And sewers? It sounds like some alders might think so. This is two weeks old at this point, but the Council will be discussing it tomorrow and there is some surprisingly frank talk about how important the alders think they are. And it raises some interesting questions about why can the plan commission introduce things without an alder support, but the Equal Opportunities Commission, Affirmative Action and Committee on People with Disabilities can’t?
This is the conversation at the Common Council Organizational Committee meeting two weeks ago.
PUBLIC COMMENT – TWO FORMER ALDERS, TWO CURRENT ALDERS
Brian Benford – appreciates work everyone is doing – he appreciates the extra couple hours he has these days. He says he is here to ask for your help, he’s on the Equal Opportunities Commission, but here representing himself. He’s here to ask for help because he wants the City of Madison to be known for civil rights and he wants to know that supporting people to their full potential means something to this body and city. He says his first memory of being an alder was the huge packet he received on Friday and thinking I have to read it all, there is an implied leap of faith, you do best you can, look at what is important for your district and the city, but its a blind leap of faith, you don’t know every sewer or public works project, every bar with licenses, we believe in commissions and committees – which might be controversial with bus fares and hotel – but that’s the the way it works we believe in commissions and committees – the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC), Affirmative Action Commission (AAC) and Committee on People with Disabilities (CPD) is charged with making sure everyone reaches full potential and asking for your help to send a clear signal to the world that we believe in that. Why is this necessary? Sometimes politics prohibit an alder from always sponsoring resolutions going forward, that is the reality we live with, when we a have commission – sometimes things fall thought the cracks, this just gives important issues, civil rights, full potential to see the light of day, and get public comment, it doesn’t change anything, some people say alders will sponsor anything that comes forward, sometimes that can’t happen, this allows commissions to do what we are passionate about, you trusted us, with mayor, have leap of faith, let us put something before body.
Bert Zipperer says he’s here to urge you to do a proactive pro civil rights thing – you can say there is no barrier between 3 commissions what deals with civil rights, if those are commissions you confirm, who are city officials that fill out conflict of interest forms, you should want their best unfiltered advice for ordinance amendments and suggestions, period. You are in charge, we can’t create ordinances, you vote, should there be a barrier is the the question. A number already don’t have the barriers, personnel board not held hostage to alder, plan commission and a variety of others exempt, for good reason, don’t want an ill advised alder to use position in a bad way – civil rights is one of those issues, every committee should do this. The question is, what is problem we are trying to solve, they saw it the other night, had to ask alder, explicitly, to sponsor something from the committee. In the past we voted and took action and then the ordinance disappeared. If we want something drafted and introduced that should be fine, you can vote it down, this would be a chance to make a strong demonstration on a proactive, civil rights issue, we have had a strong tradition since 1963.
Joe Clausius is the longest serving member of the Affirmative Action Commission, Mayor Soglin appointed him, he voted against this ordinance, has been opposed since get go, he wants to echo Attorney May, there no reason to give the right to Dept of Civil Rights, why not any city commission? He says the situation 30 years ago was there was a free for all, they got to where half the time city council no one was sponsoring, doesn’t want to see something like that happen. At times the city attorney can hardly keep up with changes by alders, if anyone on city committee could do that it would take more time – as far as AAC goes, he is the alder and served for some time, served with two other alders, to best of his knowledge there has been no issue where the alder refused to sponsor. [This is ironic. He would have refused to sponsor this ordinance.] His personal opinion is that if the proposal to change ordinance or resolution smells so bad alder wont’ touch it, probably good reason, he also hears that HR and Board of Public Works and others have right to sponsor resolutions, inherent in make up of commissions, confidentiality, speed, sometimes have to move fast, not true with AA, EOC and CPD, vote it down.
