I don't know if the MATC has a public relations agency under contract but, if it does, they deserve a raise..more than the president of MATC deserves the one he just received!  It is impossible for any PR firm to cover the smell of this institution.

That's right.  The president of MATC, Darnell Cole, just received a pay increase of 5.2%.  This is the same Darnell Cole that was trying to get out of MATC by applying for a position with Lansing Community College in Michigan.  This is the same Darnell Cole that thumbs his nose at the constituency and gets higher and higher budgets passed that take more and more of our money in property taxes.

This almost seems like the college basketball coaches and football coaches who apply for other jobs simply to 'justify' increased compensation when they change their minds and stay in their already over-paid positions.  Maybe this is the way of the world of academia.  Maybe I simply am so out of touch that I can't comprehend that fact.

Cole now receives, effective today, $223,675 in base salary.  That's not all, of course.  He gets a total of $259,131 which includes retirement plan contributions and travel allowance.  The base pay increase was 3.25%.  The retirement supplement increase was 6.7%, and the travel allowance increase was some 44%.  His travel allowance doesn't cover the trips he takes by plane, etc.; it covers the cost of him driving around the MATC world in his automobile.  The retirement supplement is in addition to his already very attractive retirement under the Wisconsin Retirement System.  A little gravy for the gravy, as it were.

Even worse, if that is possible, is the fact that three of the nine members of the MATC Board didn't think it worth their while to be in attendance at the meeting where this was approved.  The remaining six voted, 5-1, in favor.  The sole dissenting vote was from Rep. Pedro Colon (D-Milwaukee) who felt Cole's long-term commitment to MATC was called into question by the recent attempt to leave the college for a better-paying job. 

Kudos to Rep. Colon!  Was his decision prompted by the fact that he must face the electorate?  Obviously, if the full MATC board were comprised of people who were forced to face the electorate, we would very likely see a much different MATC. 

There is but one conclusion.  MATC simply rubs our noses in it every chance it gets.  MATC is impervious to our scolding.  It never has to face the music.  It simply goes on its merry way increasing programs whether or not there is a return on that investment.  It simply goes on providing largess for its own.

This is an example of why the overall tax increase caused by the recently approved MATC budget was 4.9%.  Of course, we weren't told, before the budget was cast in stone, that Darnell Cole had yet to get his.  That might have been too obvious...even for we members of the great unwashed who only pay the toll on this road to nowhere!

Where does the secession petition stand?  Will it be filed on time?  Will the school board and the village board see eye-to-eye on the desired district?  Will our elected officials, both local, county and state, get behind this is a vocal and meaningful way? 

MATC has now ended the suspense.  Whew!  It has officially increased its tax take by the 4.9% that it miraculously managed to get down to from the original 'straw man' of 6.4%.  This codifies the fact that MATC's appetite for tax dollars has risen by some 30% over the past five years.  MATC's leadership, if it can be called that without demeaning the word, just can't seem to understand that, while it is impervious to the wants and needs of the citizenry it serves, it really has permitted its reach to exceed our grasp.

MATC strikes me as an iceberg looking for a ship to sink.  It is floating along with the tip showing while the bulk of the 'bloat' lies just under the waterline, out of sight and, too often, out of mind.  Until it hits the ship of taxpayers yet again.  The taxpayers on this 'ship of fools' have finally come to understand, at least in Germantown, that they would be better-served if they were permitted to disembark from the current ship that continues to be victimized by the MATC iceberg...year after year after year after year!

That disembarkation is, however, contingent on so many disparate factors as to seem nearly unachievable.  First and foremost is that failure to make the petition to the state technical college board seeking a move from MATC to another contiguous tech college district renders all the other points moot.  If that is filed, then we wait and see what the august state tech college board members decide is to be our fate.  The last such application was made in 2004 and was denied.  That doesn't necessarily mean that this petition would suffer the same fate...but it is probably a decent precursor.  The only other successful action of this nature involved Germantown's petition to be moved into the MATC district back in the early 1970s.  (Ironic, isn't it?)

