, or other things to help subsidize to allow people to hold office, but he still thinks a volunteer part-time council is the best.
Casteneda is still arguing about individual vs. family of four. He says the way we have it right now, the way the BCCs and districts are, in terms of who has access to our democratic processes and institutions, it is a of gerrymandering that has been created, de facto. He doesn’t think there has been bad people who have done it, there have probably been a couple, but I don’t think that is what it is, I think there has been really well-meaning people who have done this and it has excluded, particularly people of color, from democratic processes and institutions and we have that in spades in terms of reports, we know this and we see this. He wants to consider that, he says you can come up with examples, we could find bad examples of each, but he wants to acknowledge that and make sure we are thinking of that. Under the current way, and the way we have been doing it, it has done the thing we are afraid of it doing, which is, it has suppressed and it has kept people out of the political process and we have hurt, as a community and as a city because of it.
Eileen Harrington says that she was born and raised in Madison and came into the task force work with a very strong commitment to maintaining the part-time council that she grew up with as a citizen body. She had some of the concerns Roger expressed, and as she looked at the initial material about other cities that are the size of the City of Madison or similar to the City of Madison, she was interested to see what an outlier the City of Madison is, in terms of the size of the council and that it is part-time. They looked at cities like Lincoln Nebraska and Austin and Columbus Ohio and other cities in Wisconsin and she has looked at Cities like Denver and she spends part of her year in Tucson, and they all have full-time councils. She lives in Washington DC for a long time and it has a full-time council, it has a hybrid full-time council. She knows people on the City Council in Tucson and in Denver. They are full-time council members, they are real citizens, they aren’t hacks or people who know how to raise a lot of money, or any of those things, they are very dedicated community people. It happens that the two people she knows are Latinx women who have very deep roots in the community. She hasn’t seen in Tucson, which is a larger city than Madison, almost 600,000, she hasn’t seen corruption in the city government. In Washington DC, oh yes, quite a lot. Are we surprised? To Justice’s point, or Keith’s, you can find examples of really corrupt city governments, including at the city council level and other examples of city governments that are served well by small, full-time councils. Where the members are quite deeply embedded in the community. She would note that Madison is an outlier, she discovered. She has also been aware that there are some members of the council that are able to do this full-time. She happens to be represented by one and she feels like its just unfair to residents in districts in other areas of the city, that their alders can’t do that. And its not the expectation, the expectation is not that they run for the council to serve full-time, but either they get into it and discover that is what is needed to do the job well or they have arranged their lives in a way that makes it possible for them to serve full-time. Either way, what ever the reason is, they are serving full-time and their constituents have a better quality of representation, or there is a likelihood of that. She thinks there is a real unfairness in the status quo. And last, she has become persuaded that unless it is possible for anyone in the city, anyone of any socio-economic position to afford to serve on the city council, then we can’t expect that we are going to have a very representative common council. She thinks they will continue to have a common council made up of people who somehow are able to afford to do this on a part-time basis and she thinks that automatically excludes a lot of people, including people like the people she knows who are serving on full-time councils in Denver and Tucson. They are both young mothers and were working for non-profits not making very much money and the idea of trying to support themselves and their family while serving on the council would not be doable and she thinks that is true for many in Madison. The only other thought she has is that the BCC situation, they have all really struggled with, to figure out what it will take to impose some meaningful oversight and structure on the BCCs and she doesn’t see this part-time council having the time or bandwidth to take that one. There is no guarantee that a full-time council would do a better job, but she would sure hope so. If they are going to solve the BCC problem, they need a council that can actually work a lot on this issue.
Casteneda moves to recommend that they go to a full-time council. It’s seconded.
Goodwin asks about the size of the council, is it 7? 9? 11?
Casteneda says that is a separate thing. He thinks that the fiscal constraints on that, acknowledging the full-time component is critical. He thinks the fiscal constraints as he saw it was that they would have to half the council, but he doesn’t know that those things are necessarily true. He thinks the size of the council is a separate thing, and I think its related. We will talk about this in just a second, but the same think with district vs. at-large which is very much connected to this, but he thinks its a separate thing.