Brian Solomon disagrees vehemently with colleague to left (Claussius), understand his points, understand why majority of alders probably leaning in similar direction and why as alders our first instinct is to walk the opposite direction of this, for some portion of alders around table and on council, but he is here to ask you to resist that first instinct, what we are talking about is different, it is important, what Claussius said about other committees, we should be making just as strong of an argument for civil rights as an urgent critical and make it as important as anything else, there is a reason why these commissions are there. It the question is why them and not every committee, that is easy to answer. Very unlikely it will ever happen, Claussius and Solomon don’t have any recollection of it happening, this is going to be extremely rare if ever, but that isn’t the point, the point is that if even the slightest chance the civil rights or equal opportunities issue comes up that is not passed by majority, perhaps a council in the future, there is a day where it could happen where civil rights or EOC issue happens and no alder is willing to sponsor, as former Alder Zipperer said, the law is still in our bounds, all it does is allow to see the light of day. He says if a civil rights issue comes up, it is incumbent on us to make sure it sees the light of day and if no alder will sponsor it, it shows even more why it should see the light of day and Common Council should stand in front of TV and the citizens ans say we refuse to do this and why? What are we scared of, them making a statement on an issue that important. Nothing to lose, huge statement for a couple reasons. We’ve seen several years of civil rights eroding across county and we can stand up and buck that trend, we’ll do something proactive in favor of civil rights. We all know city commissions have been getting not most favorable commentary of late, its amazing citizens stay on committees after Transit and Parking Commission and Landmarks, this is a statement standing up for city commissions about value and importance of the committees, it is a valuable statement to make. People when elected have the best of intentions, once elected that is when things change, start drawing circle around themselves and more other things become more important than democratic institutions and values that brought them there, power has not corrupted this council, stand up, stand up for citizens and committees, important enough we can step aside and say you know what, if not one alder will do it, it is up to us to see that it sees the light of day.
QUESTIONS
Shiva Bidar-Sielaff asks about committee discussion did they discuss that they would at least try to find a sponsor first.
Solomon says there would always and attempt to find one, says could put in stronger language, happy to sponsor that change.
Mark Clear asks all four speakers for an example of when this would be needed.
Solomon says unlikely and within collective memory, no occurrence where commission wanted to and alder was hostile.
Clear asks them to take him through a hypothetical.
Zipperer says this issue is an example, if not for Brian Solomon wouldn’t be before you period. So even tho three commissions passed the ordinance and request it would not be before you.
Clear asks for another issue.
Zipperer says civil rights are like that about protecting minority, bill of rights in place to make sure majority did not overwhelm rights of minorities, right of free speech etc. Civil rights in that tradition, protect each of us, gender, races, etc, not just one, so when civil rights focused committee brings something before you, it may be politically uncomfortable.
Clear says like what?
Brian Benford says hypothetically hard to answer, an example, some of you around when the Department of Civil Rights was proposed, for those not around it was contentious, there are still affects from that, if the mayor didn’t bring that forward, they wanted to do it for efficiencies and more resources – it was contentious, some alders may thing I’m only in office two years, reelection after two years so not touch it – believe that could apply to something like that. Tried to be delicate, that is the reality that they live with, that could happen as Solomon says hopes it wouldn’t happen, with new language for every effort being made, something as important as civil rights deserves the light of day, could never imagine thinking he knew more than a commission and not touching an ordinance cuz he would not get reelected, this eliminates that issue – this is about all reaching their full potential, this is bigger than sewers and precedents you already deal with.
Solomon says he could give you 100 or 1000 hypotheticals – EOC years ago what if change ordinance to protect civil rights without desire based on race and there was a possibility there were 20 racist alders, right now debating genetic identity. He could imagine – but don’t understand, don’t want to tough, body has knowledge that is beyond that of ourselves, your questions deal with the body not hypothetical, won’t work now, many are possible given right mix of 20 alders who won’t take risk or make change on something critically important they don’t understand. If that day comes, its too late, this is for a proposal like that. We have the wisdom and foresight. It’s important for civil rights and important because of the grief citizen commissions have been taking. Hypotheticals depend on the 20 people here.
Clausius says reason this is difficult is the hypocrisy of the situation, what we have is certain individuals trying to make it a civil rights issue. Also, none of us are anti-civil rights, he can’t imagine being voted out or recalled from office for sponsoring something. Least of all him who is opposing this, he was not appointed and reappointed by 3 mayors for no reason, someone has to say it, this is not a civil rights issue at all. Commission members did not get their way or say on the Chronic Nuisance Ordinance and this is underlying frustration from that, hope will put whole matter to bed, apologizes if he offended anyone.
Judy Compton says sorry she was late – she has questions for staff. They explain they are taking questions of speakers.
