Thursday, February 7, 2013

MJS Continues To Mislead Readers

Here we go again.

Ernst-Ulrich Franzen, a member of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's propagandists editorial board members has come out in favor of hamstringing the Milwaukee County Board. I know, what a surprise that the corporate media supports the plutocratic takeover of Milwaukee County, eh?

In his fantasy piece, Franzen pulls out all of the usual talking points with complete disregard to whether they are even accurate, much less honest.

After the lead in to the story and the unsurprising anti-Milwaukee stance, Franzen tries - and miserably fails - to justify his hateful stance:
The proposal to reduce the size of the board and its budget was blasted as a distraction by Milwaukee County Executive Chris Abele, and he's probably right. The reality is that downsizing the board - which we have supported - without reducing pay leaves supervisors with plenty of time to micromanage county operations as they do currently. Paying them on the basis of a part-time job - as is the case in every other county in Wisconsin - is the way to go. They still can exercise the appropriate check on the administration.
As I and many other people have repeatedly pointed out, Milwaukee County supervisors are paid at the same rate that the supervisors are paid - about a dollar per constituent. Furthermore, Milwaukee County has so much more than any other county that such a comparison is ridiculous. No other county even close to a million people, nor all of the amenities that Milwaukee County has. Such things as world class museums, a correctional facility outside of the county jail, a mental health complex, a transit and paratransit system of our caliber, an international airport and over a hundred parks. One also won't be able to find another county in the state with supervisory districts equivalent to a state representative's.

When the salaries of Milwaukee County Board supervisors were compared to other counties of a similar size, it was found that Milwaukee County supervisors were making about $20,000 a year less than the others.

The facts show that we are getting one helluva bargain with the county board just as it is.

As for Franzen's blatantly ludicrous notion that supervisors are "micromanaging" the county departments, I would point out what Kieth Crum, Treasurer for the Milwaukee Transit Riders Union, eloquently pointed out:
This is perhaps the most outrageous assertion made by the largely conservative, big business backers of downsizing. It’s also flatly untrue. On the contrary, the board has acted on its responsibility to look out for the best interests of Milwaukee County residents, even when that has meant going against the interests of the wealthy corporate elite that run Milwaukee. This includes standing up to the county executive when he proposes unsound ideas. The county board has a history of doing just that; making common sense budget adjustments and saving vital public services from the chopping block in the process.
Franzen isn't done though. He continued with his nonsense:
If the board is to be downsized, we'd favor a smaller number - nine strikes us as about right. Furthermore, cutting the budget by 40% also probably doesn't go far enough: The board currently has far more staffers than it needs.
So Franzen is saying that nine strikes him as about right. As I pointed out when Sheldon Lubar uttered the same inanity:
His idea of a perfect world is one where the Voter Fairness Act does not apply. His utopia is where minorities and poor people don't have equal or effective representation in government. After all, why should the pissant common person be allowed to have representation when it only serves to get in the way of their superiors, like Lubar.
Apparently Franzen is stricken with the same affliction where he thinks that minorities - or most people in general - deserve representative government. He'd rather see a government that only represents the plutocrats, the corporations and other special interests.

As for his claim that the board has "far more staffers than it needs," well, I have no clue what he is basing that on. I suspect he has no clue either.

But I do know that if he had his way, there would be no analysts to allow the board to make informed decisions. There would also be no clerks to record meetings or votes, so there would be no way to know if one's supervisor is representing them well or not.

Perhaps that is what Chris Abele and people like Franzen want. They saw two years ago that when people know the facts and know how they're getting screwed over, they get pretty mad. It's better to keep the people in the dark, including the supervisors, so they can go on with their profiteering in peace.

To sum it all up, I again point the gentle reader to Crum, who wrote:
With the crises that Milwaukee County is facing right now, including the potential for a 30% cut to transit, decrepit parks, unemployment, poverty, homelessness and racial inequality, what we need from state level is a fair shake financially not attacks on our ability to govern ourselves. As Milwaukee County residents and bus riders, we believe that it’s time for the state government to take its hands off our county board and collaborate to help us start improving Milwaukee for everyone before it’s too late.
Indeed.

I would add only that Franzen is as pitiful as his boss, David Haynes, who also has trouble being honest with the readers. I'd question why anyone would buy that paper anymore, but that's like asking why anyone watches Fox News.

Life is much easier for some when they live in an echo chamber that only supports their bigotry and hatred rather than be a member of society.

29 comments:

  1. "When the salaries of Milwaukee County Board supervisors were compared to other counties of a similar size, it was found that Milwaukee County supervisors were making about $20,000 a year less than the others."

