United Way---Contibuting 1 Month of my County Board Salary for 4th Year

For the 4th consecutive year, I am donating at least one month of my County Board salary to the United Way.  My donation this year will be split between organizations like Friends Inc, the Heroin Task Force, Elevate, and Family Promise.  As an elected official, it is part of my role to be a leader in charitable giving, and this is a way I can demonstrate that leadership.

Why We Have Park Entrance Fees

There has been a lot of discussion over the last 2 years about park fees, and why we have them.  Some wrongly assume that this is just a money grab by the County.

This is an important discussion to have.  The simple answer to why we have park fees is, park fees enable us to fund our parks in a sustainable way.  I am not a big fan of having park fees, but understanding how they protect our parks is critical.

My Background in Valuing Parks
To understand why I value parks, you need to look at my childhood, and a couple of key experiences.

1. I grew up in Greendale, a community that was designed by Eleanor Roosevelt.  When it was designed, she embedded a system of parks into the very fabric of the community.  She designed it to be a small rural community, with four small housing sections.  Each section was divided from the others by a small parkway, most with walking paths, and the entire original village was surrounded by a ring of trees.  As the village grew, the County embedded several parks into the growing community, including the Root River Parkway, Scout Lake, the Wehr Nature Center, Whitnall Park, and the Boerner Botanical Gardens.  Those parks were an essential part of my childhood.  Scout Lake was within walking distance of my home, and I often explored the park during summer vacation.

2. I also grew up with family trips to Muskego Park every year.  We would go once or twice a year.  Admittedly, I am going from memory (and my memory as a child) but I recall us buying a daily pass each time we went.  Muskego Park is part of the Waukesha County Park System, which has for decades had park entrance fees.  Those park fees enable them to sustain and grow their parks.  Muskego Park had a great beach with lifeguards, a beach that would be packed on hot summer weekends (with people who all paid the park fee).  It also had camping, hiking and horse trails, and various picnic areas.  Muskego Park was and still is a destination in Waukesha County, as are many of the county's other parks. 

How Do We Fund Our Parks?

Right now, we really have 2 ways to fund our parks.

1. Tax levy
2. Park Fees

Funding our parks through the tax levy is becoming inherently risky.  Each year we are cutting more than a million dollars from our budget.  Parks are a non-mandated service, meaning we don't have to have parks (though I believe we should have parks).  Mandated services are increasingly eating up more and more of our budget.  Funding the parks through the tax levy makes it easy for the parks to be cut entirely from the budget, and I don't want that.  Parks are essential to a thriving community.

Funding the parks through entrance fees is a proven model for ensuring that we continue to have parks.  It does require us to invest in our parks with amenities that people are willing to pay for.  So far, we have put in a wedding barn at Glacier Hills, a dog park at Homestead Hollow, and a new disc golf course at Sandy Knoll.  The dog park and wedding barn have proven to be particularly well-utilized.  We are currently looking at adding another wedding barn and dog park, and long term would like to add a campground and other high-demand amenities to our park system.  Following this model, funding for our parks will never be in doubt.

Milwaukee has been discussing how to fund their parks, and whether or not to sell off major parks.  https://www.cbs58.com/news/group-posts-for-sale-signs-posted-in-milwaukee-county-parks.  While we have sold off some land that had been designated for future parks, we want to protect our priority parks.  Park fees enable us to do that.

The reality is, good parks are worth paying for, and park fees ensure the future of our parks.  While park fees are not popular, while I wish we didn't need them, and while they are new in Washington County, preserving our parks is critical.  I am open to any other alternatives for funding our parks, but I understand the unsustainability and danger that comes with relying on the tax levy.

Saying NO to a $10 Million Tax Hike

Refused to raise the tax levy

In August of 2018 we held to our fiscally conservative values and refused to raise the tax levy. 

We made a responsible decision to borrow $10 million dollars.  Many municipalities and counties use borrowing as an avenue to raise taxes without a referendum.  Our County Controller calculated that, if we chose to raise the levy, tax rates would go up by $.12 per thousand dollars in home value for 2019, instead of decreasing by $.09 per thousand dollars, a swing of $.21 per thousand. 

