The start of the 2022-2024 term has been a controversial one. The newly elected majority has pushed through several unpopular and contentious resolutions. The majority of citizens that I heard from were clearly against these resolutions which do nothing to improve the lives of Kenosha County residents. Rather, in my opinion, the following resolutions were motivated simply by partisan political advantage. They are the following; 1. The resolution to amend 2011 Resolution 63, 2. The resolution declaring Kenosha County as a Second Amendment Sanctuary County, 3. The resolution to put a referendum on the November ballot to make Wisconsin a Second Amendment sanctuary state. 4. The resolution to repeal 1996 Policy 12 and adopt a policy regarding Kenosha County Department and Division Heads, 5. The resolution prohibiting the County to accept grants or donations from non-governmental entities for elections.

1. THE RESOLUTION TO AMEND 2011 RESOLUTION 63 - The purpose of the resolution was to expand the use of concealed carry of firearms to other county buildings (except the ones still exempt by law). I am going to include a statement on my position in regard to this issue.

   “So is this our future?

   A dystopian world where every man and woman will have to be armed in order to protect themselves from the potential of deadly violence?  A world where we can’t rely solely on law enforcement since they too are overwhelmed by uncontrollable crime;  a world where our public lives are consumed with the fear of whether we will actually come home alive from grocery shopping, or worse yet, whether our children will return home safely from school.

   Is this where we have arrived in our policy debate?  This particular resolution is certainly evidence of that grim narrative.  However, I, and I know many others, refuse to accept the fatalistic perception that gun safety laws are pointless and that all we need is to put more guns in the hands of the “good guys.” (whoever they are).  The logical problem with the “good guy”-“bad guy” dichotomy is that a “good guy” could “snap” and turn into a “bad guy” at a moments notice. For some, all it takes is a divorce, being fired from a job, the death of a spouse or child, or news that one has a terminal illness.  Unfortunately, this is the case with many shooters who didn’t have a criminal background or a known psychological malady and who owned a gun legally.  None of us walk around with white hats and black hats, identifying us as the good guy or the bad guy. In short, and here is my point - we know that “bad guys” with guns are dangerous, but we must also admit under certain circumstances that “good guys” with guns can be dangerous as well.  This is why this position is overly simplistic and ignores the complex nature of an extremely difficult social problem.

   It is as if the advocates of this resolution are resigned to the cynical idea that we no longer live in a functional society but instead what the 17th century British Philosopher Thomas Hobbes called a “state of nature.”  In this condition every person is at war with with the other - the government is feckless and individual citizens feel the need to assert “rights” that should be within the purview of the government itself.  A precursor to anarchy, a state of nature occurs when citizens feel the need to take the law into their own hands.  According to the Social Contract theorists who influenced our Founding Fathers, this is precisely why we have government in the first place - namely for citizens to willingly give up the need to enforce the law and hand that legitimate authority to the government and deputized law enforcement, whose role is to protect our property and persons.

   However, this resolution represents more to the opposition than just whether concealed carry should be allowed in certain government buildings.  Rather, it reveals a profound frustration with those who promote the expansion of gun rights in society but are often the last to consider common sense gun safety measures to ensure those rights are used responsibly.  All rights come with responsibilities.  No right is absolute.  None of us live on an island.  All of our actions (knowingly or unknowingly) impact others in our society.

   I always ask myself before I vote on a resolution - what actual problem is it solving?  In this case, I am unaware of one as far as I can tell.  Rather, this deeply unpopular resolution is being considered to address a potential problem at best, not an actual one.  I understand the need to be proactive, but unfortunately Resolution 63 does not address the many unintended consequences which will result from overturning the concealed carry ban.  To put it in another way, the cure for a disease shouldn’t make the disease worse.  If the strained logic of Resolution 63 is ostensibly an attempt to address the potential public safety of county employees and citizens in general, then I fail to see how it actually achieves this, but only exacerbates the problem.

   I had many concerns with this resolution which I voiced in the Judiciary and Law Committee and that's why I voted against it (from the lack of concern that a government building is a “sensitive place”, to the incoherence of allowing concealed carry in some buildings but not all, to the practical problem of monitoring those who enter government buildings without increased security or metal detectors to aid the process, etc.)  Many of these same issues and others were emailed to the Board by concerned citizens who have spoken out during recent committee and board meetings.