    Curious if you could tell me how many supervisors most of those other large urban counties have? 18 like Milwaukee County has?

    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "The facts show that we are getting one helluva bargain with the county board just as it is."

    The facts show that the county board costs twice as much as that of counties in other states with comparable population and demographics. http://county.milwaukee.gov/ImageLibrary/Groups/cntyAudit/report0411.pdf

    Their budget is disproportionately large. They've known this since at least 2004. And they've done nothing about it except grow their budget even more.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As pointed out, there are no other counties in the state with comparable population or demographics. Did you even read the article?

      Feel free to point out which "comparable" counties you are referring to.

      Delete
    2. Yes Andy I read the article. You, apparently, did not read my comment. Read it again, more slowly this time.

      Comparable counties include Conta Costa, Hennepin, Pima, Baltimore, Erie, Fulton, Hamilton, Montgomery, and so forth.

      Delete
  3. Anon 9:16 2/7/2013 - "The facts show that the county board costs twice as much as that of counties in other states with comparable population and demographics. http://county.milwaukee.gov/ImageLibrary/Groups/cntyAudit/report0411.pdf
    Their budget is disproportionately large. They've known this since at least 2004. And they've done nothing about it except grow their budget even more."

    I'm curious if you actually read the survey report you linked to. If you did, you would've read that the survey's results contradict nearly the entirety of your claim. First, while we can compare comparably sized counties, that is far from comparing actual county governments. From your link, "Numerous and varying factors among jurisdictions crossing state lines, and in different regions of the country, may significantly affect the direct comparability of data obtained from different organizations. Such factors include differing legal responsibilities, service delivery models and resident demographics, among others."

    Now, the survey does it's best to try to reduce those factors. Again, from your link, "Among the 26 county governments that we surveyed nationwide, 10 (38%) were structured in a manner similar to Milwaukee County, best described as a Council-Executive form of governance. The remaining 16 county governments (62%) are best described as a Commission-Administrator form of governance." Of the examples you provided, only 3 (if you meant Montgomery, MD) are comparable governmental structures (Baltimore, Erie, Montgomery).

    Now, with that in mind, how did the Milwaukee County board actually fare? From the survey results, "Among the 10 counties surveyed with full time legislators, the average salary was $73,121. These full time legislators had an average staff of 22 under their direct control, with an operating budget averaging about $3.2 million. The average salary of the chair of these full time legislators was $79,713. By comparison, the 2004 Milwaukee County legislative salary is 31% less than the full time survey group. Based on its lower salary level, Milwaukee County would have to increase County Board salaries by 44% to reach parity with the average salary of full time legislators in the survey. Similarly, the 2004 Milwaukee County legislative chair salary is 10% less that the average of the survey group with full time legislative chairs."

    So, it would seem that the survey you provided a link to in support of your claim in reality supports Capper's statement that, "The facts show that we are getting one helluva bargain with the county board just as it is." So yes, the facts, as you yourself have presented them, do indeed show that.

    ReplyDelete
  4. (cont'd)

    Now, the other counties do have a lower average number of legislators (this includes all counties surveyed, not just the ten similar in makeup to Milwaukee county). This has the consequence however of raising the ratio of constituents to legislator. Milwaukee had 49,482 constituents per legislator, and the average county in the study had 109,262.

    The survey does show that the 2003 Legislative Operating Budget for Milwaukee was $5.3 million, while the average budget for the survey was $2.7 million. (This does not reflect 2004 numbers in which the number of supervisors was reduced from 25 to 19, and their salaries were reduced as well).

    I'm sure this is where you're coming to the erroneous conclusion that, "The facts show that the county board costs twice as much as that of counties in other states with comparable population and demographics." That is incorrect. The operating budget was roughly twice as much as the average of the other 26 counties in the study (not just the 10 similar in structure). That isn't the same as the county board costing twice as much. The difference can be found, again, in your link, "The number of direct staff under the Milwaukee County Board’s control was about 73% greater than the average for the full time survey group (38 vs. 22), and the associated operating budget for Milwaukee County was about 70% higher than that of the full time survey group average ($5.3 million vs. $3.2 million). As previously noted, the responsibilities and duties of staff and the associated operating budget figures vary significantly among the jurisdictions in our survey, and are not directly comparable."

    So, regarding your link, I would just like to offer the advice you presented to another commenter, "Read it again, more slowly this time."

    ReplyDelete
  5. Why does anyone still buy the Journal-Sentinel?

    The Sports section.

    If it wasn't for the Brewers, Packers and Bucks the paper would have folded a long time ago.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Same goes for WTMJ radio, for that matter. They don't pull the ratings due to their hateful daytime hosts, it's due to people tuning in to hear Uke or Waybe and Larry, then not changing the channel after game day.

