Tough Votes

Every public servant encounters “tough votes” from time to time. At the federal or state level, sometimes it involves an omnibus bill which includes “pork” that only benefits particular congressional districts, or simply “poison pill” amendments that make a vote extremely difficult because to vote for the larger bill, one has to also accept those amendments for which one also disagrees. At the local level, we are not immune from this problem. Every year on the Kenosha County Board, we must pass a large budget that includes spending for which some supervisors may not agree. However, every supervisor must weigh the total benefit of passing the budget versus the cost of not passing it. For some, this can be a tough vote. The point is that all public servants have to consider multiple factors above and beyond the substance of a resolution, such as its legality, jurisdictional issues, the process by which it was drafted, and, most importantly, whether the resolution is necessary. Does the resolution, in fact, solve an actual problem, or is it motivated by other factors, such as politics?

In the past six years, John has had to make several tough votes. Below are three examples and the rationale behind the decisions:

John’s vote against the resolution encouraging Foxconn to set up operations in Kenosha County. John was one of only three supervisors who voted against the proposal.

The vast majority of supervisors were focused on the potential economic development to Kenosha County (which would have been considerable), but John was also concerned about the impact on the Kenosha taxpayer. All he heard from some people was that he should never vote against jobs. Though he agrees with this to a point, John didn’t think this deal should be rushed into, considering the billions of dollars of proposed subsidies that were being dangled as an inducement. Moreover, John was not comfortable with the track record set by Foxconn, not only in China, but in other attempts at setting up shop in the U.S. Lastly, the impact on our local environment, in terms of water diverted and used for a business of this size, was really problematic. As it was, Kenosha Mayor Antaramian ultimately closed the door on the deal and Racine was chosen as the site for Foxconn’s development. In short, even though John felt pressure to vote with the majority, he decided against it and was glad he did. Five years later, the state and, in particular, Racine County has sunk millions of dollars of development costs into the construction of Highway KR, and what do we have to show for it? A massively scaled down operation which has changed multiple times and has resulted in far fewer jobs than anticipated. In fact, Governor Evers has had to renegotiate the original contract with Foxconn in order to lessen the negative financial impact on Wisconsin taxpayers.

Bottom Line - The majority is not always in the right. If your decision is well researched and thought out, don’t be intimidated even if you are the only person standing alone.

John’s vote as a member of the Finance Committee to demote Captain Bill Beth of the Kenosha Sheriff’s Department.

It is always difficult when one is put in a position to decide the fate of another person. In this case, Captain Bill Beth was accused of insubordination for promising days off to exempt employees when he did not have the authority to do so. To make matters worse, he was doing this right after Captain Robert Hallisy committed a similar violation and was given the option of demotion or retirement. He chose to retire. Captain Bill Beth continued to pursue this course of action even after Deputy Sheriff Marc Levin and Sheriff David Beth caught wind of it. An independent investigation ensued and the recommendation was for Captain Bill Beth to be demoted.

As part of the Finance Committee, John was charged with listening to the arguments from the attorneys on both sides, and then determine to either uphold the recommended demotion, to modify the decision, or to dismiss it entirely. After several days of grueling testimony, the committee ruled that Captain Beth was, in fact, guilty, and six out of the seven committee members agreed with the recommended demotion. Only one decided against it. John agreed with the majority finding that he was guilty and the proposed demotion to sergeant was a just outcome, considering all of the evidence. Captain Beth was a recently appointed captain who should have known the proper chain of command. When he received pushback from Captain Miller and other officers warning him not to take this course, Beth still proceeded with his plan. Had he consulted with either the deputy sheriff or the sheriff himself, this could have been avoided. Unfortunately, Captain Beth had no intention of following the chain of command. He was not concerned with getting approval from his superiors. This is why this was such a serious offense. Moreover, his plan included giving unauthorized days off to exempt employees who were not authorized to accept this form of compensation. In short, to maintain order and consistency in the department, John concurred that Captain Beth needed to be demoted.

Bottom Line - When judging another person’s position, be open-minded and humble, evaluate all of the evidence, and avoid jumping to conclusions.

John’s vote against the resolution for revising the placement process of former violent sex offenders (VSOs).

This resolution was calling for the Kenosha County Board to function as a “middleman” between the statutory committee and the localities where the placements occur, as well as to act as an oversight authority. John and five other supervisors raised several concerns in regard to the specifics of the resolution. For instance, there was no language in the actual statute that gave oversight authority to the county board. The responsibility for the placement of former VSO’s (at least the ones not under the jurisdiction of the department of justice) is done through the county health services. The actual placement is done by the committee designated by state statute, and the legal remedy for improper placement is determined by the circuit court.

In the legislative committee where the resolution was first introduced, the corporation counsel (who happens to be a member of the statutory committee), raised serious objections about the specifics of the resolution. One, in particular, was that the resolution was adding unnecessary conditions to the already challenging job of placing VSO’s, and he was concerned that this could lead to unintended legal exposure down the road. Also, the authors of the resolution used the potential misplacement of two individuals in Salem Lakes during the summer of 2021 as the impetus for this resolution. However, the example used undercuts the reason for the resolution because these individuals were not placed. In fact, the current process did work because the law requires that the public must be informed where a VSO is being placed. The fact that the statutory committee listened to the concerns of the residents of Salem Lakes was a good thing. The circuit court put a stay on the order and the potential placement was stopped. If anything, the problem is with certain language in the statute which the resolution also addresses (like the definition of a park, or requiring the statutory committee to personally contact a local administrator which is not the case now). However, any substantive change like these must come from the state legislature, not the county. The irony of this issue is not that VSO’s are being placed arbitrarily in Kenosha County against people’s knowledge or contrary to legal constraints, but that it is often nearly impossible to find a place anywhere that meets all of the statutory criteria to place them.

Bottom Line - Don’t focus solely on the Political implications of a particular resolution. Instead, look at the big picture and the other issues will become clear.