Rothchild says they should talk about when. He thinks they shouldn’t make any changes until they get the census back, that would be 2021. They could do the it at that time when we know what the demographics are in the city, so if they do draw geographic lines they can do that.
Cross-talk . . .
Rothchild asks if they want to add a timing issue to the recommendation.
Furman also asks if this is something the council should decide or should it go to referendum. He says there is a helpful component to coming to the conclusion that they recommend full-time, and they can discuss all the other things.
Harrington says they can discuss it in the report and raise them as considerations or they can be additional recommendations or they can amend the motion.
Tractenburg says that if they go to a full-time council it would be appropriate for it to be the first election following the redistricting. (They figure out when it would be, likely 2023)
Harrington directs them back to the motion. No further comment. Roll call was called.
Aye: Keith Furman, Justice Casteneda, Maggie Northrup, John Rothschild
No: Ron Tractenburg, Roger Goodwin
Discussion deciding what to decide next is omitted.
Size of the Council
e. Total number of alders/districts.
The Subcommittee noted that reducing the number of alders and districts was intertwinedwiththeissueofwhethertohavefull-orpart-timealders. Forexample,iftheTFOGS recommends moving to full-time alders, then it would likely, for financial reasons, need to reduce the number of alders and districts. Thus, many of the positive and negative effects noted for moving to full-time alders would apply to a potential reduction of alders and districts as well:
Positive Effects of Full-Time Council (and larger districts):
-
- Having alders who are able to dedicate all of their professional time to the work of the city instead of possibility balancing two jobs and any other responsibilities they may have;
- Making the position of alder more attractive to candidates who may have otherwise been unable to participate on a part-time council with part-time pay;
- Having alders who would likely have larger districts, making Madison’s residents percouncil member closer to other cities, thus possibly changing the level of influence a small group of residents can have on a single alder (could also be viewed as a negative); and
- Having alders who may be better positioned to consider the best interest of the entire city and not necessarily just their individual districts.
Negative Effects of Full-Time Council (and larger districts):
-
- Professionalizing the position of alder, resulting in bigger campaigns, more money, and more influence from moneyed interests;
- Creating alders who may be less connected to their constituents and more removed from local or district issues;
- Discouraging individuals from running for alder for fear of leaving a current job and then losing re-election two years later; and
- Risk losing the varied backgrounds and job experiences often found on a larger part- time Common Council.
The Subcommittee revisited this discussion in a later meeting. After much discussion, the consensus of the Subcommittee was that reducing the size of the council would not necessarily result in better representation. In fact, they noted that larger districts could reduce the likelihood of electing a person of color by eliminating districts (like District 14) that were drawn to give people of color a greater chance of being elected.
The Subcommittee also explored the philosophical underpinnings of the job of alder and indicated support for the resident-alder “volunteer” focused on service rather than professionalpolitics. This could be impacted by moving to a smaller council with larger districts.
Finally, the Subcommittee discussed the possibility of increasing the size of the Council or keeping the size of the Council the same (20 alders) but having 10 larger districts (with two alders per district). Neither possible change gained much momentum.
Ultimately, the Subcommittee did not reach consensus that changing the size of the Council was the best way to address issues like representation. Furthermore, they noted that 70% of the Government Official survey and nearly all former Mayors opposed reducing the size of the Council. Subcommittee members noted, however, that such a response isn’t necessarilya reason to maintain the status quo, which has historically worked well for some, but not all, Madison residents.
Goodwin moves to go to a 10 person city council. It’s seconded.
Goodwin says that if you stick with the current format you want an even numbered council with the mayor as the tying vote like you have now. He thinks that that it would make it a lot easier from a redistricting stand point and easier to swallow politically.
