There’s so much out there today . . . county and city. No snow or Edgewater today, that’ll be saved for Monday.
WHERE’S THE GREAT BUS SERVICE
I understand cutting back on holiday hours for full route service, but I don’t understand this:
The paratransit standing rides will end early on Dec. 24, with no rides given after 5:30 p.m. Customers who normally have rides after 5:30 should contact the customer service center (266-4466) by 4:30 p.m. Wednesday, Dec. 23, to arrange for an earlier travel time.
All standing and long-term paratransit rides on Christmas will be canceled. Passengers must schedule casual rides to travel.
Huh? Didn’t metro have an extra $3M in their budget that helped bail out the city, couldn’t they have saved some of that for holiday paratransit rides?
SHITTY CITY SERVICE
Yesterday I sent this message to city council staff Lisa Veldran:
Could I get a copy of the forms you use to track alder absences from the city for the last 6 months?
thanks!
She was out of the office, the other staff tried to get the info, but then I got this message from Veldran, coppied to the clerk and allalders.
Brenda Konkel can contact the City Clerk’s office for official notices of absences. They should have them on file.
Now, remember, I was on the council for 8 years and was Common Council President for one year, I know the information is in the Council Office and that alders get emails informing them when alders are out of the city or country. The Clerk’s office was very helpful and sent me this message:
Good afternoon. The City Clerkâs Office does not keep a file on Alderperson absences. However, I could have Information Technology do a search for any e-mail messages sent from the Council Office regarding Alderperson absences. Just let me know the time frame in which you are interested.
Thank you!
– Maribeth
As you can imagine, this refusal to give me the info the Council Office has didn’t sit well with me. I’m not going to post what I wrote lest I further embarrass that staff member, but suffice it to say, I can hardly wait to see the results of my open records request and who she was trying to protect.
LOOKS LIKE THE SHERIFF’S AND FALK HAVE AN AGREEMENT.
All that, and they ended up with the same as everyone else.
Falk said the tentative agreement with the supervisors includes the same provision as all the other county unions have ratified: a 3 percent voluntary salary reduction for 2010 in exchange for eight additional days off and a guarantee of no layoffs in 2010. In addition, the agreement includes a 3 percent pay increase on December 17, 2011.
Why all the drama?
WHEN IS A 3% CUT NOT THE SAME AS A 3% CUT
Ok, the above just got my blood boiling all over again. How is it that the 3% for wages, benefits, overhead for non-profits equal to the 3% cut in wages only to the unions when they bargained and got various things (8 days off, promise of a 3% increase at the end of 2010, office space for unions, etc.) Can we get a 3% increase for 2011. I don’t recall ever getting a 3% increase from the county.
JUST SAYIN’
When the County Board Supervisors attacked Kathleens appointments to the RTA last night, the separated Khristine Euclide from Dick Wagner, a former County Board Chair. Most, except Eileen Bruskewitz who attacked them for killing a county wide bus system, said they were both fine people, but they wanted someone from the Towns appointed, like in the resolution that the county board passed, but the corporation counsel said the decision was Falk’s. What I found interesting was the difference in the votes:
Euclide
AYE: Erickson, Hesselbein, Hulsey, Levin, Manning, Matano, McDonell, Miles, Opitz, Richmond, Rusk, Schmidt, Stoebig, Stubbs, Veldran, Wheeler, Baryd, deFelice, DeSmidt, Duranzyck, Hendrick
NO: Ferrell, Gau, Hampton, Jensen, Martz, O’Laughlin, Ripp, Salov, Schlicht, Solberg, Wiggy, Willett, Bruskewitz, Downing. (All men except Solberg, Hampton and Bruskewitz)
ABSENT: Kostelic, Vedder
Passed 21 – 14 – 2 absent
Wagner
AYE: Erickson, Ferrell, Hampton, Hesselbein, Hulsey, Jensen, Levin, Manning, Martz, Matano, McDonell, Miles, O’Laughlin, Opitz, Richmond, Ripp, Rusk, Salov, Schmidt, Solberg, Stoebig, Stubbs, Veldran, Wheeler, Wiggy, Baryd, deFelice, DeSmidt, Downing, Duranzyck, Hendrick
NO: Gau, Schlicht, Willett, Bruskewitz
ABSENT: Kostelic, Vedder
I wonder what the difference was between the two in the minds of Ferrell, Jensen, Martz, O’Loughlin, Ripp, Salov, Wiggy, Downing. Like most county boards in Wisconsin, its an older white guys club, I don’t know if that was a factor or not, but it looks wierd. Just sayin’.
OVERRIDE VOTE
Since I haven’t gotten to the recap, here is how they voted:
AYE (Override): Ferrell, Gau, Hampton, Hesselbein, Jensen, Levin, Manning, Martz, McDonell, Miles, O’Loughlin, Opitz, Ripp, Salov, Schlicht, Schmidt, Solberg, Stoebig, Veldran, Wiggy, Willett, Bruskewitz, deFelice, Downing, Durancyzk
NO (stain veto): Erickson, Hulsey, Matano, Richmond, Rusk, Stubbs, Wheeler, Bayrd, DeSmidt, Hendrick
ASENT: Kostelic, Vedder
Override successful, 25 – 10, 2 absences
Here’s Chariman Scott McDonell’s explanation of his vote and urging colleagues to vote similarly:
Friends-
Some of you may have read or been contacted about the veto override vote tonight before the County Board on a 10 unit subdivision in the Town of Springfield. Just so you all understand that this is a rather nuanced issue from an environmental point of view, I thought I would share my thoughts with you on this topic.Below is an email the County Board received from the Chair of the Town of Vienna. His central point is that the 10 unit subdivision is in the Town of Springfield Smart Growth Plan that the County Board adopted and the County Executive signed. This is true. While there is also language in the town plan regarding Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) and Conservation Subdivision planning, this petition was found by the Zoning Committee (controlled by progressives) to comply with the Town Plan. Complying with adopted plans is a central and critical componant of environmental protection and should bind not only the Towns but also the County.
In addition, a county-wide TDR ordinance is now pending before the County Board which the Towns may veto under Chapter 10 of the state statute. I have worked on this ordinance for years and it would positively affect thousands of parcels of farmland accross Dane County. One of the central premises of that ordinance is that towns would not be mandated to adopt a TDR ordinance, but rather the County will help them administer and implement a it. This veto does just the opposite. It says that because there is no TDR ordinance in place in the Town of Springfield a petition that complies with the Town plan will be vetoed (a town may adopt their own local TDR ordinance but it would not have the legal protection and assistance of the County). I have no doubt that if the County tries to force TDR on the towns over a 10 unit subdivision, the TDR ordinance will be vetoed by the Towns and I would not blame them for that since they were sold on this ordinance being voluntary. Reasonable people can have different views on this issue, but I do not believe that is in the best interest of smart and innovative planning countywide to uphold a veto of this petition. In my opinion it sends the wrong message about Smart Growth and adherence to planning.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Scott McDonell
County Board Chair
I hope to get a recap up, because there was some good discussion and it revealed some interesting things about possible motivations behind the veto.
Eh, that’s all I have for my day off, there’s actually much more . . . but I’m done.