   If the county wants to truly improve public safety, an issue that many of my fellow supervisors ran on, then let’s talk about public safety.  I would be more than happy to consider practical ways to do this.  We could assign and/or hire more law enforcement officers (like the city plans to do) in order to increase security in all county buildings, or how about adding metal detectors (which we own and are not being used) to the entrances of all county buildings, we could add bullet proof glass where needed, or even park unused squad cars near the entrances of county buildings to potentially deter those who may want to harm others.  I know this will cost money but it will be more effective in deterring crime (if this is what the advocates of this resolution actually want).  Unfortunately, it is not clear to me that it is.  I fear the bottom line with this resolution is really more about pure political expediency than anything else.”

2. THE RESOLUTION TO MAKE KENOSHA COUNTY A 2ND AMENDMENT SANCTUARY COUNTY - I was not present for the final vote on this issue but I did vote against this resolution in the Judiciary and Law Committee. The primary arguments I made in committee were the following; A. If the argument is that allowing concealed carry in public buildings will make us safer, then why does the state statute already limit where concealed weapons are allowed (such as in courthouses and public safety buildings)? It seems counter intuitive because those buildings would appear to need even more protection if one extends the logic of the argument. In short, either all county buildings should allow concealed carry or none at all. My position is that none at all should allow concealed carry with the obvious exception of law enforcement. B. If concealed carry was allowed in the administration building for example, how would it be enforced? Unless, there is added security at all entrance doors and metal detectors, any individual could simply walk in (which is the case now). What would be needed are metal detectors and added police security to check that everyone who enters the building has a legal concealed carry permit. Unfortunately, this important safety piece was not part of the resolution. C. According to the language of the Heller Amendment, public buildings are considered “sensitive places” and are exempt from concealed carry. To me, this was the most direct argument in support of restricting the expansion of concealed carry to the administration building and other county buildings not already exempt by statute. D. Lastly, what has changed since 2011 when a resolution was passed to prohibit concealed carry from non-exempt county buildings? The answer is nothing. The policy was working, so what was the point of changing the status quo? My guess is that this policy, as with the other controversial issues mentioned here, were purely political. In other words, the new majority on the Board is looking to the November 2022 midterms in hope that these divine resolutions will bring out their base. Plain and simple. In fact, the next resolution I will discuss is evidence since the point of it is to precisely put a referendum on the ballot in November.

3. A REFERENDUM ASKING THE CITIZENS OF KENOSHA COUNTY WHETHER THEY WOULD SUPPORT A 2ND AMENDMENT SANCTUARY STATE - The following is a statement I read on the floor against putting this question to a referendum in November.

   “I will not be supporting this resolution for the following reasons.

   First, Whether we are talking about a 2nd Amendment sanctuary county or state, no one has a right to disobey just, legally enforceable law. For example, if the state or federal government passed gun reform measures, such as a “red flag” law, required a license for open carry, required universal background checks, or banned semi-automatic weapons or high capacity magazines.  Would this give Kenosha County or Wisconsin residents in general the right to disobey these laws since we are now a 2nd Amendment sanctuary county or if this referendum passes a 2nd Amendment sanctuary state? No, it wouldn’t. Why?  Because 2nd Amendment sanctuaries are purely symbolic and have no legal force in the first place. In fact, it’s incorrect to believe that if Wisconsin is declared a sanctuary state, advocates could freely disobey any federal laws present or future that they feel infringe upon their 2nd Amendment rights. This idea totally runs counter to the Supremacy Clause in Article VI of the U.S. Constitution and why Governor Evers vetoed Assembly Bill 293 last year.  We are all required to uphold the rule of law, including the Sheriff and his department who are sworn to enforce them.  Putting this referendum to a vote, does not change the fact that the residents of Kenosha County, or any county in the state of Wisconsin, are subject to state and federal law whether we like it or not.  If a law is deemed potentially unconstitutional it is the venue of the courts to decide, not the citizens of Kenosha County.

   Second, what this resolution assumes is that the 2nd Amendment is absolute and that, in principle, any restriction on gun ownership is necessarily unconstitutional.  This is patently false.  In point of fact, no right is absolute, even the most fundamental right of freedom of speech. There are always circumstances where ones rights are constrained depending upon other factors.  Also, The Heller Decision itself was far from unanimous with a 5 to 4 majority decision, including a very narrow opinion read by conservative Justice Antonin Scalia who recognized a right to own a handgun in one’s home for the purpose of self protection.  Scalia did not go beyond that except to say in his opinion “that the Second Amendment is not unlimited - that we do not have a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever, in any manner whatsoever, and for whatever purpose.”