Back to the basics, however.  This rate of increase could've been far better controlled if the governing board for MATC were subject to re-election.  It isn't.  It is subject only to the parochial appointment desires of MATC.  Talk about a great deal, huh?  If I'm going to be governed by someone, I'd love the opportunity to pick the person without any outside interference over things such as how effective they'd be in administering their responsibilities.  If I 'accidentally' picked someone that was in lock-step with my positions and goals, could I possibly be faulted?  Sure, but it would be meaningless because no one could do anything about it except maybe move away to escape.

Maybe more to the point, I could've used the euphemism of a polar ice mass, a glacier, grinding everything in its path into submission.  Pretty soon there'll be nothing left here to tax.  It'll have been destroyed by the taxes rendered.

I guess the good news is that you can't tax the same dollar for more than 100 cents, so there is some ultimate end point.  Yet, there are so many taxes being levied against each of our dollars that we get less and less while everything costs us more and more.

Maybe, IF we pursue the change in tech college districts, and IF the state tech college board approves, we can rid ourselves of MATC President Cole, his board and his kingdom of fire-breathing dragons that burn everything of value they can identify in their domain.

I believe a full scale audit of that institution is called for and I believe one or more of our elected officials at the state level needs to pick up that banner and carry it high for all to see.  This is way past the point of being mere Blog fodder, although it sure has been good for that!

The move toward filing the documents necessary to seek secession from the Milwaukee Area Technical College tax district has begun to draw some debate amongst the politicos in Germantown.

Village President Kempinski has been quoted as being concerned with the seemingly slow movement in this process, and School Board President Erdmann says that we shouldn't worry because it is being taken up in July for ultimate filing in August.

Some have pointed to the earlier appointment of Superintendent Victor Rossetti as the death blow to any secession movement since Germantown is now directly represented on the MATC Board.

Mr. Rossetti will serve his last day as superintendent on June 30th.  What happens then?  Does he have to step down or is he permitted to serve out his term since he is then a 'former' superintendent.  What happens if he moves from the MATC district?  Is he immediately susceptible to removal if he doesn't resign?

Interesting questions all.  I have written earlier of some concern since the MATC discussion had been quiet for a seemingly long period of time.  Then we were advised that we shouldn't worry since the school board would resume its discussion in July. 

We are still a long way from the actual filing of documents and then we must await the decision of the state technical college board that is due within ninety days of the filing.  Then, even if we were to be successful...and that is far from a certainty...the actual secession wouldn't occur until the start of a new fiscal period for technical colleges.

And, of course, while this all plays out, we are being over-taxed and under-served by the money-eating monster that we know as MATC.

What we don't need are any artificial obstacles cropping up along the pathway to change.

MATC students along with all technical college and two-year college students in Wisconsin have a more difficult time gaining their education as the result of lenders leaving this marketplace.

MATC has nearly 5,300 students now at risk due to the fact that several lenders have decided to pull out of this market stating that it is unprofitable.  That supposedly is caused by too little money being borrowed for too short a time.

The total of loans that are affected by these pull-outs is more than $18 million, and involves five lenders for MATC students.

Several thoughts occur:

What other programs are available to these 5,300 students?  Supposedly there are from six to twenty other lenders available to the students if we are to believe the technical college system president, Daniel Clancy.  If that is the case, why would some big names pull out?  Those names included Chase, Citibank and TCF.  If there is money to be made, wouldn't they still want some of it?  Or is this indicative of some other more pervasive problem?

Will they qualify for replacement loans or is that really part of the problem that causes the lenders to want out?  Many of the students relying on these loans are low income people as you would presume could be the case.  It may not be possible for them to apply to other lenders and expect to be granted access to credit.  The federal government passed the College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007 and, contrary to what the name might suggest, this limited federal subsidies to those who lend money to students, and more than fifty such lenders left the market.  This suggests that we're talking about marginally-viable loans and that, without government guarantees, there will be fewer dollars available and those will go to better credit risks.