      It's the reason why I thin Badger sports should get off that anti-UW and anti-Madison station.

      Delete
  6. Shane J your response makes no sense. I am sorry but it doesn't.

    You admit the study shows the cost of operating the Board is twice the average. That's the crux of the argument. Our board is twice as high as the comparable average. There is no justification for that, especially given the County's fiscal problems. That's a couple million bucks that could be better spent on transit, mental health, or parks.

    It makes no difference if the reason is staff or the members themselves. In this case it's both. The 18 board members cost about $920K (18 X $50,000 + $20,000 for the Chair position) in salary. The average is closer to let's say $85,000 in salary but for only 7 members (the average in large urban counties like ours) that's $595,000 in salary. There's $325K in savings right there; probably another $150K in fringe benefit costs too.

    Now ask yourself, if 7 members is good enough for just about every other large urban county in the U.S., why not for us? They do just as much as Milwaukee County does. Milwaukee County has a budget of $1.3 billion. Hennepin has a budget of $1.6 billion and they have 7 supervisors. Erie County New York (Buffalo) has a budget of $1.5 billion and 11 supervisors who make $45K, again less than ours. Pinellas County Florida, budget of $1.7 billion, 7 supervisors. Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, budget of $1.7 billion, 11 supervisors who make $8,000 a year and have almost no staff (their constituents voted not too long ago to make it that way).

    Your complaints about average number of constituents are nonsense. All these counties have twice as many per supervisor as Milwaukee County. That's the average. Last I heard nobody is clamoring for more democracy in their County.

    So, is there any good reason for Milwaukee County to be an outlier? Any at all you can think of and rationally defend? Given our lack of diverse revenue sources, our fiscal problems, our lack of support from the State, is there any reason at all the average constituent should want to spend several hundred thousand dollars for more supervisors and more staff for them than in any other large urban county in the Country when those dollars could be spent on parks, behavioral health, transit?

    Is it anything but blind support of the status quo? Can you help me out here?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The fiscal problems were not brought on by the board. That falls directly at the feet of the county executive's office.

      Also, since Milwaukee is the only county in the nation with some of the services, like the mental health complex, it's still not a real comparison, as the study and Shane have pointed out.

      Thirdly, just because some other county goes teabagging, that doesn't me we have to or should even want to.

      Delete
    2. "You admit the study shows the cost of operating the Board is twice the average. That's the crux of the argument. Our board is twice as high as the comparable average."
      No, I didn't. The study shows that the board's overall operating budget is roughly twice the average of all 26 counties in the study. That includes costs other than pay for the board, the majority of difference being made up by additional staff, which cannot directly be compared to those other counties, as stated by the study itself. Additionally, the average is not "comparable", as there are many variables between the counties that are not comparable. Not the least of which is the fact that 16 of the 26 have governments structured entirely different, with different legal responsibilities than Milwaukee County. You seem to want to suggest that similar population is the only variable that matters which is patently absurd.

      "Now ask yourself, if 7 members is good enough for just about every other large urban county in the U.S., why not for us? They do just as much as Milwaukee County does."
      Is it good enough for "just about every other large urban county in the U.S."? The study didn't try to make that claim, so I assume you have evidence that supports that? You have some evidence that they do "just as much as Milwaukee County does"? The study that you provided actually states quite clearly that there are distinct differences between duties performed by these counties. I will, again, quote from your study, "Numerous and varying factors among jurisdictions crossing state lines, and in different regions of the country, may significantly affect the direct comparability of data obtained from different organizations. Such factors include differing legal responsibilities, service delivery models and resident demographics, among others." So no, you cannot make a definitive statement like they do just as much as Milwaukee county. Some may do more, some may do less.

      "Your complaints about average number of constituents are nonsense. All these counties have twice as many per supervisor as Milwaukee County. That's the average. Last I heard nobody is clamoring for more democracy in their County"
      The last you heard huh? You have your finger right on the pulse of Erie, Pima, and Pinellas County do you? You're intimately familiar with the intricacies of all those counties are you? Or are you just making assumptions to support your argument? Nonsense you say? No, you're totally correct. There are no conceivable issues whatsoever with fewer representatives for constituents. Milwaukee County is in no way a diverse county with varying demographics. There's no chance at all any of the concerns of those demographics could be under represented by combining their representation with that of other groups. Heck, why have even 9 supervisors? 3 would be much more efficient and cost effective right? Hmmm, let's apply that logic to the state level. After all, concerns about average number of constituents per representative are "nonsense" right? Well, I hate nonsense so let's eliminate a boatload of state representatives too. While we're at it, do we really need 435 U.S. representatives? I mean, I know constitutionally each state is apportioned a number of seats which approximately corresponds to its share of the aggregate population of the 50 states and all but that's just nonsense. Actually, didn't we just have districts redrawn resulting in Federal judges declaring two of those districts invalid as they were racially discriminatory? No, decreased representation is nonsense. Great call!