   Lastly, this resolution is really not one in any traditional sense.  Normally, a resolution resolves to address a particular problem and then attempts to solve it.  Unfortunately, what bothers me is that this is not what is happening here.  In fact, there is no particular problem, except some vague notion that any possible state or federal restriction on gun ownership that may arise in the near future should immediately be rejected as unconstitutional.  Well, my response is how could one possibly know if a restriction is unconstitutional or not if one doesn’t know what the restriction is?  But this is the point, the authors don’t specifically elaborate what restrictions they deem unconstitutional because then they can avoid any legitimate debate by simply adhering to a position that all restrictions are unconstitutional by definition.   

   This resolution is nothing more than an ideological position wrapped up in the veneer of a resolution.  Until the federal government or the Wisconsin state legislature actually passes a law that restricts gun ownership, what we have here is a solution looking for a problem.  If that time ever comes, then I am confident it will eventually end up in the courts where its constitutionality will be determined.  This is how it should be- where the proper role of the judiciary resolves constitutional issues.

   In the meantime, if we support  this resolution, we as a Board are tacitly agreeing to the logic, reasoning and assumptions presented in the language, but more importantly I am concerned that we will be sending a false impression to voters that if a county or state disagrees with federal law, they can nullify it. The theory of state nullification of federal law is unconstitutional.  Federal law and the U.S. Supreme Court are the final judicial arbiters, not the states.  Even as an advisory and ultimately symbolic referendum - I certainly don’t want to send the message to my constituents that this Board is formally endorsing this unconstitutional idea which is implied in the language of the referendum question.   This is why I will not be supporting this resolution.”

4. THE RESOLUTION TO REPEAL 1996 POLICY 12 AND ADOPT A POLICY REGARDING KENOSHA COUNTY DIVISION HEADS -

   For 26 years Policy 12 was never questioned but as soon as the new board and new county executive began this session, all of a sudden apparently it needed to be changed. For over a quarter of a century, division heads (with the exception of the Human Services and Public Works Directors) were appointed by the County Executive and are then approved and confirmed by the requisite committee and full County Board. With the repeal of Policy 12 (13 to 10 vote) the County Executive can now appoint a division head without board approval and fire “at will” as well. This new policy has resulted in a consolidation of power to the County Executive that is dangerous. All division heads will no longer have the independence to speak out for fear of their job. Division heads will become purely political appointees, rather than necessarily the best and most qualified for the job. This policy was entirely unnecessary except to hyper-politicize the county appointment process.

5. THE RESOLUTION PROHIBITING THE COUNTY TO ACCEPT GRANTS OR DONATIONS FROM NON-GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES FOR ELECTIONS -

   “Since this resolution was passed in committee, I would like to analyze some fundamental assumptions made that were not explored, as well as to present some political context to the larger resolution.

   First, some political context.  Ever since the 2020 election, there has been a concerted effort to perpetuate the “big lie” that somehow, in spite of all the facts, Donald Trump actually won the election.  This was evident when the former President pressured Robin Vos to start a legal proceeding which resulted in the hiring of former State Supreme Court Judge Michael Gablemen to lead an independent inquiry of the 2020 election.  Other than costing taxpayer money for a protracted investigation, not surprisingly very little, if anything, has been found to question the clear results of the 2020 election.  To add to this, Erik Kaardall a lawyer for the the Thomas More Society (who is a close associate of Mr. Gablemen) has filed numerous lawsuits and a complaint to the Wisconsin Elections Commission, challenging the legality of Center for Tech and Civic Life election administration grants given to municipalities during the pandemic. The purpose, I believe, is to continue fostering uncertainty as to the legitimate results of the 2020 election. For the sake of transparency, Supervisor Thomas, the author of this resolution, is also one of several local plaintiffs who are party to the WEC complaint.

   Secondly, never once in committee did anyone ask why the fundamental assumption that “private” or “non-governmental” money granted to municipalities for election administration is necessarily bad when it is legal.  It was just assumed so.  The bottom line is this.  The Court has stated that no state election laws are violated when a municipality accepts a grant or donation from a non-governmental agency (in this case a 501c 3 non-partisan, non-profit organization) for the purpose of election administration.  The Wisconsin Circuit Court and the Wisconsin Election Commission have already dismissed the basis for these allegations.  I might add that I am not a big fan of Mark Zuckerberg but that shouldn't be a reason to turn down a legitimate grant from CTCL because Zuckerberg is a major contributor to the organization, anymore than I would vote against the Walmart grant before us tonight because I dislike the Walton families politics or disagree with where they invest their money.  Would this resolution be before us if Dick Uihlein was the individual who donated 350 million dollars to CTCL instead of Mark Zuckerberg?  An interesting question.  I think not.  Keep in mind, the court rejected the claim that somehow this money was distributed unfairly, or in a partisan way.  There were over 200 municipalities in Wisconsin (including the city of Kenosha) that received grant money from the CTCL and most of the those cities/villages/towns were in areas where Donald Trump won handily.  No municipality was rejected for grant money and all that applied received it.