An amendment was put forward to raise the levy, instead of making our debt payments out of existing funds.  Only 6 supervisors voted for that amendment, while I was one of 18 Supervisors who banded together to vote no to increasing taxes.  While some of my neighbors would prefer that we begin to raise the tax levy, more of them have expressed a desire for fiscal restraint and discipline.

Second Candidate for County Executive

We have a second candidate for Washington County Executive, Adam Gitter, and from an initial look he seems like he will be a good, viable candidate.  From my perspective, this is excellent news, as we will have 2 good candidates for this position.  I have been accused of being a “good government type” (not sure how that is a bad thing), and from a good government perspective this gives our voters two good candidates to choose from.  Switching to County Executive is already a success!

Adam is starting out his campaign by raising 2 good issues.  The first is how to fund the parks.  I voted for the park fee, as a way to secure the future of our park system.  At that time, the only alternative was to keep the parks on the tax levy, which is risky.  Parks are a non-mandated service, so leaving them on the tax levy makes the park system a target to be sold off or defunded.  Finding an alternative funding source, like park fees, secures the future of our parks.  I want us to always have good parks.

The second issue involves sales tax dollars.  Adam wants to share the sales tax with municipalities.  There are several inherent issues he will need to tackle in order to get this done.  1) We should be focused on how to get rid of the sales tax.  This is a tough challenge.  This sales tax, when it was put into place more than 20 years ago, was supposed to be temporary.  2) Too many County Board Supervisors who have a conflict of interest.  It would take 2/3rds of all elected Supervisors to get this done, which means 18 yes votes (out of 26).  Any combination of 9 Supervisors who are absent, vote no, or abstain means it fails.  I know of at least 8 current Supervisors would likely have to abstain, as they are also elected to Municipal boards and would likely have a conflict of interest.  Consequently, there is almost no way this proposal can pass the County Board.  3) How to make up the funding.  If he wants to share 25% of the sales tax with municipalities, that creates a $3 million dollar per year budget shortfall for the County.  How does he plan to make up that shortfall?

I look forward to hearing his answers to these questions.  I am absolutely open to good answers and thoughtful discussion.  If he has a good, fiscally responsible plan for addressing these 2 issues, that’s great.  Since he has just declared his candidacy, I certainly want to give him time to flesh out his ideas, and how he plans to fund them.  We have 5 months until the votes are casts. 

As a side note, we also have 2 more months in which other candidates can decide to run, and wouldn’t it be nice to get a 3^rd good candidate to enter this election?

So who is going to win?  That's easy, Washington County Voters will win.

Update: The Miller Park Sales Tax---Fitzgerald & the Senate Have Ended It

When I was campaigning in the spring of 2016 and 2018, I heard time and time again how frustrated people were that we still had the Miller Park sales tax.  When is it going to end?  Will it really end?

This is an issue that is controlled by the state Legislature, so I had no real answer that I could give, other then "I hope the legislature does the right thing."

Hope on the Horizon
And then, in July of 2019, I came to our Monthly County Board meeting to find something unexpected.  I found a brochure laying on my desk, titled "Ending the Miller Park Sales Tax."  This brochure had a schedule for ending the tax, one that culminates on March 10, 2020 with an official end to the tax.  This sounds like great news!

A quick google search turned up a news release that the Assembly had voted, unanimously (by voice vote), to end the Miller Park sales tax.  Thank you to Representatives Rick Gundrum, Janel Brandtjen, Dan Knodl, Robert Brooks, and all of the other 95 representatives for getting this through the Assembly.  This is another example of bipartisanship at work.  Read more about what the Assembly did here: https://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/news/2019/06/21/wisconsin-assembly-sets-same-miller-park-tax.html

Stalled Due to Fitzgerald

Before the Governor can sign the bill ending the sales tax, it has to pass the Senate.  With the Assembly passing the bill unanimously in June, this seemed like an easy issue for the Senate to approve.  Unfortunately, for some inexplicable reason, Scott Fitzgerald had delayed the bill, by refusing to put it on the Senate calendar.