      Delete
    3. (cont'd)

      "Please explain in detail your emotional attachment to the status quo. Please explain why you think a million bucks is better spent on supervisors and staff than it is on transit, behavioral health, or parks. In detail."

      I'm a bit confused here, perhaps you can help clarify a bit of a contradiction I'm seeing. You claim that behavioral health would be one better way to spend county resources, yet state, "Very few of the County's constituents will ever see or have family in the mental health complex; it's existence does not justify an expenditure budget that is out of whack with the norm." It seems rather disingenuous that you want savings from county board reductions to go to an entity that's existence, in your own words, "does not justify an expenditure budget that is out of whack with the norm", and "Very few of the County's constituents will ever see or have family in the mental health complex". Furthermore, once again you make assumptions that any savings would be spent in those three areas which seems highly unlikely.

      "Please explain in detail your emotional attachment to the status quo."
      "Is it anything but blind support of the status quo? Can you help me out here?"

      It really is fascinating that you appear to be projecting your own actions on others. You've made numerous comments that show a definite emotional attachment to blind support of changing the status quo. You seem disinterested in having a nuanced discussion of the causes and solutions of county issues. You make spurious claims about comparisons between counties, while discounting any variable that might serve to invalidate that comparison. You make huge assumptions with no evidentiary support. To end, you accuse others of having "blind emotional support" of an issue, all while you yourself have demonstrated blind emotional support. See the following comments for examples.
      "It makes no difference if the reason is staff or the members themselves."
      "Your complaints about average number of constituents are nonsense."
      "It is irrelevant if Milwaukee County has a mental health complex;"
      "Your contention tat the fiscal problems lie "directly at the feet of the Executive's Office" is utterly laughable. “
      “You have no idea what you're talking about and have no credibility."
      "Last I heard nobody is clamoring for more democracy in their County."

      The study does not, in my opinion, justify elimination of Milwaukee County Supervisors. You have not, in my opinion, provided sufficient evidence that elimination of Supervisory Districts would be a net benefit to Milwaukee County. You have provided a study that details its own limitations clearly, and makes no recommendations. Aside from that and assumptions, you have offered nothing else. I would agree that the overall county legislative operating budget looks to be high in comparison to the other counties in that survey. It appears to be largely a result of having a significantly larger staff than the other counties. Without knowing what duties the staff is performing, it is impossible to say whether or not their benefit outweighs their cost. The study itself flat out says this. It isn't blind support for a status quo, it's reasoned, rational analysis of an issue. If you are unable to understand the difference, than no, I cannot help you out here.

      Delete
  7. Many of the fiscal problems have been brought on by the Board. They passed the pension enhancements, did they not? They agreed to the POBs about which you complain so much, did they not? They restore some fringe benefit cuts, the cost of which rise faster than the County's revenue streams increase, do they not? They use one-time funding to keep ongoing operations, do they not?

    Your contention tat the fiscal problems lie "directly at the feet of the Executive's Office" is utterly laughable. You have no idea what you're talking about and have no credibility.

    It is irrelevant if Milwaukee County has a mental health complex; I'm quite certain other counties have complex services they provide that Milwaukee County does not. Very few of the County's constituents will ever see or have family in the mental health complex; it's existence does not justify an expenditure budget that is out of whack with the norm.

    It's not that "some other County has gone teabagging" Chris, it's that no other County in the Country has a structure like ours. Hennepin, Erie, and Allegeny are hardly bastions of conservatism.

    Please explain in detail your emotional attachment to the status quo. Please explain why you think a million bucks is better spent on supervisors and staff than it is on transit, behavioral health, or parks. In detail.

    Try to get people's positions correct, if necessary.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're quite certain that all studies, media reports and any other source is incorrect and that there are other county run mental health complexes? And you dare to challenge my credibility?

      You are nothing more than one of Abele's lackeys. Sticking to the game plan regardless of the reality.

      Good luck with that.

      Delete
    2. The pension enhancements were brought forth by Executive Ament and approved by Mercer and Reinhart, Walker's and now Abele's law firm of choice.

      The POB was brought forth twice by Walker. The first was rejected by the voters and the board due to the corruption. It was also Walker who created that crisis by not paying the bills at the time.

      The board did restore the benefits and cut the raises. They also cut the illegal crony reward system that Abele wanted which would have brought a costly class-action lawsuit down on the county.

