I finally got a peek at the ordinance Zach Brandon is proposing to address the alleged Mike Quieto problem. While the objections to his employment in the clerk’s office has morphed over time, one thing is clear, I don’t think this ordinance gets the folks that had objections where they want to go. What is even more interesting is that the misplaced accusations uncovered some real issues that involve some of the original complainants.
I agree that a local elected official (Paul VanRooy) who is retiring and is the treasurer for a candidate (Michael Schumacher) should not be a poll worker in the district where that candidate is running for office. I think this ordinance fixes that, but then goes too far.
The ordinance says that if you were involved in “political activity” in the past 12 months you can’t be “employed” by the clerk’s office to work on elections (i.e. be a poll worker). Political activity is defined as serving as an officer or director of a political party, political action committee, a conduit or a 527. It also says that if you engaged in “campaign activity” in the past 12 months you can’t serve in any Aldermanic District where that campaign activity took place. “Campaign activity” is being a candidate or serving as an officer or director of a campaign committee.
Here’s a list of issues to think about . . .
1. It’s only the officers or directors of the conduit that are precluded from political activity, but not the officers or directors of the group that set up the conduit. In other words, the Common Sense Coalition votes to set up a conduit. They name a treasurer, Michael Quigley and fail to name any officers. Then Mike Quigley gets fired. Is he the only one precluded from serving in an election capacity? Several directors of the Common Sense Coalition are clearly involved in political activity, however they don’t disclose who their directors are. Shouldn’t they be precluded from being poll workers. And how are we going to enforce this if we don’t have information?
2. In the case above, its not clear if they actually engaged in political activity or not, because they did not file any additional reports. Did they engage in political activity by simply setting up an account, or does the conduit actually have to collect money and disburse contributions? What about those groups that fail to file their reports, how will we know who engaged in political activity?
3. What about the groups in town like the Chamber of Commerce? Or Downtown Madison Inc.? They made a big deal about how they are getting more involved in politics and making endorsements, or not. Aren’t they engaging in political activity? Should they be precluded from serving as poll workers? Should Jennifer Alexander and Susan Schmitz and their officers and directors be sitting at the polling places on election day?
4. What about the labor unions and the advocacy groups that make endorsements? They are clearly engaged in political activity, but they aren’t addressed in the ordinance. Maybe the labor union PAC folks are, but what about the key leaders of those groups that clearly are involved? Can Tim Sullivan, Dode Lowe, Sue Villbrandt or Jim Cavanaugh be poll workers?
5. What about the newspapers, they make endorsements, should Dave Zweifel, John Nichols or Scott Milfred be sitting at a polling place?
6. If someone is the chair of the elections committee of a political party, they don’t seem to be precluded from being a poll worker, unless they fall within the definition of the “officer or director”. If political party committee chairs are included, then are the chairs of the newsletter committee or the economic development task force of the political party also precluded?
7. If a neighborhood association makes an endorsements, should the officers and directors of that neighborhood association be precluded from serving as a poll worker?
8. Does this include volunteers? Lauren Azar, Tammy Baldwin’s partner, often volunteers in the clerk’s office on election day. Should she be precluded from volunteering?
9. How does this affect people who ran for School Board or County Board or worked on one of the races? The districts they ran in are not co-terminus with the Aldermanic Districts.
10. One of the original complaints about Mike Quito was that he contributed money to campaigns and made phone calls for campaigns, but that isn’t addressed in the ordinance.
11. Campaign managers, volunteer coordinators, lit designers and other key campaign volunteers are often not listed anywhere as being involved in the campaign. Are they officers or directors of those campaigns? Are they precluded from working as a poll worker?
I could go on . . . If you ask me, the brain damage required to try to fix this ordinance isn’t worth it. While I agree we need to make sure our system is free from shenanigans, at the moment, the only “problem” I see is the one I listed above. The sponsors of this ordinance haven’t identified the problem or written an ordinance that addresses the issues that they were concerned about. So now we have a solution that seems arbitrary and is full of loopholes. And meantime, we’re making it harder for the clerk’s office to find the poll workers we need to run elections. This ordinance needs some serious work.