It Has Now Passed the Senate
The stall has ended.  Today the Senate voted 33-0 to end the Miller Park sales tax.  We are now one step closer to getting this done.  It now falls to Governor Evers to show that bipartisanship can work by signing this into law and ending this tax.  Thank you Scott Fitzgerald and Duey Stroebel for getting this done!

I Opposed County Executive Pay at $140,000

I opposed paying the incoming County Executive, whoever that will be, $140,000 per year.  At this week's County Board meeting, I made a motion to reduce that rate to $125,000 per year, and that motion fell just a few votes short of passing.


I look at what has happened, along with what will happen, and see 3 main issues:

1. Should we have a County Executive?
2. What should we pay that County Executive?
3. Who should be that County Executive?

1. Should we have a County Executive?
I have been on record numerous times, and voted twice in favor of having a County Executive.  I think this is the right thing to do.  As Americans, I think we are always best served by electing our leaders, rather than having a small group entrusted to choose our leaders for us.  That's a fundamental concept that our country's government was built on, and it is the bedrock principle of our democracy.


2. What should we pay that County Executive?
As I mentioned above, I made a motion to reduce the pay rate to $125,000.  Compared to the pay range for department heads (starting at about $112,000, midpoint around $127,000), that seemed more appropriate to me.

I have been involved in a lot of salary decisions, and in those decisions you have to start with a focus on the position, and not the individual you are seeking to hire or promote.  In this case, that means starting with the position, and not the individual who is most likely to win the election or who we might want to win the election (and I think we all understand that Josh is likely to be the front-runner in this upcomign election).  While I support Josh as County Administrator, I felt that I had to stick to my principles.  It is easy to stick to your principles when it involves saying no to someone you don't have a strong respect for, but it is much tougher when you are sating no to someone you have a strong respect for.  I have a strong respect for Josh.


3. Who should be that County Executive?
That's a decision for all of us voters to decide, and I am just one voter in the Upcoming April election.  So far, Josh Schoemann is the only declared candidate that I know of, and he has done a good job for our county.  I know that Washington County, with Josh as our County Executive, would be a well-run county.

While I don't know yet who the other candidates are, I am very favorable towards endorsing him.  I have worked with him over the last 3 1/2 years, gotten to know him well, and have seen how his approach has been effective in managing the County's resources.  Once I know who else is running, I'll finalize my decision on an endorsement.  The filing deadline is around January 3.


Closing thoughts---It is not by any means a foregone conclusion that Josh will win.  While he is most likely the front-runner, there may be other candidates out there who will bring forward a strong vision for our county.  One of the great things about a democracy is that candidates have to prove themselves to the electorates.

Bipartisanship: Evers, Gundrum, Stroebel Allocate 1.6 FTE in New Prosecutors for Washington County

While I believe that most of my neighbors know that I lean Republican, I won't shy away from giving credit when a Democrat does something good.  Governor Evers increased the allocation for funding additional Assistant District Attorneys for Washington County from the 1.0 FTE (full-time equivalent) the legislature had allocated to 1.6 FTE. 


I also commend our legislature including Representative Gundrum and Senator Stroebel for reviewing this issue and originally increasing the funding for County Prosecutors and allocating 1 FTE for Washington County. 


While there wasn't total agreement on this, there was in general bipartisan support for increasing funding, and bipartisanship worked.


A few nuts and bolts about this:

• The State of Wisconsin mandates that the County have prosecutors, specifically including a District Attorney.
• The State of Wisconsin provides funding for the District Attorney as well as Assistant District Attorneys.
• The State of Wisconsin has traditionally under-funded this department, leaving counties to either fund additional needed positions or overwork existing staff.
• The State of Wisconsin had not added any funding for any additional positions for more than 10 years.
• County case loads are growing.
• Washington County felt like we needed funding for 2 additional prosecutors (who are already on staff and currently funding by the County).
• Washington County currently gets funding for 5 positions but has 7 on staff.  Those 2 additional positions are paid for by our County.
• The Legislator reviewed staffing levels and proposed funding 1 additional position for us.
• Governor Evers had the Department of Administration study the issue further, and is giving our County 1.6 FTE, on the presumption that we could share 1 person with Ozaukee County.  I am guessing we will still fund the additional .4 FTE to keep that 7th position fully in Washington County.