      Yup, it's the execs that are the problem.

      Delete
  8. Can you read? I did not say other counties operate mental health centers. I said the existence of a mental health center in Milwaukee County is not enough to justify its outlier-size County Board. Other counties almost certainly operate other large, complicated services of some kind yet their boards are smaller and cost less than ours.

    Your second post makes me wonder what your problem would be with simply eliminating the County Board altogether, since apparently in your world the Board does nothing at all. Were the pension enhancements enacted into law solely through the actions of Ament and Mercer? Did the Board not take any votes on that? Here I thought they did...

    Did Walker implement the POBs unilaterally? Did the Board not take votes of approval to issue them? I think they did...

    Did one supervisor not laud the Board itself for issuing the bonds since the market timing has worked out almost perfectly? I think she may have...

    Walker didn't pay the bills? Then where was the Board? Don't they claim to do the heavy lifting? If he didn't pay the bills and they're the policymakers then what were they doing? What were their alternatives? If they couldn't come up with any, and instead just sat idly by, then explain why we need them at all, let alone at a level that is larger and more expensive than the comparable average?

    Did the Board not vote to approve the furloughs and benefit cuts over which you've sued? I'm pretty sure they did. If not, if Walker and Abele implemented them unilaterally, then why do we need them?

    If you were actually correct about anything you've just stated, then you'd be making a pretty good argument for just getting rid of them altogether.

    Maybe now you can come up with an actual argument in favor of the status quo. I wish you luck and frankly am not optimistic.

    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Maybe now you can come up with an actual argument in favor of the status quo."

      Would it have to be an argument as compelling as yours, the entirety of which seems to be, "It would be cheaper to do it this way."?
      There have been numerous "actual arguments" presented to you, you've just discounted them in favor of your paradigm, relying on fallacies of omission, and rather juvenile little quips.

      Delete
  9. I dont understand why the people of Milwaukee are looking for less representation of the people and more for the corporations?

    I also dont understand how ist ok that the Madison politicians force a referendum on the people of Milwaukee?

    Are you that lazy that democracy is just too hard for you?

    ReplyDelete
  10. First, there is more than one "Anonymous" here. I'm the one who first referenced the study and then responded to Andy. I didn’t write any other comment.

    Second, the best way to compare county boards is by a) looking at counties with comparable populations, b) looking at counties with comparable budgets, c) comparing the total dollars spent on the salary (and benefits) of representatives, d) comparing the boards’ overall budget.

    Of course, no two counties are alike. Counties throughout the country differ in precisely what services they provide versus what services are provided by the state, municipalities, government districts, nonprofits etc. There is no county that is identical to Milwaukee County and the study was careful to make this clear. But you’re overreaching in making this point. Fortunately, an examination of things like board performance, constituents-per-representative, salary of representative, and board budget don’t hinge on whether or not it's the county that operates the local mental health hospital. This is just a way of avoiding the issue of comparing Milwaukee to other counties. It’s disingenuous and I think you know that.

    If you are serious about comparing Milwaukee to other counties, you'll pluck out counties with similar population size and similar budget size. At 1bil plus, it doesn't matter for our purposes of comparison whether the representative is making funding decisions about a mental health hospital, or a sewer, or a library. They have a similar level of responsibility as measured in dollars controlled. It is entirely fair to compare Milwaukee to counties with similar populations and budgets. If you disagree, I’m confident that you’ll find yourself in a small minority on that point.

    Once you accept that counties with comparable populations and budgets are a worthy measuring stick, the logical points of comparison are the money spent on the representatives themselves and the board budget generally. Some counties have many supervisors at modest salaries. Other counties have few supervisors at large salaries. We could quibble about which model is better. A good way to make an apples-to-apples comparison is to add up the money spent on salaries and benefits for board representatives. Benefits would require more examination, but we can compare salaries using the study I cited. Multiply the number of reps by the rep salary and then adjust for the salary of the chairman. You’ll find that the money spent on salaries by the Milwaukee County Board is TRIPLE that of the average comparable county.

    ...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I couldn't care less how many different anonymous posters are currently engaging, as you're all making essentially the same inane argument. I'll respond to the points, I'll leave it up to you to figure out who it was that said it.

      “Second, the best way to compare county boards is by a) looking at counties with comparable populations, b) looking at counties with comparable budgets, c) comparing the total dollars spent on the salary (and benefits) of representatives, d) comparing the boards’ overall budget.”