If there is a loss of significant numbers of MATC students, will MATC face up to the need to reduce budget?  There are nearly 5,300 students affected by this situation.  If half of those are unable to obtain different loans, there will likely be a similar number dropping out of MATC.  I don't know what the 'full time equivalent' student number is, but let's assume that these students are half-time.  So we would have a loss of half of the 5,300, or 2,650 and those would equate to 1,325 full time equivalent students.  That is about ten percent of the current total FTE students now attending MATC.  Will we see a ten percent reduction in the MATC budget?

Or, will MATC see this as forcing it to actually increase its tax take in order to offset the loss of student tuition?  Your guess is as good as mine, but I'll be amazed if we see a budget reduction as the result of this situation.  One cannot simply reduce staff because the student load has dropped, can one?  How does one manage to down-size when there are so many fixed costs, so many people relying on MATC for their livelihoods, so much left to do in the building of the empire?

What seems more likely is that this will be dragged out as alternatives are sought, and it will be talked about for awhile until we lose track of the issue.  Maybe state legislators will step up up and recommend new state guarantees.  After all, military veterans are given 100% tuition credits so it is only fair to begin providing everyone with 100% tuition to attend MATC.  It is only fair that MATC have this kind of support since the Milwaukee Public Schools are generating so few qualified graduates any longer.

The last paragraph was intended as 'tongue in cheek' in nature but I fear that it might be closer to reality than not. 

The president of the MATC teachers union, Michael Rosen, says he'll be in contact with Representative Gwen Moore (D-Milwaukee) to seek her help in assuring that students still have access to federal loans.  The dominoes have begun to fall and they threaten to crush us taxpayers yet again.  Why do they never topple in the other direction?

The third edition will begin with Rep. Wasserman's response since Senator Darling batted lead-off last edition:

Do you support the right of properly-trained and screened citizens to carry a concealed weapon?  If so, why and if not, why not?

Rep. Wasserman: 

The devil is in the details on this one.  Our Constitution protects the right to bear arms.  We also have a State Supreme Court ruling upholding the right to protect ourselves in our homes and our businesses.

Logically there must be some way of transporting guns in between these two places.  I feel very strongly that we could have passed a bill, but the last couple of times we voted on concealed carry, extremists on both sides of the issue refused to compromise.

Sen. Darling:

Yes.  The concealed carry bill debated in the legislature last session would have permitted individuals to carry a concealed weapon only after passing a criminal background check and completing a training and safety course.

One under-appreciated aspect of this debate is the 2003 ruling of the Wisconsin Supreme Court in Wisconsin v. Hamdan.  In that decision, the court ruled that a business owner had a constitutional right to have a concealed weapon at his business for his protection and defense.

Understanding that there are likely to be additional challenges to the current law banning concealed weapons, the Court asked the legislature "to consider the possibility of a licensing or permit system for persons who have a good reason to carry a concealed weapon."

Without that system, additional court decisions striking down the ban on concealed carry may ironically lead to what opponents of the bill fear most - the ability for anyone to carry a concealed weapon anywhere in Wisconsin, with no limits on eligibility, no requirements for safety or training and no registration.

Still, I would not support this bill if the result would be an increase in public incidents of violence.  Fortunately, we can look to the experiences of 48 other states that already have concealed carry laws (with millions of permit holders over many decades) that have not seen licensees contribute to increased levels of gun violence.  Rather, as a group, permit holders have proven to be remarkably law-abiding.  I find it particularly telling that no state has ever repealed its concealed carry law, which speaks to the fact that the safeguards inherent in these permitting systems work as intended.  I do not expect that Wisconsin permit holders would be any less responsible or trustworthy.