Michael Schumacher asks Solomon – fact that sitting here sponsoring it isn’t that a real showcase that system works, he says system not broken, protecting against the future, hard to imagine not finding alder to sponsor now if of grave importance, can picture it in the future?
Solomon uses Claussius’ example of the Chronic Nuisance Ordinance. It was something that only had one sponsor and only one vote and if he wasn’t there, it would not have made it to the floor. The vote was 19-1, that’s fine, we didn’t all lose reelection because of it, but obviously chronic nuisance ordinance was a hugely important civil rights issue, huge majority, guess no one else step forward, glad saw light of day, debated it, 19-1, it is good it hit the floor.
Schumacher asks about alternatives that do not go this route and still get at the outcome looking at.
Solomon thought a lot about it, no alternatives.
Schumacher asks if do it with all committees?
Solomon says personally big fan, don’t want them making the laws and but giving input, all things equal yes, fan of democracy, he is concerned about overwhelming the city attorney. He says there is something for giving people a voice, but also there are many things on the agenda that do not pass, balance has to be had, rises above that because of the importance of committees.
Schumacher says his own perspective, opinion or philosophy on what elected role is vs committee appointment is different – people in his district vote for alders, that is not the same for people on committees, there are different privileges.[Funny he focuses on privileges vs. responsibility.]
Solomon says the clear distinction is that the accountability is with us, ultimate responsibility, not like allowing citizen committee to sponsors a law, this just raises civil rights to the level where they don’t need alder support to see the light of day, can vote down 20 to 0 if issue they passed by a majority of people on a committee, they should defend why they voted that way – like they chronic nuisance ordinance, we did not all lose our jobs, there is not a clear distinction of what civil right are, none of 19 people are anti civil rights, they just didn’t believe civil rights were infringed on by chronic nuisance ordinance, that is why no one was railroaded out of town, so far.
Schumacher asks how many people are on the committees.
There are 13 people on EOC 7 would constitute a majority.
Schumacher asks how 7 people with no sponsor, how do you see those 7 people work on drafting an ordinance, who is spokesperson?
Solomon says good questions, would need to figure out, Solomon’s say look at personnel board and public works, could be chair or staff rep, there are possibilities, have to think through.
QUESTIONS OF STAFF
Compton asks how many committees currently able to put legislation in front of commission without sponsorship – Solomon not sure. May, Konkel, Zipperer, in the resolution
Rummel asks how city attorney would interface and what do with other committees – staff or chair and would we have to look at some place in ordinance where look t duties of city attorney office
May says no, just add them to the list, work with dept ahead that staffs the committee – if pub works work with city endingeer, plan with Murphy
Rummel asks logic, confidentiality – personnel board, propose changes without alder having an ax to grind, actual reason for others is sheer volume they deal with, bpw dozens every week and go through quick period of time, bids let and go to public works and then couilc to approve contracts and highly technical. Those are the reasons, plan is volume or changes in text are regularly done, been there a long time without ald sponsor – might be that normally go to alder of district a dn if not in favor, might end up dying. Not sure need it – why can bpw sponsor ordinance, resolutions to approve contracts would go back other way – that change rules without some alder saying ys – Rummel say ord too – Rummel asks about examples
May says extensions of time for special assessments, came from bpw, some alders agitated to get it done, rare but happens, poan commm is changes highly technical for any kind of development in the city.
Clear says that that is question, technical,
Compton, 5 or 10 years, number of ord text changes form any of three bodies, plan would be a lot, three alders, if comes in then never noticed name not on it, not remember something sponsored by plan – cc by request – honestly when ever happened? But do a lot of cc by request when agree – they disagree. Rummel says that’s a plot device, missed some
Veldran says all on – cc by request – no two different things – Veldran says if using shouldn’t be –
Compton would like the history –
Schmidt asks if state statute – he says he doesn’t think so for bpw, but has to check on plan – Judy more work for city attorney then this ord ever would.
Schumacher asks about tech process, how work with it,
May says would vote on it then work with key staff – Lucia Nunez, she woudlsay ueys introduce.
Schumacher wanted to ask her how it would work – she left – actual person crafting policy is a staff person – representing some kind of committee majority.