      Says who, you? On what planet is that the best way to compare county boards? Great idea, let’s ignore some crucial factors, including whether or not we’re even comparing similar governmental structures. Let’s ignore resident demographics and geographic size and location. Let’s ignore legal responsibilities and service delivery models. No you’re right, the only thing that matters in government at any level is how much the citizenry is spending on it. Everything else is irrelevant. If we can spend a couple million less, do it. Ignore any other factors. That’s not myopic thinking at all. Do you make all your decisions that way? Here’s two cars, they’re of identical make and model and color, I guess you just go ahead and buy the cheapest one right? http://www.nordstromsauto.com/carphotos/1/TE7408-1.JPG
      http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/26/1997-05_Buick_Century_Custom.jpg That’s the best way to compare right? They’re comparable cars, if you’re willing to ignore a couple rather major factors. But hey, you can save money on one of them!

      “There is no county that is identical to Milwaukee County and the study was careful to make this clear. But you’re overreaching in making this point.”

      Really? Why, because once again, you say so? Was the study overreaching when it made that point, at length, multiple times? Remember, this study is your link, your evidence. The only evidence, in fact, that you have presented. Your own evidence highlights the same concerns that I have. So, you can state that I’m overreaching, but your evidence corroborates my statement.

      “Fortunately, an examination of things like board performance, constituents-per-representative, salary of representative, and board budget don’t hinge on whether or not it's the county that operates the local mental health hospital. This is just a way of avoiding the issue of comparing Milwaukee to other counties. It’s disingenuous and I think you know that.”

      Wait, are you seriously asserting that the functions, duties, and responsibilities of the board are irrelevant in determining its salary and operating budget? You cannot possibly be that daft. What criteria then should we base it on? Let me guess, what other counties are spending. Again, we’re back to that. That is the only metric that matters to you. Everything else is irrelevant. That demonstrates a blind adherence to an ideology, and not a genuine desire to assess the situation. You are looking at a situation with a solution in mind, and finding problems to fit that solution. Meanwhile, you ignore any data that would suggest your solution is illogical or unnecessary. That, is a very dangerous way to approach governance.

      Delete
    2. “ If you are serious about comparing Milwaukee to other counties, you'll pluck out counties with similar population size and similar budget size.”

      That isn’t what you’re doing. You’re looking at similar population only, and saying, “see, county A has this much smaller budget and is managing, they have the same relative population size, ergo Milwaukee County could manage with a much smaller budget.” You completely ignore all other factors. You can try to move the goal posts now but that isn’t what your initial argument was.

      This was your statement: “The facts show that the county board costs twice as much as that of counties in other states with comparable population and demographics. Their budget is disproportionately large. They've known this since at least 2004. And they've done nothing about it except grow their budget even more. “ And “Yes Andy I read the article. You, apparently, did not read my comment. Read it again, more slowly this time. Comparable counties include Conta Costa, Hennepin, Pima, Baltimore, Erie, Fulton, Hamilton, Montgomery, and so forth.”

      None of your examples have even remotely similar budget sizes with the exception of Montgomery, MD, which actually has a higher budget. It’s pretty clear that your whole premise was that in comparison to other counties with similar population and demographics (the study specifically lists demographics as being a factor not accounted for incidentally) Milwaukee County is spending too much.

      It is at this point that I bid you adieu. If you cannot bother to be intellectually honest, than I haven’t the time for you. It is clear that ideology is driving your argument, and not a genuine desire for results. I have no time to argue with ideologues. Best of luck to you.

      Delete
    3. The study compares counties that have similar populations and overall county budgets. You can bend and twist to make the argument that no county that manages to fund their board at a lesser expense ought to be compared to Milwaukee. It's your job on the line, I don't blame you. If we take this argument to the voters, I'm confident that most people will think it legitimate to compare counties with similar population and overall budgets and ask why we're paying twice as much for our county board as they are. If you knew me, you'd know that I'm about the furthest from an ideologue that exists around Milwaukee.

      Delete
    4. "The study compares counties that have similar populations and overall county budgets."

      No. It. Does. Not. Do you have some form of cognitive disability? Seriously? I only ask because I don't want to ridicule you if you have a mental limitation that prevents you from comprehension.

      From the study: "Selection of County Government Jurisdictions
      Counties across the country with a population similar in size to that of Milwaukee County and whose government functions as a ‘stand-alone’ jurisdiction were chosen as survey subjects. Based on these criteria, a total of 26 county government jurisdictions comprised our survey contacts.

      Notice, nothing about similar overall budgets. Apparently, in your world, budgets ranging from $371,000 to $8.68 million are "similar". That's the range of of the budgets in the study. So, a budget 23 times larger is similar?

      Your entire premise has been that Milwaukee county needs to reduce the size/cost of its county board, because we are paying more for its operating budget than the other counties, on average, in this study. Now, you're trying to claim that all the counties in this study were chosen because they have similar operating budgets? Seriously?