Tractenburg says that if we stay with a district format, not at large format, a lot of the comment was that people like their own alder. They didn’t see that much push for downsizing the council simply to downsize the council. He thinks if they stay to a district model 10 is as small as they would want to get so people still feel a connection to their alder.
Casteneda says somewhere 10-12 but he agrees in general with the principle and that he thinks the census would help explain a lot of this and it would help inform them that they would have more information.
Aye: Ron Tractenburg, Roger Goodwin, Keith Furman, Justice Casteneda, Maggie Northrup, John Rothchild
No: none, unanimous.
More discussion about what to discuss next omitted.
At large vs. districts
f. At-large vs. geographic districts.
The Subcommittee noted that having geography in and of itself as a basis for district delineation can be an inherent problem that promotes parochialism and strengthens the impact a neighborhood association or other local interest group can have on a particular alder. Thus, the Subcommittee noted that moving from geographic to at-large districts could have the positive effect of requiring alders to consider issues in relation to what is good for the entire city, not just their district or the individuals who are able to participate in the discussion. The Subcommittee noted that, though unknown for sure, moving to at-large districts may increase representation with more people of color being elected.
These potential positive effects of at-large districts could, the Subcommittee noted, come at the cost of forgoing some of the positive effects of geographic districts, including 1) promoting a greater awareness of district specific issues, 2) giving residents a direct connection to their geographic alder and making resident engagement easier, 3) making it easier for alders to directly interface with particular neighborhood groups or associations. Moreover, the Subcommittee noted that while moving to at-large districts could increase representation, it could also have the opposite effect, citing Janesville as an example of a city with at-large districts with all members hailing from the wealthy side of town.
The Subcommittee also discussed the possibility of moving to a hybrid system of both at- large and geographic districts. This would make it possible to combine some of the positive aspects of both. However, the Subcommittee noted that many cities using a hybrid system have a City-Manager form of government where the mayor is the only at-large member of the Common Council. The Subcommittee noted that were their more than one at-large member, this could result in an unequal power dynamic where the at-large members have (or at least claim) more influence than geographic members. It may also create a slate of potential contenders to the mayor because at-large alders are elected city-wide.
When the Subcommittee revisited this issue, some members grew more comfortable with the idea of moving to at-large districts, citing the long history of Madison having an under- representative Common Council (compared to the history of the Madison School Board), thus questioning whether there could be any real downside to trying an alternative form. Ultimately, the Subcommittee did not reach consensus whether the City should change the numbers of alders/districts.
Goodwin moves they stay with districts. Casteneda seconds.
Casteneda says that coming in to this he had an idea of why the district was so challenging, but he thinks that if they go to a 10 person council at full-time, he gives Roger Goodwin, Ron Tractenburg and David Ahrens a lot of credit for educating me. I think what we see in terms of voter turn out I think we would have to stay with the district model. That would be essential for having a smaller council.
Tractenburg also supports staying with the district. He has enough trouble deciding who to vote for with a large ballot and with 10 people running for the city council all at once, he is afraid he’d end up reading the Cap Times and State Journal and deciding if he would take their recommended slate. He’s being somewhat serious and somewhat facetious, but its there. If he has one person to vote for and there are 3 or 4 candidates running for that one position, then he can do some in depth reading and thinking. He thinks there will be a more informed decision if it is on a district basis. Also from a service providing basis he thinks that they should stick with the districts.
Rothchild says two comments they got clearly were that people like to have their own alder, they like to know who it is, and its important on an engagement basis. That is where you can have the engagement take place, is on the district level. For those reasons he supports staying with the district.
Goodwin says that if there are districts, we would combine geographic areas that are close by where there is come commonality to the neighborhoods or neighborhood associations, if you have it at large, you lose that. Even tho a lot of people look at their own district as being unique, it isn’t all that unique compared to the neighborhood right next to them. He thinks if they keep it with districts you would see much more loyalty to that district.
Northrup asks if they are discussing a hybrid model, or keeping it the same. They say no.