This is undeniably a win for Washington County.  Now, if we can get a 5th circuit court (we currently have 4) we'll really be making progress.

Investment in County Administrative Staffing Pays Off Big

Last year, we made the decision to add a position to the administrative staff.  This cost the county $100,000 in pay & benefits per year.  If all you look at is the expense, this looks like a bad deal for Washington County.  This wasn't just an expense, this was an investment in our county, and one that has paid off big.

The promise we were given at that time was that, during the first two years, this position would pay for itself two-fold.  While the cost would be $200,000, the funding recouped from that cost would be at least $400,000.  Spending $2 to save $4 always makes sense, so I supported it, along with the majority of the board.

Ethan Hollenberger was hired into this position, and at this week's County Board meeting, we got our update on the first year's results.  Surprisingly, Ethan has far exceeded the promise we were given.  In addition to additional funding for new positions and programs, Ethan has brought in $500,000 in funding for County operations.  We made back $5 for every dollar we invested in Ethan. 

How has he done this.  Some of it comes from a deal her put together to rent county space for a field of solar panels.  The County bears no risk, while getting revenue based on the energy that is being produced.  he has also been working with various federal officials to find federal grant opportunities, including additional funding for TAD programs we currently pay for, for our drug court which Judge Mertens is implementing, and various other programs.  he also worked to get some of our roads projects funded only by state dollars, which help us avoid very expensive federal road-building requirements.

Having the right positions, and hiring the right people into those positions, is critical for any organization.  Successful organizations are not afraid to spend money on new positions when those positions make fiscal sense.

I would encourage the City of West Bend to consider this approach, and explore what opportunities a professional lobbyist could bring to help resolve their budget challenges.

Spending $1 to make $5 is always smart.  We can't just look at the expense, we have to look at the return on that investment.

Another Major Reform Accomplished for Washington County Government

Another major reform of Washington County Government was accomplished tonight.  The executive branch of our county's government will no longer be an unelected bureaucracy, accountable only to the County Board Chairman and subservient to the County Board.  Instead, we will have 3 equal branches of government, with the head of the executive branch of our government elected by "We The People," the voters of Washington County.

Tonight, I am proud to proclaim that we voted to install the position of County Executive.  No longer will County Board Supervisors quietly meet to choose a County Administrator.  No longer will discussions about the future of our county be limited to a few contested county board races, while the majority of County Board Supervisors run unopposed.  Instead, we will now have a county-wide discussion about the future vision for our county, backed by an election.

"We the People" now get to pick our leader.  While I am a County Board Supervisor, I am also one of the voters that comprise "We the People."  I am proud of our County Board and the vision we displayed tonight, along with the trust we put in "We the People."  Less power is in the hands of County Board Supervisors, and more power is back in the hands of all the voters in our County.  Despite an argument that we should listen to members of the Milwaukee County Board and "keep a good thing going," we moved our County forward.

While a few members of our community remain apprehensive about this transition, I am confident that in 20 years, we will all look back at this moment and decide that it was one of the best decisions our County Board made. 

I have seen how contested elections can create a great discussion about our government.  In December 2017 we had several local candidates running in the special election for the 58th assembly district.  In spring of 2018 we had two experienced candidates, former Supervisor Ralph Hensel and myself, running to be the County Board Supervisor for District 3.  Both of those races featured a lot of good discussions about the future direction of our county.  In the District 3 race, both Ralph and I presented ideas and accomplishments for our County.  In contrast, there are some parts of our County that have not seen a contested County Board race in more than 10 years.

The next major reform we need to look at is reducing the size of the County Board.

Too Many Supervisors, Let’s Make the County Board Smaller

Our County Board currently has 26 supervisors.  One of my campaign commitments from 2018 was that I would support reducing the size of the board, and I remain unwavering in that commitment.