* * * * * * * * * *

A. What would you do to cause technical colleges to be more responsive to the taxpayer?   B. And, do you support Germantown's expected petition to move from the MATC tax district to either the MPTC or WCTC districts?

Rep. Wasserman:

A. I support legislation to make technical college board members elected, not appointed.  Local elected representation is critical.  Any board that gets to levy a tax should be accountable to the taxpayers.

B. I've long been a supporter of local control.  Madison doesn't always know best, and if I wanted to be a local official making local decisions, I would run for local office.  And as with membership of technical college boards, this should be a local decision.

Sen. Darling:

A. I would make technical college board members elected officials.  Unelected technical college boards are one of the last few entities with the authority to tax without any direct accountability to taxpayers.  Members of technical college boards are named through a convoluted appointment process that sets aside seats based on race, gender and employer.  These unelected technical college boards have lately been approving property tax hikes that vastly outpace the tax growth of other local governments who, not coincidentally, are run by elected officials.

That is why I introduced a bipartisan bill that would end the insulating appointment process for technical college board membership and replace it with an election process similar to most other local government positions.  The rationale is simple.  I believe technical college board members would feel more pressure to lower their taxing and spending if they had to answer directly to the voters who foot the bill.

B. Yes.

* * * * * * * * * *

Once again, I want to thank both Rep. Wasserman and Sen. Darling for their participation.  We are looking for other reader questions, so please don't be bashful.

* * * * * * * * * *

One last item for today:  we have received Assembly Candidate Randy Melchert's commitment to participate in a similar 'debate' that may be a bit lopsided unless he has an opponent.  So far, there is no indication of any other activity on either the Republican or Democrat sides of the aisle.  The seat in the 24th District has long been thought to be a solid Republican seat, but one would think this might be the time that gets tested.

Since we don't know how Randy Melchert sees all the issues, it seems appropriate to have  this discussion even if he remains unopposed.

We are, by all signs, involved in an oil cost run-up driven by demand being greater than supply.  It is exacerbated for us Americans because our monetary policy has seen an intentional softening of the dollar (our money is worth less than other peoples' money, so it takes more of it to buy a barrel of crude oil).  I paid $4.20 per gallon yesterday with the price of crude oil standing at about $130 +/- per barrel.  Predictions of crude oil prices of $150 per barrel or more are seen or heard regularly now.  And, the cost of oil could well be higher than that by year-end.

How did we get to this point?  We got there by congressional law making, by presidents rolling over and signing those bills, and by our country's increasing needs/demand for gasoline and diesel fuel.  Why would we permit ourselves to become part of such a quagmire?

Politics!  Politics played by those on both sides of the aisle.  Conservatives seem to have lost their voices.  Liberals never seem to lose their voices.

Laws were re-written more than thirty years ago to make it nearly impossible for a new refinery to be built.  Those were the result of congress being rolled by the environmentalists and presidents either believing the rhetoric of the day or fearing the backlash should they stand up to the rhetoric.  This has continued to this very day.  We are forbidden from drilling within 200 miles of the California and Florida coastlines but the Chinese are already doing so as we sit on our thumbs.  We are unable to pursue the shale oil deposits that span our northern plains and southwestern states.  We have ample untapped resources that are readily available but our laws don't permit us to make use of those resources.

We see the 'global warming' group and the 'environmentalist group' driving our economy into the ground...and we have not found the moral outrage/courage to stand up to them and say "no more"!  We could easily build new refineries in any number of locations around our country but we're not permitted to do so.  We know how to drill and refine today without ruining our world.  It takes from 6 to 10 years to bring a new refinery on-line so the time to have declared a moratorium on the rules that made it impossible to build new refining capacity has come and gone.  But, the typical congressional response of "that will take ten years" should remind us that if we don't roll back those silly laws today, it'll take ten years from whenever we do roll back those silly laws.  The time to begin is now, not next week or next month.