Furman says there is value in having a hybrid model. He has seen this at times on the council that it might be helpful to have representatives that aren’t thinking about just their district but the city as a whole. He will say that personally he does very often think about the city as a whole and he knows some of his colleagues feel very strongly about focusing just on their district and making decisions on what makes the most sense for their districts. But he does think that if they are looking at a council with 10 members if you did a hybrid model and did something like 7 districts and 3 at-large you would start to struggle with the 7 or 8 alders trying to cover the very large districts. So if we are sticking with he idea of 10, I think it would be hard to do a hybrid model, but he thinks it would be worth discussing for a few minutes this evening.
Northrup says that is what they have in Seattle and they are able to do it, but she very much agrees with the arguments that Keith outlined and she has also been concerned about the fact that there are alders that see themselves as representing their district and their constituents alone and not the city as a whole or consider or other parts of the city are impacted by the decision making which has troubled her quite a bit, but she can see how that could be a challenge with the smaller.
Casteneda says there is a silver lining here because he thinks some of the challenges in the work has been that there are the neighborhood issues and neighborhoods see themselves as . . . he says having more unity where we recognize our shared fates could actually be very health, so making them a little bigger but keeping them districts. Whether its the near west, the far west, near east, far east, the north, these are, when you look at the individual neighborhoods, they are very much tied into each other, and they are very much connected and he thinks its really important and it could be really healthy to codify that.
Side conversation with Casteneda and Northrup I couldn’t hear.
Goodwin says that he is a person that really likes to get things done and rather than have this report sit on a shelf somewhere he wants to make something that can be done fairly understandably and if they are going to a full-time council that is a big bite to swallow but if you have a relatively simple transition, double the size of the districts, cut the council in half, its easier to understand and maybe easier to swallow politically.
Rothschild says that one of the things that they looked at with the hybrid model is that they tend to be smaller cities or cities with city managers and that the person that is elected at large is the co-called mayor but actually does very little in running the day to day operations of the city.
Aye: Rothchild, Northrup, Casteneda, Furman, Goodwin, Tractenburg
No: none, its unanimous
More discussion about what to discuss next and when.
2 or 4 year terms for alders
b. 2-year vs. 4-year terms for alders.
The Subcommittee noted that the current 2-year term requires more frequent campaigns and, thus, more direct alder-constituent contact. However, the more frequent campaigns also end up requiring new alders to run for reelection just as they are becoming familiar with the position and, potentially, has the effect of driving up overall campaign costs (for both the alder and the city) by requiring more frequent elections.
The Subcommittee noted that 4-year terms may also have some negative effects, including professionalizing campaigns, discouraging candidates who may not know whether they will be living in a district for longer than two years, and creating the possibility that vacancies would result in aldermanic seats being filled for longer periods of time by political appointees rather than by elected officials.
The Subcommittee reached consensus that moving to 4-year terms was likely in the best interest of the City and that some of the negatives associated with a 4-year term could be addressed by new rules such as, for example, requiring special elections (or, elections at the next generalelection)forvacantseats. TheSubcommitteenotedthatthischangewouldbeespecially critical if the TFOGS recommends moving to full-time alders, as discussed above.
Tractenburg recommends a 4-year term, Goodwin seconds.
Casteneda says he hopes he never came off as dismissing any of the concerns about the challenges that are there in terms of . . . he thinks the 4 year models is . . . one of the big things is the amount of time it takes to run a campaign and if you have a larger district that is a lot more time and a lot more resources and he acknowledges that and he thinks that because of that he thinks its important that we don’t have these things as frequent and he thinks the 4 year model will help balance that and will be necessary if we had a smaller council.
Northrup says the one big concern she has with full-time at 4 years and in general at 4-years, or more geographic districts and 4-years is that this type of structure presents a particular challenge to populations that are more mobile, however, having larger districts will allow for some flexibility there, because with smaller districts you are really pinning and containing them within a very small area where they could live to continue serving on the council and for more mobile populations, for renters especially is a huge concern and that it would benefit homeowners.