During my recent trip to Washington D.C. for the White House conference, I met with several County Board Supervisors and County Commissioners from other counties and states.  One of them had a unique perspective.  She was a Commissioner in Minnesota, and her county had only 5 Commissioners (Supervisors) on its board.  She was also serving on several board within the County, including the library board and the agricultural board, and those boards all had 20-25 members.  She was frustrated with how little those boards got accomplished, and how much the smaller County Board could get accomplished.

This unique perspective confirms, at least in my view, that I am right in my belief that we need to reduce the size of the board.  The strong support I have received from many of my neighbors in district 3 also confirms my belief.

So the next questions are, how much smaller should the board be, and how quickly should it be reduced?

County Board Size
For a County our size, I could see the board being as small as 13-14 supervisors.  I think a smaller board like that could be very effective, while still ensuring adequate representation of the constituents.

Speed for Reducing the County Board
In May of 2018, the idea I proposed to my neighbors in District 3 was to do a series of incremental reductions, starting after the 2020 census.  My idea was to reduce to around 21-22 after the 2020 census, reduce again around 2026, and make a final reduction after the 2030 census.  I know, from previous instances in which this topic came up, that some supervisors favor reducing the board on a more drastic timeframe.  I also know that some supervisors opposing reducing the board.

Ultimately, some compromise is going to need to happen, but I plan to vote for reducing the board.  We simply don't need to have so many supervisors, 26 is far too many.


.

White House Conference Recap

As a reminder, I bore the full cost for attending this conference.  The cost to taxpayers was $0.

I wanted to post a recap on my visit to the White House, where I represented Washington County at a conference held by the White House.  They held the conference in the Eisenhower Executive Building, which is on the White House property, next to the West Wing.

The highlight of the event was hearing from our Vice President, Mike Pence, who is an amazing speaker.  We also heard from Scott Turner, a former NFL player who now leads the President's efforts to revitalize opportunity zones.

A few key themes I took away

• New levels of engagement with local communities.  Previous White Houses have not engaged local leaders in a capacity that is anywhere close to the engagement of this White House.  Not only is the office of Intergovernmental affairs very actively engaging with local leaders, but they have embedded staff with each federal department so that we have direct contacts on any questions we may have.  More importantly, we have been given the full list of those people.  In other words, we don't have a barrier with knowing who to ask, which is often a large barrier in dealing with the federal government.  I hope future White House Administrations (both Democrats and Republicans) will continue these effective inter-governmental practices.
• Commitment to 2-way communication.  This White House is committed not just to talking to local governments, but also to hearing from local governments.  Half the time at this conference was spent letting us ask them questions that we had.
• Support USMCA.  The only thing the White House is asking from us is our support in engaging congress to pass the replacement for NAFTA, called the USMCA.  For Washington County, we have quite a few dairy farmers who will benefit from the ratification of this agreement.

The topics they discussed with us included:

• Small Business Support
• Agricultural Support
• Disaster Recovery and Resilience
• Community Revitalization

Meeting Other Elected Leaders

I met several other County Board Supervisors & County Commissioners, and had some great discussions.  The most interesting was with a Lady from a rural County in Minnesota.  Her County Board has only 5 Commissioners.  She also serves on several boards, including a Library Board and Agricultural Board, that have more than 20 members.  She saw the smaller board size as more effective in getting things done, and is trying to reduce the size of the other boards she is on.  Given our current discussions on County Board Size, I thought this was a very informative discussion.

Eisenhower Executive Building

Myself and William Crozer, Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Director

Attendees with our Vice President

Vice President Mike Pence

Fellow Washington County Supervisor John Bulawa, who

also represented our County at the conference

The 10 County Board Supervisors from Wisconsin who attended the conference

Here is my original post about the White House Conference, from when I was first invited: http://district3bossert.blogspot.com/2019/07/white-house-bound.html.

#stateleadershipdays

USMCA (Replacement for NAFTA) and Washington County

I want to support the agricultural industry in Washington County, and that means encouraging our federal legislature to pass the replacement agreement to NAFTA, the USMCA.