      "I'm confident that most people will think it legitimate to compare counties with similar population and overall budgets and ask why we're paying twice as much for our county board as they are."

      That may be true, but it isn't what you have been suggesting, nor does the study compare those things. The study specifically compares counties with similar populations, to get a picture of what their budgets are. It does not compare counties with similar budgets, as the study itself is ascertaining what the budgets are. The study specifically states, "numerous and varying factors among jurisdictions crossing state lines, and in different regions of the country, may significantly affect the direct comparability of data obtained from different organizations. Such factors include differing legal responsibilities, service delivery models and resident demographics, among others." So, the study cannot help us ask "why we're paying twice as much for our county board as they are.", because it includes no data pertaining that question other than financial. Incidentally, we are not paying twice as much for our board. We are paying roughly twice as much for the overall legislative budget, not the board itself. Nuance you see.

      One last thing. If you consider that the study compared only 10 counties to Milwaukee as only ten had a similar governmental set up, the cost average is almost the same as Milwaukee. The average number of legislators in those ten counties is 11.4. Milwaukee currently has 18. The average salary of legislators in those ten counties was $73,121, Milwaukee was $49,482. The total expenditure on legislative salary of those ten counties was $833,579, Milwaukee was $890,676. This gives us a difference of around $57,000 annually. This is the amount (based on the 2004 numbers you provided) that you are claiming requires us to change the structure of our county government. So please, explain to us all how it is you are not an ideologue?

      "It's your job on the line, I don't blame you."

      WTF? How? Oh, I see, you made another assumption without evidence. Yeah, actually I'm a union Ironworker. I do not, nor have I ever, worked for Milwaukee, or any other county government. My stake in this is as a resident and taxpayer.

      Delete
  11. (cont)

    Granted, Milwaukee still had 25 supervisors when that study was made. They’ve downsized. The study would have to be updated to see what the other counties did. But even if you use 18 instead of 25 and keep the other counties the same, you’ll find that Milwaukee pays more in representative salary than every other county and pays DOUBLE what the average county pays.

    You could attempt to argue that supervisors in Milwaukee have more work to do than supervisors elsewhere, except for the fact that Milwaukee has 50% more staffers than the comparable county.

    We can cancel any differences in workload between representatives and their staffers by just comparing county board budgets. Again, Milwaukee’s is DOUBLE that of comparable counties.

    Sure, perhaps you could argue that this is because the county board’s staff is responsible for things that normally aren’t the responsibility of county board staffs in other counties. Given that most people don’t even know who their supervisor is, given that hardly anyone ever contacts their supervisor, and given that these facts notwithstanding, every one of our 18 supervisors has a full-time assistant, I’m of the opinion that this line of reasoning is a complete dead end for you if we’re going to make an intellectually honest query. And given that you are probably a county board staffer yourself, I bet you know this. And at this point, given the continuance of the status quo and the rare opportunity to disrupt it, the burden should be on the board to prove that their budget is necessary. Already, several of them have admitted that they don’t need the budget they currently have.

    You guys can spin all day. The county board ought to be cut in one way or another. Comparisons to other counties show it and the public would support it in the voting booth if given the chance. And you know it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If thats the case why wont the Milw. County Supervisors put it on the ballot>

      Maybe your right, as we found with ACT 10 people think that everyone else makes too much money. If you want to save money why dont we put the State politicians on the ballot and see if they should go part time?

      Delete
  12. Shane J, second anonymous here who was talking about behavioral health.

    I'm sorry I wasn't more clear on the "large expenditure budget". What I meant is that simply having a mental health complex does not justify having a County Board with a larger-than-average expenditure budget.

    You ask if all I want is "cheaper"? Well, no. I'd like AVERAGE. Milwaukee County's Board is well above the average for a large urban County. Having a mental health center alone does not justify this. If I am going to pay $1-$2 million MORE for a County Board than the AVERAGE, I would like ABOVE-AVERAGE service. Can you say we've been given it? I certainly cannot. I cannot think of one thing about this Board - its members or its staff - that justifies its larger-than-normal expense.

    If you can, I'd like to see you explain specifically what it is?

    You ask about why we'd "reduce democracy". Well, for starters, the proposal would not reduce the number of supervisors. Even if it did, democracy would not be "reduced". We'd still be represented. Given the other structures of similar counties, there is no evidence that residents of those counties are at any kind of disadvantage.

    I am sorry but as of now no evidence in support of the status quo as been provided. We have a mental health center - ok, sorry, insufficient. Protect democracy! Um no, there's no evidence of any similar-size County falling into autocracy because they had only a 3, 5, 7, or part-time county board.