Goodwin says that one of the points made in favor of a full-time council was that you are having people give up what they are doing before and he doesn’t see how you could ask someone to give up a job somewhere to take a chance on a 2-year flyer, you got to have a minimum of 4.
Tractenburg wants the 4 years to run concurrent with the mayor’s term. More discussion about what to discuss but they say there is a question later. Tractentburg changes his motion to have it 4 years to run concurrent with the mayor. Goodwin seconds. Procedural discussion omitted. He says the person that would run off-term from the mayor would have less voter turnout and he doesn’t think that is good public policy. He wants to maximize the number of people voting in any election and the mayor’s election tends to bring out the most people.
Furman says there are pros and cons to the next question, but he asks if they can move the election to November. More discussion but the answer is no.
Aye: Rothchild, Northrup, Casteneda, Furman, Goodwin, Tractenburg
No: none, its unanimous
Term limits
c. Term limits for alders.
The Subcommittee noted that term limits may result in fresh candidates and new ideas. Moving to term limits may also result in more competitive elections and, perhaps, less influence from outside groups. At the same time, the Subcommittee noted that imposing term limits would deprive the Council of experienced leaders, infringe on the democratic process, increase the influence outside professionals or staff may have on short-time alders, and impact the ability of alders to follow through on long term projects or funding.
The Subcommittee also noted that the part-time council tends to term limit itself, with most alders likely to spend 6-8 years or less on the Common Council. Thus, while term limits may be a good idea if the City moves to a full-time Council by discouraging “career” politicians, it likelyis not necessary for the current part-time structure. Accordingly, the Subcommittee reached consensus that it is not in the best interest of the City to impose term limits unless, perhaps, the City moves to full-time alders.
Tractenburg says that the model the council has now, he was against term limits because the positions seem to term out in their own, there are always a couple that don’t. He is more open to term limits if there is a full-time council. At a minimum it should be 12 years, at a maximum it should be 20. He thinks the question is if it should be 12, 16 or 20.
More procedural questions.
Casteneda says having term limits yes, but he thinks to keep the influence out of the elations so someone could spend 3 terms at the minimum as an elected official.
Northrup makes a motion to recommend term limits. Goodwin seconds.
Furman asks if term limits were concurrent or life time. Silence.
Tractenburg recommends that they be concurrent, he served on several board where it is that way. It breaks the power structure. It also makes you think about if you want to go back and be chair. And if someone is diehard and really wants to go back, then he thinks its up to the populace to decide if that person should go back or not. He would propose that they be concurrent.
Goodwin agrees.
Rothchild thinks 12 years is a good length of time and it should be concurrent. They clarify they aren’t voting on the number of years.
Furman amends the motion to be concurrent, Tractenburg seconds. Motion passes unanimously on a voice vote.
Goodwin moves an amendment to 12 years on the concurrent, three terms.
Tractenburg says that he is ok with 12 and he’s also ok with 16.
Furman asks why 16.
Tractenburg says that if there is a person with really good expertise over time you might want to keep him or her. He withdraws it, he has no problem with 12.
Aye: Rothchild, Northrup, Casteneda, Furman, Goodwin, Tractenburg
No: none, its unanimous
Length of Council President and Vice President Terms
d. Length of Council president and vice-president terms.
The current 1-year term of the Council president and vice-president results in frequent turnover of the positions. As a result, the Subcommittee noted that by the time the Council president becomes comfortable in the role of Council President their term is almost over. Increasing the term to two (2) years would alleviate this potential problem. However, increasing the term to 2 years (the length of a current Common Council term) would mean that some members only serve under one President. Moreover, it would reduce by half the number of members who are allowed to cycle through the position and become familiar with the role.
During the time period that the Subcommittee met, an ordinance was introduced andreferred to the TFOGS that would increase the Council President’s term to two years. The TFOGSnoted that the Subcommittee had not reached consensus on the issue and the full TFOGS had not yet addressed it and, therefore, chose to recommend to place the ordinance on file without prejudice.