Canada and Mexico are our first and second largest exports markets for United States food and agricultural products, making up 31 percent of total food and agricultural exports in 2018.  For Wisconsin, as much as 70% of our export go to Canada and Mexico.  For that reason, the USMCA is a major win for our farmers and ranchers.

@realDonaldTrump

@WhiteHouse and

@USTradeRep#USMCANow

Protecting Our County From a $10 Million Dollar Tax Increase

At the August 2018 County Board Meeting, we decided to responsibly borrow $10 million dollars to fund our roads.  Unlike most government agencies, however, we decided that we were NOT going to raise taxes, but instead decided that we were going to live within our means. 


A few supervisors strayed from that plan, and proposed using this borrowing decision to raise taxes by $10 million dollars.  Fortunately, it only got 6 votes.  I joined 17 other supervisors in voting no.  We had the means to make our payments on this debt without increasing taxes, and we decided that we were going to hold the line on taxes.  I thank Supervisors Deiss, Kist, Jenkins, Bassill, Kelling, Krebs, Bertam, Blanchard, Brandt, Michalak, Burg, Bulawa, McCune, Kriefall, Gallitz, Sorce, and Schleif for presenting a united front, which I was proud to be a part of, and holding the line on taxes.


I wrote about that at the time here: https://district3bossert.blogspot.com/2018/08/this-weeks-county-board-meeting.html.

Digital Tools for the Digital Age - Bringing the County into the 21st Century

Yesterday I again supported modernizing the digital tools that County Administration uses, to help bring us into the 21st century.

As everyone might recall, shortly after I was elected in 2016, the County Board decided to spend nearly $1 million dollars to update its payroll system.  It was a decision I fully supported, as the system that the County was using was nearly 30 years old.  The system worked on green-screen, DOS-based technology.  It had no capability to connect to the County’s computer network, which meant that floppy drives were used to transfer data into our accounting system.  On top of all this, finding programmers who could resolve software errors was becoming increasingly difficult.  Three years later, Th e new payroll system is now installed and working great.

Yesterday at the Human Services committee meeting, we reviewed another digital system that needs updating.  Our Human Services department currently uses an electronic health records management system that was installed 7 years ago, in 2012.  The system is designed for small medical clinics that only have 1 or 2 practitioners, not for multi-faceted county departments.  The system is cumbersome and overworked.  It does not produce the reports and data that department heads need to have in order to make informed decisions.  When state and federal requirements change, the vendor who supplied this software offers no resources to address those changes, leaving our I.T. Department to try to reprogram the software.

Worst of all, we may very well be missing out on the opportunity to bill out between $400,000 and $600,000 per year in billable expenses due to our inadequate electronic health records management system.  I can’t blame our administrative staff for that, as they were never given the proper tools.

It would be unfair of me to make any comments on why the current electronic health records system was installed 7 years ago.  I wasn’t on the board then, and the current Human Services staff was not in place then.  It is entirely possible that the County Board in 2012 thought they were putting in an adequate system.

That said, it wasn’t an adequate system.  So now we are making the decision to give the County Administration a system that should meet its needs.  The new system is used by 26 other counties in Wisconsin, along with counties in all 50 states.  By all appearances, it appears to be exactly the system we need.  While the 5 year cost is $1.2 million dollars, it should enable use to recoup another $2 million to $3 million dollars in billable expenses.  In other words, it should more than pay for itself.  On top of that, it will help us provide better service to the people of Washington County by integrating data between departments, and it will give management the information it needs to make fully informed care decisions.

I am supporting this update.  In the 21st century, virtually everything is computerized.  We have to make sure our county has the proper digital tools to meet the needs of the 21st century.

Destination: White House

I am excited to announce that I will be a representative for Washington County at the White House.  In August, the White House will be hosting a 1-day conference for local elected leaders from Wisconsin.  This conference will be held in the White House complex (I don't yet know if it is in the East Wing, West Wing, or another building).  Elected leaders at the County and Municipal level are being invited, and so far I know at least 1 other County Supervisor might be attending, schedule permitting.  In an upcoming conference call, which will be held next week, we will learn more about the agenda for the conference. 