   The accusation that is is unfair because Milwaukee, Madison, Green Bay, Racine and Kenosha received more money than other smaller municipalities is silly.  Of course, they received more money - those 5 cities are the most populous cities in Wisconsin.  By the way AB 173, did not prohibit private, non governmental grants to municipalities but simply wanted to regulate it to make it more “fair”.  One aspect of the bill required the equal distribution between all municipalities per capita.  Unfortunately, this may sound fair but it is a very imprecise way of determining the needs of any given location.  The feeling of satisfaction for having an convenient mathematical average determine the amount of money a municipality receives, is quickly undermined by some locations inevitably receiving more money than they requested or needed, and other locations getting less than they requested or needed.  Unfortunately, how is this more equitable?  The point is it isn’t and, In part, this is why the bill was vetoed by Governor Evers. What is also forgotten is that the CTCL gave over 350 million dollars to municipalities in all states, including the majority of ones that are not battleground states.  If the CTCL was being partisan why give money to municipalities in states like California (reliably blue) or Wyoming (reliably red) unless the purpose of the grants was to actually aide nationwide election administration which was the point of the grant in the first place?

   Also, the statement that the money went to municipalities for GOTV is inaccurate.  Municipalities do not get involved with partisan GOTV activities because it is illegal according to state statute. Only political parties and their supporters do.  The money granted by CTCL went to increase election staffing, training and equipment so that every eligible voter could participate in a safe and timely way and have their vote counted.  Our own county clerk has said as much in the June Finance Committee Meeting that clerks do not coordinate partisan canvassing and door knocking for particular candidates.  In short, they do not get involved with GOTV activities.

   Lastly, If our present state legislature would stop cutting shared revenue to local governments while sitting on an enormous surplus, then maybe these sorts of grants would not be as enticing or necessary.  In the meantime, we, as a board, should give open minded consideration, if a similar grant is offered to Kenosha County in the future. But here is the rub - this resolution is addressing a problem that does not exist because Kenosha County never accepted any grant money during the pandemic for election administration.  And if we did, we have a formal process that allows the Board to accept or reject the grant. So, again here we are voting on a resolution that is a solution looking for a problem.   

   Therefore, I will not be supporting this resolution and encourage all of my fellow supervisors to do the same.”

   The 2023 Budget

   On Tuesday, October 4 the new County Executive Samantha Kerkman presented the upcoming 2023 budget to the board. As is custom, all supervisors had the entire month of October to analyze the details of a $275 million dollar budget. The budget went through the committee process for consideration prior to going to the floor for a final vote. In the Judiciary and Law budget hearing, the committee approved the addition of two detectives and one more sheriff’s deputy, above and beyond an additional three already proposed in the County Executive’s budget. When this came to the Finance Committee budget hearing, Supervisor Decker proposed cutting three positions from the budget to pay for the additional officers. The jobs on the “chopping block” were a facilities project manager, a public service superintendent in highways, and a community development education coordinator in PEDEEC. None of these positions was cut in committee and both the chair of Public Works and PEDEEC were unaware and not informed that Supervisor Decker was going to pay for the additional officers by cutting current staff. The Finance Committee vote to cut the positions narrowly passed.

   On November 3, the board convened to vote for the entire budget and corresponding bonding resolutions. Supervisor Geertsen made a motion to add only one “hybrid” position back into the budget where this individual would do the job of both the project engineer and the highway superintendent. Supervisor Gentz made a second motion to replace the first to add all three positions back into the budget. The vote to add the positions back into the budget failed (13 to 10). Supervisor Geertsen’s motion was then voted on and passed 14 to 9 to accept the hybrid position. When the entire budget came up for a vote, the budget passed 17 to 6. However, the bonding resolutions did not pass because they needed 3/4 of the board to approve. The bonding vote was 17 to 6 which was one vote short of the 3/4 necessary to pass the bonding and so the meeting was adjourned without any resolution.

   I supported Supervisor Gentz’s motion because it was unnecessary to cut the three positions to pay for the additional officers. Why? Because we had the money in the budget to pay for them. The board could have either put the money on the levy, or on the bonding (as was suggested by Supervisor Geertsen in committee), or we could have used available revenue. None of these suggestions was acceptable to Supervisor Decker who seemed to have a single minded desire to cut those positions for some reason. When Decker got some push back, she made a strategic compromise to give Supervisor’s Nordigian, Stocker and Karow a reason to accept Geertsen’s resolution which, of course, they did. Unfortunately, for her she could not prevent six supervisors from voting against the bonding. For now, the budget is in “limbo” until a compromise is reached between the six supervisors who voted against the bonding and the County Executive. It remains to be seen how this will be resolved.

   I was not one of the six who voted against the budget or the bonding. Let me explain why? Even though I supported adding officers and paying for them without cutting the other positions, I was uncomfortable voting against the budget and bonding resolutions because the board had a chance to vote for both Supervisor’s Gent’s and Geertsen’s motions. Unfortunately, Supervisor’s Gentz’s motion did not pass and Geertsen’s did. That’s democracy. For six supervisors to block the bonding because three positions were not restored to the budget, is to put the interests of a minority (25% of the board) above the interests of the other 75%. Admittedly, they had a right to do this, though, one should blame the 75% bonding threshold as simply too high. I say this also as one who agrees with the substance of what the six supervisors were trying to do, but not how they went about it. In short, they merely took advantage of the procedural super majority requirements for passing the bonding though they had no issues with the bonding per se, but wanted to force a compromise with the County Executive and the County Board Chairman over the budget. Even though the Board was able to vote on it, the deal itself was made outside of normal order. This type of bonding impasse has occured several times now and I fear that it is setting a bad precedent. In fact, I say this somewhat facetiously but if this is going to keep occurring, why even go through normal order? Instead, after the budget is presented by the County Executive, find out how many supervisors plan to vote against the bonding because they don’t like aspects of the budget. All that is needed is six supervisors and so why refer the budget to the committee, if what is decided could ultimately be overriden with a deal between a small group of supervisors and the County Board Chairman? In short, I didn’t like this anti-democratic political strategy when it was done by the minority in the past, and it certainly doesn’t make it right for the minority to do it now. I believe in procedural democracy and recoil at any manipulation for political ends. This is exactly why I reject the misuse of the filibuster rule in the Senate at the national level.

   After six weeks of a stalemate, Board Chairman Nudo and Supervisor Yuhas (one of the six who voted against the original bonding) came to a compromise. The agreement was as follows. Funding was restored for the community development educator position at the UW Extension, but the funding for the highway superintendent was not. The hybrid project engineer position was maintained with an increase of salary from an E7 to an E8 level. In addition, $100,000 was added to the budget to pay for a recent generator that failed at the Kenosha County Center. The Board on December 19th voted unanimously to accept the three bonding resolutions. In short, the 2023 budget and bonding have now been passed.

   Let me add some final thoughts. Though I am happy that an agreement was made and that some of the demands were met, was this the right thing to do in the end? I know that my colleagues feel that they were in the right for holding out and forcing the compromise. But at what cost was their victory? Anyone who has voted against the budget or bonding has ironically relinquished the moral high ground. No longer can one speak out against anyone else for doing the same thing for the same reasons. The counter- argument is yes, but we got part of what we wanted. What good is taking the moral high ground if your opponent does not? Yes - that is a problem. Maybe the real and true cost of resorting to opportunistically leveraging power is that it prolongs the divisive and combative environment from which the county board suffers. What may seem wise and strategic at a given time can have unintended consequences down the road.

   RESOLUTION 60 - THE COUNTY HEALTH DIRECTOR AND EMERGENCY AUTHORITY

   It seems to me that the underlying issue this resolution wants us to consider (though it is never clearly stated) is this - Does a County Public Health Director have the authority to declare a emergency public order independent of a state or federal mandate?   

   In essence, this resolution is asking the Board to vote NO - or at least it assumes that a county Public Health Director either does not, or should not have this authority. However, the question of whether the Director HAS said authority, though, is actually separate from whether one thinks that she SHOULD have this authority. But be that as it may, does the Public Health Director have this legal right to declare an emergency public order (such as a mask mandate) and/or can the County Board restrict it in the way that is suggested?

   Just last year, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled in Becker vs. Dane County, that local health officers do, in fact, have the authority to declare public health orders.  Moreover, these local orders are enforceable through civil citation and in this case are not preempted by state law. Lastly, this delegated authority is not in conflict with the separation of powers. The case itself was affirmed on appeal and the Court ruled that a public health officer’s decision to declare an emergency order also did not have to be approved by the requisite county board either.

   So, if this authority is recognized by the State Supreme Court and enforceable by law, it follows that the County Board does not have the jurisdiction to limit the authority of the county health officer when declaring a health emergency since we are an arm of the state as well.  In fact, by adopting this resolution we would be putting the county squarely in opposition to the decision made by our own Supreme Court.

   Frankly, it appears to me that we would be usurping power that we don’t legally have.  So, Since I am very skeptical of the resolutions legal standing, I will not be supporting it.

   Thank You Mr. Chair.

   THE MENOMONIE CASINO PROPOSAL

   A contract is only as good as to the degree to which it can be enforced.  The strength of a contractual agreement is also evident in the ability of the individual parties to make good on the particular conditions of the agreement itself. Unfortunately, there are many areas of this intergovernmental agreement where all parties are asked to consent from a position of uncertainty where the specifics are based on loose projections.  The most obvious example, is that none of us know for sure whether the governor of the state of Wisconsin (whoever he or she may be at the time) will sign off on the agreement.  None of us know how the IG agreement will be viewed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs for that matter either.  Consequently, we are all attempting to ratify the particulars of an agreement in the dark before the decision is made by the governor who has the sole authority to decide this matter.  Certainly not an ideal position to hammer out an agreement for either side.

   I also have many concerns as to the particulars of the intergovernmental agreement.  First of all, I think the net-win estimates are extremely optimistic.  The most recent estimate by the National Indian Gaming Commission in 2022 said that the total annual revenue by all Indian casino’s in the U.S. was approximately 40 billion dollars.  A lot to be sure.  However, when you look at the statistics more closely it appears more murky.  For instance, there are 510 tribal casinos in the country.  If you divide the total annual casino revenue by the total amount of casinos, you get an average of around 78 million dollars.  So, the average tribal casino makes around 78 million dollars which is a far cry from the rose colored estimate of 300 to 400 million dollars a year that the Menomonie is predicting they will earn within 10 years.

   I might add that only 43 Indian establishments made over 250 million in revenue in a year which is about 8% of all casinos.  Now it is possible that the Menomonie casino could be in the top 8% of all casinos in the United States but that is a very high bar and their prediction would probably put it into the top 1% of all Indian casino’s if total revenue reached 375 million.  Are these numbers realistic?  I have my suspicion that they are highly exaggerated, especially in an area that already is saturated with casinos in Milwaukee and Northern Illinois.

   Moreover, there were many more Indian casinos that made less than 3 million dollars in net-win revenue per year  To be exact 21% made less than 3 million in revenues.  How do we know whether the Menomonie proposal will be a 300 million dollar a year venture where the county is receiving 1% or 3 million a year, or a 3 million dollar a year venture where the county receives 1% or 30 thousand a year which would be less than the property taxes we would receive if the 60 acres were left undeveloped, and less that the minimum payment required as per the contract.  My point is we don’t know.

   I also am concerned that there is no guarantee in the agreement that the hotel, restaurants, and conference center are contingent upon the success of the casino.  Presumably, if the casino does not produce in the way advertised, then the subsequent investment in the hotel, restaurants will not follow.  Many of my constituents are quite concerned that without that contractual guarantee, there will only be a casino which will be limping along after a few years, when there could have been a major corporation who purchased those same valuable 60 acres and was consistently paying property taxes to the county.

   I also find it interesting that we are asked to sign an intergovernmental agreement with the Menomonie when they are not fronting the 360 million dollar upfront investment, nor will they be running the casino. The Menomonie would own the land but the Hard Rock really owns the business and they will be getting the benefit of not paying any property taxes if the Menomonie are able to get the land put into federal trust by the BIA.  Why don’t we have a contract agreement with Hard Rock as well?  The Menomonie have to sign a development and management agreement with Hard Rock but we don’t.   What are the specifics of those agreements?  Are they consistent with the potential IG agreement with the County?  Who knows?   

   As the representative of District 13, the district where the Menomonie casino complex is  proposed, I am highly skeptical of the promises made in this agreement and so are many of my constituents.  Apart from the specifics of the agreement, some are concerned with the impact a casino would have on increased traffic, noise, crime and how effectively those issues will be addressed, and most importantly the long term impact on property values. Another supervisor told me that Joe Andrea once said, “Never vote against jobs.”   I think, in general, that’s sage advice.  However, it’s not always true.  The promise of jobs and economic development doesn’t always materialize according to expectation.  The best example of this occurred a few years ago with Foxconn.  The ongoing drama that is Foxconn could have been Kenosha’s problem instead of Racine’s.  There were many at the time who were loudly proclaiming all of the jobs and economic benefits if Foxconn set up shop in Kenosha County.  As you know, most of those promised economic benefits never quite came to be.  I dare say, the Foxconn development, at the very least, has been a disappointment to Racine County and to southeast Wisconsin in general.