On Tuesday, March 5, 2019, the Common Council voted to place the proposed ordinance on file without prejudice.
Harrington explains some background and the previous ordinance.
Furman says that for purpose of discussion he makes a motion that if they go to 4 year terms that they recommend having the president term be 2 years instead of 1. Casteneda seconds. Furman says that he was not supportive of the motion when it was brough up earlier in the year because he thought it was important to have the discussion hear about the other questions that we started to answer this evening, but he thinks that there is an opportunity for they council to re-elect a president and they don’t need to cycle through a president year after year just because that is their term limit. A good president can very easily come back to the council and ask for an additional year or two or three. He is not convinced they need to make a change or recommendation here. He doesn’t think they should do 4 years if it is a 4 year term, and have the same president for 4 years, but regardless of what we do, he thinks the council can re-elect someone unless they suggest term limits for the president, which is another thing they could discuss. He is fine with leaving it at one, but he is also supportive of the motion he put up with 2 years if it is a 4 year term.
Furman adds that if its 4 years, then its 2 years, he wants to make it clear that he is not recommending 2 years if it is a two year term.
Casteneda agrees.
Aye: Rothchild, Northrup, Casteneda, Furman, Goodwin, Tractenburg
No: none, its unanimous
More discussion to decide what to discuss next. Side conversations and questions about referendums being binding and if it has to come from alders or citizen referendum that the staff can’t answer. They talk about charter ordinances as well. Speculation and more questions. More discussion about what to discuss next and what motions to make. They take a break. Luckily the cut the mics this time!
More discussion about what they discussed during the recess regarding referendum concluding they don’t have the answer.
Timing
Tractenburg moves that it takes effect the election following the redistricting. Several seconds. Clarification that it’s not calling out 2023, but it will probably be 2023.
Rothschild wants to be clear that the districts that are drawn in 2021 or 2022 would be 10 districts. Following the census and the results of the census there would be 10 districts which would elect an alder in likely 2023.
John Strange, the attorney/staff says that when he and Mike May discussed this he envisioned something where after the census the districts could be drawn to 10, for a while they might still include 20 alders, there might be 2 alders per district. If its redrawn in 2021 and there is no election, it would go down to 10 in the next election.
Tractenburg says in the 1980 census the districts were redrawn to go into effect at the time of the 1983 election, so Judy Bowser represented the old 21st district until the day of his he was sworn-in in 1983. So the effective date of the new districts and the election would be the same date.
Rothchild says there is a memo Mike May gave him to Cieslewicz, Strange says there is another one.
Northrup asks if there would be a decision making referendum does that have to be during an election year. Tractenburg says the referendum could be in 2020 or 2022.
Aye: Rothchild, Northrup, Casteneda, Furman, Goodwin, Tractenburg
No: none, its unanimous
Process for making the changes
Tractenburg makes a motion that it should be a binding referendum to make these changes. Casteneda seconds.
Tractenburg says they are talking about something “radical” and they have been debating it for a long time and they are comfortable with the concepts, some of them might have preferred a part-time council. He’s comfortable with a full-time council, he’s not happy with it, but he’s comfortable with it, but you want maximum buy in for people who live in this city, who pay the taxes. For that reason he thinks it needs to go to referendum.
Goodwin has no problem with a referendum, he thinks it should be advisory. He thinks the council needs to vote on this, if they don’t have buy in on this, they will obstruct and delay and do everything possible to keep the thing from happening.
Furman probably agrees with the non-binding. He thinks its a difficult thing that they have spent a long time talking about and he worries whether that message gets out and whether the nuances of this gets out. He doesn’t want to take away people’s ability to choose, he thinks we had a representative democracy tho, so he would be concerned with if this is something we recommend and the council agrees with and goes through its motions of discussing this that after studying the issue that that case is not made to the voters well or people or misled and we see a bad vote on something that he thinks they feel strongly about.
Northrup very much agrees with that looking at California, when it comes to referendums it can get really crazy, so she can get on board with non-binding referendum.
Tractenburg says that having pushed this issue maybe they should wait on the issue until they hear from John (city attorney/staff), he doesn’t know if the council could adopt it on its own even if it had an affirmative non-binding resolution. It may take a charter ordinance that has its own rules.
Strange says he wants to look at all the possibilities until he says for sure. He thinks they did it different ways in the past. When they went to city manager they did it one way, when they came out city manager they did it another way.
Goodwin asks what they did when they went from 24 to 20. Strange says that was done with the city manager decision. Goodwin says it was done during his term in the 80s. More discussion on the uncertainties and they agree to refer it until they get answers. They motion is withdrawn.
Compensation
g. Compensation levels for alders.
One of the core issues facing the Common Council is the amount of time required for service, which raises, among other issues, whether alders are being properly compensated for their time. The time alders spend on city business depends on the alder, with some working 10- 20 hours per week and others upwards of 30-50 hours per week. Their time is spent attending BCC and Common Council meetings and completing the general work of an alder (addressing constituent concerns, pursuing policy objectives, and communicating with City staff). Thus, the Subcommittee considered whether increasing the compensation level for alders would 1) properly compensate alders for time spent on city business, 2) attract more candidates to run for alder, or 3) make it more feasible for low-income individuals to serve on the Common Council.
The Subcommittee agreed that they generally view the position of alder as being one of service, not profession — thus affirming the traditional Madison view of the Council — suggesting that pay should not be the primary feature of the position. Also, Subcommittee members questioned whether, as a matter of principle, alders should be paid more than the living wage set by the City unless and until the City raises the living wage. Other members noted, however, noted that the current salary (roughly $13,000 per year) may discourage certain residents, including those of low income, from running for alder because of the significant time commitment and lack of compensation or other resources (childcare, parking, etc.) to make the job more feasible. Thus, the Subcommittee noted a quandary: pay alders too little and you risk discouraging participation and making the job of alder more difficult given the significant time requirements; pay alders too much and you risk professionalizing the position and using money for alder compensation that could be used for resident services. Brenda Konkel pointed out that, in addition, some low-income residents may actually be dissuaded from becoming an alder if the salary was too high that it risk other benefits, although, under state law, elected officials may decline all or part of their salary.
The Subcommittee did not reach consensus on whether the salary should be raised, but suggested the TFOGS should obtain rough estimates of what certain increases may cost. Further, and as detailed below, the Subcommittee noted that the TFOGS could recommend initiatives other than a bump in salary (such as providing child care, providing more staff assistance and reducing the level of required service to BCCs) that may help alleviate some of the stresses of being alder. These alternative initiatives may reduce the hours required of alders, effectively giving them an increase in pay.
Casteneda says the area median income is a way to do this. His first answer in the subcommittee was that they should be paid the living wage and if they don’t think that is enough then we should change the living wage and we should push for that, because what we expect people out here working, doing advocacy homeless population, for survivors of a number of different types of abuse, we ask them to live on that wage and he thinks that elected officials should also live on that wage. However, he was again educated, because he understands how low that number is and the reality of the people doing that work on a day to day basis and the nobility of those people who go out there and do that work on very low salaries and incomes, and he does recognize what that is and what we are asking from them and the sacrifice that so many people do make, he realizes that number is astronomically low and if we were to do that, it would be interesting to try to get people to do this full-time and we actually would be asking people, again the populations we’re saying we’re trying to get to be part of the political process, we would be asking them in essence to subject themselves to a type of abject poverty, and he thinks that would be counter-intuitive. He says the area median income (ami) at 80% of AMI for an individual is $53, 850, but if they left it at 80% of AMI, 100% for an individual is $70,300. It goes up incrementally if you have a family, but then you are also looking at two income earners. But keeping it at 80% of the median income of Dane County is a way to approach this.