We witnessed the ridiculous 'hearings' held by congress in the past few weeks.  We watched as Sen. Herb Kohl embarrassed himself by chiding the 'big bad oil companies' for making a profit.  He is a former businessman who certainly understands that profit must be derived in order for businesses to exist and grow.  He knew how that worked when he ran Kohl's Food Stores.  He certainly must have some comprehension as the owner of the Milwaukee Bucks.  His statement to the oil company executives that their profits didn't seem fair gives one a lot of insight.  He knows better but he will play/pander to the crowd he favors.  He 'feels' as do most liberals.  He doesn't necessarily reason.  He has his millions, so he can set out to control everyone else who aspires to similar success.

Sen. Kohl is but one of the 535 members of congress.  Too many of those men and women are too intent on keeping their offices to actually vote the way they probably know they should.  You have probably heard the old phrase that states you must "go along to get along".  That should be inscribed over the doorways leading to the House and the Senate chambers since it is the rule that is followed by the vast majority of people who walk through those portals.  That is true on the national stage, the state stage and the local stage.

The people who go to Washington and who do not give in and play by the Washingtonian rules are few and very far between.

Whose fault is this dilemma in the final analysis?  Yours and mine. 

We're the men and women who have permitted this to happen.  We don't vote in the House or the Senate, but we do elect those who do...and we do not seem to unelect people very often once they've gotten into office.  Rep. Steve Kagen (D) from the Appleton area stands for re-election this November.  He is at his most defeatable point historically.  If he survives the first re-election campaign and keeps his seat, he is likely to be in that seat for so long as he desires without regard to how he votes or doesn't vote.

We're so unconcerned about our vote, it seems, that we don't even think voting is sacrosanct enough to require valid photo identification before we're permitted to cast a ballot. 

So, all this angst has been brought to us by us.  Remember that the next time you buy gasoline or diesel fuel.  Remember that the next time you go to the grocery store and try to make your food budget stretch.  Remember that when you ponder whether or not you'll be able to take a vacation this year, or buy new school clothing for your children, or go out for a fish fry.  Remember that when you try to stretch your retirement income to cover your basic needs.

And, when you've gotten yourself all 'cranked up', if that happens, make a resolution to get involved and stay involved and to talk with your elected representatives at every level of government and let them know what you think and what you want them to do on your behalf.  And, if they fail you, fire them with your vote at the polling place.

Had you and I done that two decades ago instead of simply going with the flow, maybe we'd not be in the situation we find ourselves in today.

The MATC has developed yet another draft budget after the first such exercise produced the need for a 6.4% property tax increase (see Blog of April 23rd).  At the time of that budget draft, the governor apparently said he would not countenance such an increase.  MATC announced then that it would go back to the old drawing board and see what could be done to get down into the range of 'as little' as a 5.0% to 5.5% property tax increase.

Guess what?  They can now apparently declare victory in this onerous task since the finance committee is only proposing a revised draft budget that would consume another 4.9% increase in property taxes.  The proposed draft will come to a vote by the full board on May 27th.

MATC has developed budgets since 2004 that will have caused property tax increases of more than 30% if this draft is ultimately approved.

Has your personal income increased by 30% in the past four years?  Has your savings account grown by 30% in the past four years?  Has yours become a single income family instead of a dual income family in the past four years?  I doubt it.  But, if so, congratulations!  Even with such an increase, if that has happened for you, I'll wager that you have better places to put your hard-earned money.

The MATC finance committee says it has cut all it could cut from the budget.  Jeannette Bell, committee member and former West Allis mayor, was in favor of not only this 4.9% property tax increase, but also favors reducing the reserve account held by MATC which has been done as part of this draft. 

People costs are budgeted to increase significantly.  Wages and salaries will go up about $1.5 million.  Health care costs will rise by some $2 million.  Other 'fringe' benefits will add another $4.5 million, including  $2 million required to bring the recognition of accrued benefits onto the MATC books like any other 'business' must do today.  That is $2 million of 'funny money'; where else would we find accounting tricks employed if we were to subject this institution to the standards maintained by businesses?

I cannot accept the statement that MATC has cut 'everything possible' and still needs this kind of increase budget over budget.  The paragraph above suggests to me that people costs are way too high, and a very quick way to achieve reductions there is to have fewer people.  Maybe MATC should think about outsourcing certain functions.  Maybe they should think about 'tough love' negotiations with union representatives.  There are or ought to be limits even for tax-funded entities.

Maybe MATC needs to review its class demand and determine the bottom third by attendance and end those classes.  If there is insufficient demand, there is apparently not an identifiable 'significant' need.  MATC cannot be providing services to a market that doesn't exist in sufficient numbers to show demand.  That would free up space for other uses, and it would, or should, enable staff cuts that will reduce costs.

It is impossible to forget, in this debate over MATC, that there is a very real problem with the Milwaukee schools system and we must recognize that some of MATC's costs should rightfully be paid for by the Milwaukee school system since MATC is mopping up after that dismal performance.  Adult high school education classes and GED classes are an example of how the public education structure in Milwaukee fails its students and the residents of the community.  Interestingly enough, this may well be an intended consequence rather than an unintended consequence.  It gets non-Milwaukee taxpayers to pay more of the Milwaukee education costs than is already done through state tax distribution formula.

Finally, I suggest once again that MATC needs to clean up its many acts.  It needs to get out of the failed business incubator function.  It needs to quit building physical monuments to itself and its leaders.  It needs to look at sale and lease-back arrangements.  It needs to reduce staff. 

Frankly, it is becoming more and more apparent that significant leadership changes may be required, as well.  MATC leadership seems to be ignorant of the public's needs.  This is an institution answerable to no one other than the governor through his ability to appoint members to the state technical college board.  The state legislature and the governor must act to bring this renegade system under absolute control.  There must be a change in the manner in which the state board and the district boards are created; voters need to determine who sits on those boards.  The current incestuous approach simply doesn't work...for anyone other than the leaders and those who sit on the rubber stamp boards.

All this brings me to the next obvious question:  Where do we stand in the quest for permission to move to another technical college district?  There seems to have been a long delay in the process; maybe it is justified.  I hope it doesn't mean that the movement has been quietly put to sleep.

We've gone a long time between Blogs centering on MATC, but it is again time to take a critical look.  A 'headline' from some time ago suggested that MATC just can't help itself.  That seems to be the case.  They certainly don't seek out the kind of news coverage they tend to generate.  No organization would want to be in this type of 'limelight' and yet they do it to themselves over and over and over again.

Yesterday we learned that poor old MATC was being chastised by the 'state' for having proposed a budget that would require a property tax increase of some 6.4%.  It seems that even Governor Doyle thought that was too high, and that is going some when you think about all the tax increases and fee increases he has dumped in our laps.

So, having had their knuckles rapped with a ruler, they are being forced to the unthinkable...they may have to make some cuts in their expenses!!

They are now talking about cuts that will get the property tax increase down to as little as 5% to 5.5%.  These people do not live in the world that you and I populate.  They must breath some other life giving gas other than oxygen.  Maybe they're actually in a different orbit.  It seems obvious that they are not bound by the same life rules that we, the taxpayers, are bound to follow.

Hammering at an old theme again, if you and I have too little income for our expense load, we usually will look at our expense first and make the necessary adjustments.  In the world occupied by MATC, it seems that you first look at raising your revenue before you even give any thought to reductions in budget.

An article today centers upon the 'incubator boondoggle' that MATC created for itself many years ago.  We've Blogged about that before, as well.  Some of the businesses aren't real businesses with any hope of survival in the real world.  Many are considerably behind in their rent payments.  Now MATC is looking at actually closing or modifying the two incubators but it may have to give some money to those businesses that are to be displaced apparently according to some language in their agreement with each.  I've not seen those agreements, but I can't imagine that even MATC would give money away, much of it probably to those same businesses that are behind in their rent payments, if it were not bound to do so by the agreements.  Let's hope that MATC is sharp enough to hold back funds from this payment to at least recover the rental payments owed to it and to us taxpayers.