I do want to give recognition to the White House for their unprecedented outreach and two-way communication with State and local elected officials.  For the White House to reach out and engage local government officials in a significant and meaningful way, which they have been doing for the last year and a half, is excellent.  I've sat in on conference calls about key issues including infrastructure (roads and utilities), combating the heroin epidemic, and the local impact of trade agreements with Mexico and Canada.  Their conference calls are centered around two-way communication, where they invest the majority of their time taking questions and gathering input, but also share a lot of information with local leaders.  In talking with other County Board Supervisors who served during the Bush's and Obama's terms as President, they have not seen anything close to this level of outreach from the White House prior to President Trump, it truly is unprecedented.


I will be paying my own costs for this honor---Taxpayer costs will be $0.  It is my privilege to represent Washington County at this event, and I am excited for this opportunity.

The County Executive Discussion Will Continue

For those of you who haven't read about it, Supervisors Jenkins, Brandt, and Symicek have together asked that the Washington County Board of Supervisors reconsider the resolution that failed a few weeks ago, to switch to a County Executive.  They have indicated their intent to have this resolution considered by a committee.  Chairman Kriefall, in anticipation of the motion passing, is forming an ad hoc committee composed of Supervisors Jenkins, Brandt, Merry, Bulawa, and Symicek to review this issue and return a recommendation by August 9.  You can read more about it here: Washington County Insider

A few thoughts I have:

1.  I commend Supervisors Jenkins, Brandt, and Symicek for proposing reconsideration of this important issue, and recognizing the uncertainty that comes with a tie vote.  I also commend Chairman Kriefall for setting an August 9 deadline.  For various reasons, it does no good to leave this issue lingering in question for months or years.

2.  I recognize that sometimes efforts like this take multiple tries before succeeding.  In 2016, Supervisor Kelling and I teamed up to bring the idea moving County Board meetings to the evening, so that the public could attend.  While our effort fell 2 votes short, the strength of that vote led to an effort in 2017 that ultimately succeeded.  It was not the first time evening meetings had been discussed, but it was the first time that a vote was held on this issue from a full meeting of the County Board, and that vote paved the way for ultimate success.

Likewise, this is not the first time that the topic of switching to a County Executive has been raised, but it was the first time that the full County Board voted on it.  The support for it was so strong that the vote was tied.  In my view there is a strong probability that, once all the information is reviewed, this ad hoc committee will return a recommendation that we switch to a County Executive, and that the County Board will follow through with that recommendation.

3.  A few members of the community have suggested that the County Board is foolish for willingly turning over some of its power to a County Executive.  Since I don't think of it as our power, but instead think of it as "power" that the voters have chosen to loan to us, I don't fear turning over some of our power.  

In fact, I am not even sure that power is the right word.  Perhaps instead it is a responsibility that the voters have loaned to us, and given us stewardship over.  Does being going stewards of that responsibility mean that we let the voters chose a County Executive?  I think it may.

While we could stay with the status quo, I don't think that is in the best interests of our community.  In our current system, our County Administrator only needs to keep 1 resident of our County happy (the County Board Chairman).  As long as he keeps that 1 resident happy, there is virtually no way for any of the County's other residents to hold him accountable.  On the other hand, being elected would mean that our County Executive would need to go back to all of the residents of our County every 4 years, regardless of whether they live in the cities, villages, or townships in our County.

For that reason, I think the County Board should, as stewards of the responsibility the voters have loaned to us and entrusted to us, chose to switch to a County Executive.  Ultimately, I was elected to be a visionary for our County's future, and no to be a guardian of the status quo.

Revisiting a Promise to Voters - Reducing the County Board Size

I thought I would recirculate this promise I made to my neighbors in District 3.  I made this promise in March of 2018, based on feedback from a lot of my neighbors.  the promise is that, following the 2020 census, I would support reducing the size of the County Board.  While there isn't a lot of room to work on this promise yet, once the census is complete I will be working to follow through on this promise.


You can read the full promise at https://district3bossert.blogspot.com/2018/03/campaign-announcement-my-3rd-promise-to.html.  Here's a screenshot of the promise I made: