Category Archives: City Council

How long should terms be for local elected officials? And should some of the positions currently elected be made appointed?

That’s what the South Milwaukee City Council debated at a “committee of the whole” meeting last week, with more discussion planned at our meeting this Tuesday, and beyond.

If you read this blog, you know where I stand on the aldermanic terms issue. I favor three-year, staggered terms vs. our current two (unstaggered). It’s a position I lay out here, and it comes down to several issues. The biggest: I want to run on my own record, not run “with” another name on the ballot. If you like the job I’m doing, you should be able to vote for me, and only me. And if you don’t like the job I’m doing, you should be able to vote against me, and only me. Or run against me.

So if the ordinance we end up voting on doesn’t include staggering, I expect to vote against it.

Ordinances calling for three-year mayoral and municipal judge terms are also on Tuesday’s agenda. The mayor currently serves a two-year term.  The judge switched from two to four with the last election, per state statute. I am OK with making both three-year terms, in line with the aldermen.

So that leaves the city clerk, treasurer and attorney positions. What should their terms be? Or should they be elected at all? Those are a couple of the questions we’re debating. Here is where I stand …

I think all three of these positions should be appointed, not elected, similar to many other local governments in this area. Why? Three main reasons:

• While these roles are critical to the day-to-day function of city government, the people who hold these jobs do not set policy. They advise on or execute policy passed by the City Council and/or mayor. In that way, they are like our other department heads, from our police and fire chief to our city engineer and health administrator, all non-elected (albeit essential) positions. These should be, too.
• Given the importance of these jobs to the operation of our city, the threat of having them turn over every two (or three) years is significant. There is a huge learning curve in these roles, and the idea that you could be voted out of office before you even hit your stride is concerning. And it doesn’t serve the city or its taxpayers well. Which brings me to my last point …
• These roles require special skills – skills you run the risk of not fulfilling if the job is elected. Now, the only qualifications you need to become clerk or treasurer are to be at least 18 and live in South Milwaukee. To be attorney, you must also have a law degree. That’s it. Appointing these roles allows the council to set standards for the positions to ensure we have the right people with the right skill set sitting in these jobs. That’s the best thing for the city and taxpayers.

To me, that last point is the most significant one.

Today, we’re fortunate to have very strong and capable professionals in these roles in Jim Shelenske, Karen Skowronski and Joseph Murphy. They are intelligent, hard-working, efficient, customer-focused — the ideal people for these positions.

But what if we’re not so lucky? What if officials are elected that can’t navigate the long learning curve necessary in these jobs? I’d rather not face that risk. And appointing these leaders will help.

In the end, I’m still not convinced our current system is broken enough to require action on any of these issues. But the debate is here, and I have to vote for what I believe is best for the city.

Of course, I’d like to know what you think. Post your comments below … and, if you can, stop by one of our upcoming meetings and make your voice heard. I expect these issues will be on several agendas in coming weeks and months. These are important issues to the future of our city – and I want to make sure we’re doing all we can to hear the voices of residents in this debate.

Update: We actually didn’t debate this at the City Council meeting Tuesday, March 19. I expect it will be on the next council agenda.

That’s the question the South Milwaukee City Council’s Human Resources and Legislation & Permits Committees considered in a joint meeting Tuesday night.

The vote: 3-2 in favor of recommending to the full Council lengthening aldermanic terms from their current two years to three.

I voted no. Here’s why.

For starters, I am not sure any change is needed at all.

While I am proud to be an alderman and stand behind my record, I like the threat of being voted out of office with some regularity. It’s healthy for a democracy. It forces all elected officials everywhere to be at their best, to be responsive to constituents and responsible in their decision making, at all times. If you’re not, you might be out of a job (albeit a part-time job) every 24 months.

There’s a reason the vast majority of the state’s 190 cities have alderpersons serve two-year terms. According to a 2005 Wisconsin Taxpayer Alliance report — the most recent I could find — 162 cities have council members on two-year terms. Seventeen have three-year terms, and 11 have four-year terms.

Many of the cities with three- or four-year aldermanic terms are in or around Milwaukee County, additional data gathered by our clerk’s office shows.

Aldermen in Franklin, Greenfield, and Hales Corners, among others, serve three-year, staggered terms. Cudahy aldermen serve non-staggered three year terms, while Oak Creek aldermen serve staggered two-year terms.

So, where do I stand? Well, I do not favor doubling our terms to four years. It’s simply too long. Three is more reasonable. And I would consider a three-year, but staggered, approach for South Milwaukee.

If we are going to change this, the concept of staggered terms is appealing.

I like the idea of individual aldermen running on their own record. Voters should have the chance to weigh in on me and my performance – not me and my colleague and our performance. That’s essentially what we get right now, with both aldermen from each district up for election every two years. This would change if we went with a system where one alderman from each district could be up for election at a time.

There is also a strong argument to be made for governmental continuity here – avoiding the potential where an entire council, or most of a council, is voted out of office at once. While I like new blood and new ideas on the council over time, having a certain amount of institutional knowledge is also important. The risk of losing much of that all at once is concerning, and it’s happened in other nearby communities. Staggered terms lessens this risk.

The fact that the proposal voted on Tuesday did not include reference to staggering terms is one reason why I voted no. That, and I am not convinced the current system is broken enough – or is at risk to become broken enough — to require fixing.

The issue will likely be on the next City Council agenda Tuesday, and it will require six “yes” votes to pass because the shift from two to three years needs a change to South Milwaukee’s “charter ordinances.” We’ll see what happens.

I also look forward to a broader debate on term lenghts for other elected officials in South Milwaukee, especially more specialized positions like city clerk, treasurer and attorney. They, too, serve two-year terms, for now.

Of course, I’d like to know what you think about this. Post your comments below, and vote in the new poll!