Rothchild asks if that number includes benefits. Casteneda says it doesn’t include the benefits, that should be the base salary. Health insurance, etc would be on top. Casteneda thanks about it and then says it includes benefits. Goodwin says the city package of benefits runs about 35-37%. A $62,000 salary would be $100,000 impact for one person.
Tractenburg asks what the mayor gets paid. Goodwin says less than most department heads. He thinks its up to $125,000-130,000. Pause while they look it up. $125,500 with the option to pick up health, dental and life insurance in 2012. $137,517 in 2017.
Tractenberg says that not to be counter-intuitive but he thinks the $52,000 is too low. Furman says that the 2020 budget says in 2019 the mayor was $144,996 and in 2020 it will be $147,152 according to the proposed executive operating budget.
Casteneda says 100% of the median gross is $70,300. If you just said that elected officials would get paid the median income of the county I think that makes a lot of sense.
Rothschild says that for comparison sake, these are probably low compared to what they are getting in this year’s budget or last year’s budget, but in Milwaukee where they are full-time elected on a geographic basis they were paid $77,290. And I think the council president was paid about $87,000. Harrington clarifies if the council president is elected separately and not by the common council? They don’t know.
Tractenburg says if they are going to a full-time council he wants to try to get the best qualified people they can get, he thinks they should get 70-80% of what the mayor gets as a base salary.
Goodwin says that intellectually he can’t disagree with that, but politically he can. He thinks if they have a salary that high you are going to kill the whole program, he doesn’t think it would fly politically because the budget impact would be too much and he thinks people wouldn’t swallow it that vote on it. He says you’d be lucky to get half of what the mayor gets. He’d rather stick with a part-time council so he thinks they can go for the $100,000 if you want. (Laughter)
Harrington points out there is no motion.
Casteneda wants to hear from Furman, he understands what Tractenburg is saying. He says that a part of him in principle that understands that median income, and he’s not sure that isn’t what the mayor should be getting paid also. There is this idea that we never question the dollar that we are always comparing to it and never saying maybe that dollar is wrong. Just because, its easy to take for granted how much money that is to a lot of people, to the majority of the population, that is a lot of money. Making $70,000 a year with benefits, is a lot of money for the majority of the population. I get, I’m biased, I”m a marine and I feel like I know people who are no longer with us and they made $12,000 a year and so I don’t think that you’re not going to find the best people for lower salaries. I think that the best people often do it in spite of those things, so I don’t know, but I could understand another argument about 80% of the mayor’s salary. He says that they should go with a percentage instead of saying it should be 10 clam shells.
Furman says that the job of the mayor is that you are a chief executive of an organization of 3,000 people, I think its a different job. We’re not talking about the mayor’s salary, but basing it on that is a really high number. If we go to the community and say we’re going to make the council members full time and take their salaries from $12,000 to $117,000 which would be 80% of the mayor’s salary, that is a huge jump, a huge, huge, jump and I don’t think a lot of people are going to just think about the seriousness of the proposal when they see those numbers. He struggles because he doesn’t want to make decisions just on budget but he thinks 80% AMI is something that is a respectable salary and you will attract people that could make more doing something else, but will take the salary cut because they are giving back to the community and then you will take people who are making less or around that that can say they can afford to do that job and he thinks that is a fair place to be – 80% AMI for a single individual.
Casteneda says that 80% of AMI with a single parent with 2 kids is $67,950 so thinking about it that way is another way to do it. You could be a single parent with two children, we could say that is the person that we thought about, that a single parent with two kids and still be an elected official in Madison WI because that is what we considered.
Casteneda moves to recommend that the base salary for alders is 80% for an individual with two children in Dane County. Northrup seconds.
They start to vote, Casteneda tries to talk again, Goodwin says “just vote”
Aye: Rothchild, Northrup, Casteneda, Furman, Goodwin, Tractenburg
No: none, its unanimous
Side chatter about being marines, chuckle, chuckle.
More discussion about the rest of the agenda and what they should discuss.
They move on to other issues . . . but this seems to have wrapped up this discussion.