May says yes, plan commission goes back to plan – same with bpw – (they do review it – same would happen there – Schumacher would be advisor, would vote again
Solomon says happens all the time now, plan planning staff but also outside that, cno – city attorney’s office incredibly involved, were they actually making policy decisions , one would hope not, hope brought by alder or another body, happens all the time outside these three bodies.
DISCUSSION/MOTION
Shiva Bidar-Sielaff makes a motion to approve with addition of language “if after approaching all alders and the mayor no sponsor secured”, then continue . . .
Rummel seconds.
Bidar-Sielaff says she understands trepidation of something not coming to council if no sponsor, may not end up something council would adopt, and maybe we don’t foresee that happening today, but she has lived in places where in a blink of an eye what you think about a democratic process can change quickly and civil rights and sometimes majority rights are squashed and elected officials do not listen to majority of people talking about on street – this gives a public forum if no sponsor among elected officials, it won’t pass, but its an opportunity to be heard and to know that they have a forum to be heard, in the world of civil rights when they can foresee this happening, this has happened in South Africa and in this country during the civil rights movement, there were a lot of people in streets and elected officials were not willing to hear them and not let them come to a forum and not make legislation to protect their rights, it has happened, when you think about people on committees and what happened in history with civil rights and how much it has taken to bring issues to a public forum, you can understand why a set of committees that deal with things not others deal with. Example right now, if today the EOC wanted to bring forward the protection on undocumented non-citizens, I can tell you, they would have one sponsor, may be more, but would not take much to not have a council that would sponsor it, again it may never pass, but, giving the option to bring it forth, about why this is an important protection, this is part of democratic battle, this is appropriate for civil rights issues. I hope you will think back in history and what happened elsewhere, change the lens, do not think about our workload, but think about our citizens fighting for a forum to bring issues forward.
Judy Compton was vacillating needed to get answer, what she sees is alder Shiva statement as person who lived through the time that she speaks of and friends that live in this city that lived through time that she speaks of, that time would be so far in future that this city would ever turn its back on civil rights, I am not convinced that this committee apart from other committees, though might be one not aware of, cannot imagine any reason any time that our council would not have a person who would back an ordinance that would come from EOC, can’t imagine political pressure in this city driving someone against the sponsorship, can see driving people who would not sponsor out the door, in any situations, there was something in her district in public works and she refused to sponsor, Bruer sponsored it, she couldn’t support it, trying to make point of 20 alders there have been times when people said this won’t be sponsored by an alder. I believe that a person can get heard if it is something that is viable, statements made several years ago that not worth political capital to support what I agree with, can’t do that, I tried, maybe if get answers before comes to council can change vote, right now no.
Rummel says that lesson of history is that when you are inside it, you don’t know it, black people were hung in this country, she was alive when that happened, at some point, then she started asking questions, what is that issue now, she started to think gay marriage, genetic identity and she thinks in her daily life and meetings there are times where I am only woman, what if we said 50% of all hires had to be women, it might have merit, if there are a pool of applicants there could be a hard line, who is going to put that out there, it would be an interesting conversation, maybe we would get better practices. She says that there was an ordinance that passed when she was first elected, she had a conflict to interest, but she would overturn it in a heartbeat, its the textbook ordinance, they take your personal info, fingerprint you, you don’t give up your fingerprints, there is no reduction in thefts. You haven’t asked about it and I can’t act on it, she could most likely find an alder, but Bidar-Sielaff is right, part of democratic dialogs, when Compton says not spend political capital – alders used to say that – there may be a way to not give up – but get it.
Schumacher says that he has a number of thoughts, we can spend all day talking about civil rights and oppression but the City of Madison has office of civil rights, many cities do not have one. Fitchburg has none. He says they are debating the proposal which he has heard about for a year, the fact that we are debating it means the process is working. If he really thought it was not working, it would be squashed and not up for discussion, we have a sponsor for discussion. We have 20 not 3 or 5 alders, we have 20 varied backgrounds, statistically if normal distribution, perfect storm would have to happen for there not to be a sponsor. It would be ironic if this proposal would take it to another body that wouldn’t exist, if can’t get any of 20 to sponsor, but go to that body to sponsor. Schumacher says if they just want a public debate, the media and committees can debate any time they want [I guess he’s choosing to ignore the realities of the local media] . He says if there is something really fishy on civil rights, we’d hear about it. There is only one alder who sponsors this, why are there not 2 or 3 or 4.