   So here we are again being wooed by the promise of jobs, economic development, and the hope of projected shared casino revenue that may or may not offset the loss of property taxes once the land is put into a federal trust.  Will the casino complex be a success for Kenosha County as a whole?  Maybe or maybe not.  Or possibly we are rushing headlong into a situation where we are putting our faith in the same narrow financial inducements of the past and forgetting to look at the potential costs of this project. In the past week I have received many emails from Kenosha County residents both in support and against the casino project, proving that many of my constituents, as well as others in other districts feel very strongly about this issue.  However, I would like to say this.  If there was a county wide referendum on this issue like in 2004, I am confident that the vast majority of constituents in District 13 would be against the IG agreement, as well as the development of the casino itself. My evidence is this.  In November 2004, the last time there was a gaming referendum on the ballot in Kenosha County, the vote was roughly 56% for and 44% against.  What is not stated, though, is that in the neighborhoods closest to the proposed casino at the time voted 2 to 1 against the referendum.  And this was before Strawberry Creek, Tylers Ridge, Kilbourn Woods and the Reserves were even built.  We are talking thousands of new homes and apartments built in the past 19 years with more to come.  Unfortunately, since non-binding referendums are no longer possible, I would venture to say that the vast majority of new homeowners, coupled with those living in White Caps, River Crossing and Horizons would be against the Casino development for the reasons already stated.

   In 2017, when this body voted for a resolution to encourage Foxconn to come to Kenosha, only 3 supervisors voted against the resolution.  I was one of those supervisors.  Looking back, it was a tough vote, but I am glad that I voted the way I did.  Admittedly, the fact that Foxconn is not in Kenosha was due primarily to the Mayor rejecting the proposal.  However, my fear is that we are at another “Foxconn Moment.”  I may be wrong, but I’m very concerned and certainly not willing to risk the potential negative economic and social impact that may result from the Casino project. I know that ultimately the decision is up to the Governor whoever he or she may be at that time.  However, the brunt of any loss of home value, traffic increase, noise, etc. is going to be acutely felt by residents of District 13. In fact, I recently spoke to a respected politician who supports the Casino.  He thought the concerns I have were the same people were making before the Greyhound Dog Track was opened in 1990.  That may be true but there is one big difference.  In 1990, there were very few homes in District 13.  When Dairyland was proposed in the late 1980’s, Whitecaps had not even been built yet.  In other words, you can’thave a loss in home value when there are no homes to loose value!  Much of the area which consists now of residential subdivisions in District 13 were cornfields in 1990 and so, as the representative of District 13, I cannot support this resolution.

   Thank you Mr. Chair.

   LIBRARY RESOLUTION TO SEGREGATE ALLEGED “PORNOGRAPHIC” BOOKS INTO A SAFE SPACE

   For those who were not present or didn’t listen to last weeks Finance Committee Meeting, I am not in support of this resolution for the following reasons.

   One - this resolution is a solution looking for a problem.  There already exists a remedy for those parents who want to prevent their children from encountering adult themed books in the public library.  Parents can simply go to the library with their children and prevent them from checking out any books they find inappropriate, as well as restrict any browsing in the adult section if they so choose.  Keep in mind children under 9 are not allowed in the library alone, and one must be at least 16 to get a library card on one’s own.  Additionally, any parent can monitor what books a child has checked out with their library card.  In short, the burden of responsibility is on the parents to supervise their children.  It is not the library’s responsibility to co-parent.  In this case, The First Amendment right and public interest in providing  access to all information must be weighed against the claim that some want to restrict particular information in a public setting, not only from their children but all children.  I believe, this is precisely why Wisconsin statute 944.21 prevents schools and public libraries from liability in this area.  Public interest takes priority over private interest when it comes to  voluntary access to public information.  In other words, going to a library is entirely optional and not required or mandated. The public library is part of the commons of which we all share and contribute towards.  It shouldn’t be used as an ideological testing ground to promote the agenda of a particular individual or group at the expense of the common good.   

   Two - even if the resolution came to be, it wouldn’t work and would be a nightmare to implement . For example, how would we create a “safe space” in all public libraries?  There already exists an adult section in the library.  Would we need to wall off the entire existing adult section or create a separate “controversial” books adult section and only wall that off”?  Who and how would it be monitored?  Would all young people need an I.D. to show at the entrance of the adult section?  What if students didn’t have a drivers license yet?  What form of I.D. would be acceptable?  As per the language of the resolution, all young people would also need a permission slip to enter the proposed safe space.  Would we need to hire more librarians?  How would we decide which librarians get to play security guard for the adult book section? Etc. etc..  Furthermore, what’s to stop one student whose parent allows him or her to check out a controversial book to lend it to another student without the knowledge of his or her parents.  The short answer is nothing and this is why this policy is misguided.