    The only evidence presented in this case so far is that we spend $1-$2 million on supervisors on their staff more than the average for our peers and we get nothing of value for it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The GMC/Abele proposed cuts is much deeper than an "average" board would be. What the cuts would do is leave us with figureheads instead of representative government. They would have neither the time nor the resources to know what they are being asked to vote on and whether it is good or bad.

      That is perhaps the most hypocritical part of the argument. What you're saying is that the full time board is no good and not doing their jobs. You're solution is to make it even more unlikely that they will do a good job.

      This is nothing more than a power grab and the defense of it is nothing more than lame lies and distortions of reality.

      Delete

    2. “If I am going to pay $1-$2 million MORE for a County Board than the AVERAGE, I would like ABOVE-AVERAGE service. Can you say we've been given it? I certainly cannot. I cannot think of one thing about this Board - its members or its staff - that justifies its larger-than-normal expense.”

      Is it possible, that you are simply not aware of the number of responsibilities that fall under the purview of county supervisors? I’m going to go ahead and go out on a limb here and say no, you’re not. Fortunately for you I can help you. Here’s a list of some of their major responsibilities, many of which those other counties in the study do not have. Transit, paratransit/TransitPLUS, parks, General Mitchell International Airport, courts, Mental Health Complex, senior programs, family care, sheriff funding, County highways, jail, house of correction, medical examiner’s office, County ordinances, in addition to their core representational duties. So yes, Milwaukee County does provide a large number of services not offered, or not offered to the same degree in those other counties. What you’re stating is an opinion, and cannot logically be proven.

      “You ask about why we'd "reduce democracy". Well, for starters, the proposal would not reduce the number of supervisors. Even if it did, democracy would not be "reduced". We'd still be represented. “

      Actually reducing the number of Supervisors is one of the proposals specifically mentioned, did you read the post at all? So, you’re going to argue that reducing the number of representative districts, then redistricting to combine them, stands no chance of disenfranchising potential underrepresented voters? Yeah, if only there was some recent evidence I could point to, in Wisconsin, where gerrymandering occurred, disenfranchising voters based on ethnicity, even being overturned by the courts…too bad. That would be some compelling evidence of how reducing and redistricting representation can disenfranchise constituents.

      “Given the other structures of similar counties, there is no evidence that residents of those counties are at any kind of disadvantage.”

      Really? None at all? Because you’ve done an exhaustive check right? This is a logical fallacy known as argumentum ad ignorantium, or an appeal to a lack of evidence. It also assumes that the issue is one of advantage vs. disadvantage. It isn’t, it’s one of services and duties being performed vs. cost for those duties and services.

      “I am sorry but as of now no evidence in support of the status quo as been provided. We have a mental health center - ok, sorry, insufficient. Protect democracy! Um no, there's no evidence of any similar-size County falling into autocracy because they had only a 3, 5, 7, or part-time county board.”

      Evidence has been provided, you’ve chosen to discount it. Your little screed is essentially just one logical fallacy after another. I can’t recall ever seeing someone use such a diverse amount of them in such a short period though, so congrats on that! False dichotomies, ad ignorantium, ignorantio elenchi, petitio principia, heck you even have a straw man thrown in there!

      “The only evidence presented in this case so far is that we spend $1-$2 million on supervisors on their staff more than the average for our peers and we get nothing of value for it.”

      LoL, yup, that’s the only evidence that’s been accepted by you I’ll grant you that. Whether or not we have anything of value is an opinion, not evidence or fact. Again, it’s clear you’re an ideologue who will discount any evidence that doesn’t support your assertion. While you’ve been fun and entertaining, there is little reason in continuing this discussion. You confuse assumptions and opinions with evidence and fact. It’s rather difficult to have rational discourse with that.

      Delete
  13. At one time MCMHC was considered one of the best in the nation, the mismanagement is the fault of the CE who installed an utter failure to run it into the ground. They receive more Federal funding than state or local.

    When you must contract to private entities to provide services then you lose any say over costs or quality. Look at the cleaning services at the Courthouse for example, hell the State Capitol has been mishandled by private cleaners. We have companies demanding TIFs then tax incentives to "create jobs" yet they underperform often. Look at how often we have seen cronyism rule the day. Without objective county employees who can verify these companies are indeed offering what they say they are, we risk further bamboozling and as stated earlier cutting the hours and staff of the board wont create efficiency as they have less time to fix the problems. Now we COULD fix our infrastructure and parks but the costs are going to pile up since they've been deferred. Instead one guy at the behest of Corporate Milwaukee County can manipulate budgets, veto projects, and create the problems he then states are the fault of everyone else.

    ReplyDelete