Bidar-Sielaff and Rummel ask to be sponsors.
Schumacher says that when he heard the proposal, he thought this was a solution in search of a problem, this is one of those situations, there are no egregious cases, not heard of any hypotheticals, [I missed some here.] . He says that if we want to address something important, we should allow ALRC to have this right, we have a commodity that when over-consumed turns a car into a lethal weapon. They could prevent someone from dying, that is the ultimate civil rights issue. This is an administrative or procedural issue of how laws get made.
Clear says that this is designed to prevent hypothetical situation where all 20 alders (and Mayor) are evil, the size of the council is a statistical protection. We have only one mayor, he appoints every member of a commission, he can imagine where there is an evil mayor, which is more likely, if the evil hypothetical mayor appoints political cronies and commissions start introducing frivolous matters to overwhelm city attorney and council or to politically embarrass the, that is the scenario where one mayor who appoints the commission members, that is more likely, and we should protect ourselves from that.
Compton agrees with everyone, would be lovely if this is the way the world worked, but what you have done is talk to about things to point of ridiculousness where there is no sponsor, when Clear and Schumacher were talking, she was watching eye’s roll, well, we feel the same, what you are talking about this being highly possible. Plan commission does conditional uses without coming to council, those committees are on the list, who are stronger in their city activity, so is next thing the ability to implement policy and vote to approve certain things if this would ever happen. [Wow, after 16 years on teh council, she shows a stunning lack of understanding about how the city commissions work, any committee named board or commission except board of estimates, already have powers to vote on things with it going to the council. But wait, it gets better.]
Chris Schmidt says that our predecessors drew line where they did for a reason, wants to better understand that, planning deals with property rights, that is why it is removed from the process. Board of Public Works is based on volume, he is not convinced civil right meets that line. Personnel Board deals with employee rights – if we’re in that dire straights this ordinance won’t save it – before make final decision wants to understand why line drawn where it is.
Clear says that from reading of 2.05 there is a specific requirements of what is exempted, reads 2.05, its very specific, policy not on the list. May not be disagreeing, there is a specific exemption from ordinance and resolutions and he reads that as well.
Bidar-Sielaff says that brings up a philosophical difference in the role of the legislative body – is it their role to get things on agenda that have potential to pass? They sponsor or cosponsor, and the council debates, in a democratic process there is another role for elected body that is to listen to issues brought to us that we for some reason may be oblivious to because of political leanings or other reasons, no potential to become legislation unless someone has an epiphany, it happens. There are two roles, creating processes in which we preclude possibility of forum of discussion on civil rights issue is precluding a democratic discussion process – she says example, not right now, we talk about civil rights, but we understand it in different ways – would love to walk in Congress or Senate and talk about immigration reform, Congress and Senate, but she doesn’t have the ear of anybody to do that, so she has no other forum, there is not a day where congress is opening door to citizens to tell them – here is your federal civil rights committee – we have the beauty of having local electeds that is why she loves being an alder instead of being in the Congress or Senate, the opportunity exists to have direct contact to tell what opinion is in daily life, no mechanism for issue to peculate up – unless individual email, no debate or discussion.
Bryon Eagon says that this issue is unique to civil rights. Puts onus on someone having to sponsor it or not because in current structure if no sponsorship of 20 people it dies, but this gives the opportunity to create debate, its easier to pass on sponsorship than vote no so what is the worst case scenario – 0 alders, voted down 20-0 but give opportunity for issue to rise up – he supports it.
VOTE
The vote on Bidar-Sielaff motion is a tie.
Bidar-Sielaff, Rummel, Eagon vote aye.
Schumacher, Clear and Compton vote no.
Schmidt is the alternate and can’t vote.
Bruer breaks the tie against. [And there you have it folks, the self proclaimed champion of civil rights once again, votes against them.]
There is a second vote to place on file and that passes 4 -2, with Eagon joining the other side.
APOLOGY
Remind me not to wait two weeks to try to make sense of my notes, if some of this doesn’t make sense, its partially my fault, I’m sure.