   Thirdly, the resolution totally misunderstands the purpose of a public library.  A public library is a publicly funded entity that serves the needs and interests of all kenosha county residents.  A library provides access to all knowledge, it does not promote or privilege information, or act as a moral arbiter as to which information is appropriate or not.  If a library was subject to all religious, moral, philosophical, or political objections a community could possibly muster, there would be very few books in a public library. One could imagine someone objecting to books that deal with the subjects of communism, or fascism, or atheism, or sacred books from other religious traditions.  What about the Bible itself?  What would one say to an ideologically driven group of atheists who have an “ax to grind” and want the Bible separated in a safe space due to an objection to religious belief and practice? You can see that this resolution would open up a “pandora’s box” of challenges legitimate or otherwise.  In short, public libraries don’t sensor.  The only limitations a public library must adhere to are legal, statutory restrictions.

   Lastly, who determines what is “pornographic” or more specifically what is obscene?    Pornography is a elusive term that is quite subjective.  In other words, one person’s pornography is another person’s romance novel.  Also, the legal bar to meet the definition of obscenity is quite high.  Unfortunately, Supervisor Stocker never really defines pornography or obscenity, nor does he give examples of how the definition of pornography has changed over the years.  Furthermore, he conflates pornography with adult material which are not the same, while at the same time also linking sexual violence with pornography.  Many books have adult themes that include violence which are not necessarily pornographic.  For example, sexual violence and pornography are not identical.  A depiction of rape such as in the book Homegoing is nothing more than a description of sexual violence, not pornography. To be specific sexual violence is and adult theme but it does not fit the textbook definition of pornography. For instance, books that deal with the history of slavery where Africans were abducted, raped, tortured, beaten, hanged, and burned alive in some cases are certainly horrible examples of violence (some of it sexual) that many would prefer not to read, but they are certainly not intended to be pornographic.  What about actual accounts in military history where captured women were gang raped by soldiers or were forced to be “comfort women” (Prostitutes) as many Korean women were subjected to during W.W.II.  Again, these are despicable examples of sexual violence from history, but not pornography.

   Finally, I believe that at least in part this resolution is disingenuous because a good majority of the challenged books just so happen to be of LGBTQ+ content.  Is this a coincidence?  Many don’t think so and frankly I have my suspicions as well. To put it another way, the language of the resolution is so broad that almost any example of sexual behavior that the authors may disagree with could easily be folded into a deliberately opaque definition of pornography without actually saying it.  This conveniently immunizes the resolution from view point discrimination in regard to sexual orientation while still achieving the necessary effect that the authors want. In other words, the claim that this resolution is ostensibly against pornography, but not against LGBTQ+ books is odd at the very least when in reality the majority of the sanctioned books are precisely LGBTQ+ themed books.

   Is this intentional? Well,If it isn’t, it's certainly a convenient way to include forms of sexual expression that some may find difficult to understand or identify with, but also cleverly link together while avoiding an accusation of discrimination. Unfortunately, the end product intentional or not would seem to conflict with civil rights law where there is the protection against discrimination based upon sexual orientation, especially in a publicly funded setting. The courts have been very clear and have advocated for a very broad First Amendment protection of free expression rights in public institutions, such as public libraries.  By virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment, the right of free speech and intellectual freedom are also applied to the states and local government.  Government agencies and government officials are forbidden from regulating or restricting speech based on content or viewpoint.  Only private entities can restrict speech, however, this resolution is asking public officials (the county board) to restrict speech from a public entity (the library).  Ultimately, any First Amendment claims against a public entity should only be adjudicated in a court of law.                

   The point is who decides?  That’s the question?  Well, one answer is the courts as I just suggested. Supervisor Stocker and those who agree with him shouldn’t be able to summarily declare which books ought to be segregated in the library based upon their own particular religious, moral, philosophical or cultural views.  Unfortunately, this policy would put librarians in the unenviable position to ascertain what books are potentially problematic and which ones are not, a position I’m sure no librarian wants to be put in, nor should they.  This is, and always has been the decision and responsibility of the parents and parents alone.

   In conclusion,  I don’t think it is a wise idea for this Board to support this resolution and so I will not be voting for it.

   Thank you Mr. Chair and I yield back.