I have a high degree of difficulty in imagining that there is nothing else that can be cut out of the MATC budget.  How is it that MATC will cut expenses and still have to take us taxpayers to the cleaners for 5% to 5.5% more property taxes than we paid last time?  There are things that can be cut.  Let's talk about staff positions to begin with.  Let's look at the benefits next.  Let's review the travel expenses; it seems to me that was sort of a bloated area the last time we went down this pathway.  Maybe they need to sell off property and lease back the portions they actually need.  Maybe they need to shake up the status quo and actually take some real action like ending the deal with the current 'King' and getting a replacement that doesn't suffer from such egotism and illogical sense of institutional direction.  The Board should be capable of changing this direction unless it also suffers from something similar.

In the meantime, maybe the petitions to be removed from this system should be filed quickly and the case pressed while this iron is still hot enough to burn some sense into the directors of the state technical college system. 

By the way, Waukesha County Technical College has solidified its budget with a 3% increase in property taxes.  It is in the same geographic area, and faces most of the same issues.  What is the difference?  It seems to be leadership from my perspective.

Tom Kertscher writes about MATC and its new business incubator program in the January 20th Journal Sentinel.  It seems that the only press MATC can get is 'bad' press.  And they seem to get better and better at that. 

The article goes into the MATC's two urban business centers.  They have taken over old industrial building space and have rented that space in small increments to new businesses at very low rent cost.  The idea of business incubators, as the name suggests, is to enable them to mature in a protected environment until they're self-sufficient and can move out into the real world bringing jobs to the community.  Few of these businesses have reached the point of self-sufficiency which is not uncommon with new businesses.  Many more fail than succeed no matter where they start.

As Kertscher drilled down, however, we began to see the MATC we've grown to know and 'love'.  There are 98 tenants in the two locations.  The average incubator period nationwide is three years.  80% of those in the MATC locations have gone on longer than that.  Interestingly, the wife of State Senator Spencer Coggs (D-Milwaukee) whose name is Gershia Coggs, has been in the incubator for more than 20 years.  Her husband is also a tenant and rents space to store his personal and campaign materials for $55 per month.  That doesn't sound like a new business start-up situation.

17 of the MATC's tenants have stayed in their incubator space for more than a decade, including Mrs. Coggs.  More than 40% of the tenants are behind on their rent payments to MATC for a total of more than $80,000.  One tenant is three years behind in its rent payments but is still housed in the incubator receiving heat and electricity in addition to the space.  25% of the tenants are not even businesses such as Sen. Coggs.  These are comprised of social service agencies and other non-profit organizations.

MATC is losing some $125,000 per year on the incubators and guess what?  This is such a good deal that they are planning another investment of $4,000,000 to improve one of the two incubator locations.  That sounds exactly like something a real business would do, huh?  Pump more money into a losing proposition?  Only if it is taxpayer money, I guess.  Except that MATC is going to try to get grant money to cover part of the cost.  Apparently grant money grows on grant money trees that cost no one anything. 

Of course, there is the potential that jobs would be created, so maybe that is the mitigating factor here?  There is no way to tell because MATC doesn't track the number of jobs that have been created.  MATC says it doesn't have enough people to be able to track this.  On top of that, the two people within MATC charged with the responsibility for this program admit they can't think of any 'recent' success stories where a tenant actually got on its feet and moved out into the real world.

MATC's spokesman, Jim Gribble, is quoted in this article as saying that allowing tenants a grace period on paying rents is favorable to evicting them because then MATC would collect less rent.  That statement sums up many of the problems that MATC has.  Here is an institution that plows through taxpayer money like there is no end to it (and so far there has been no end to it), and somehow convinces itself that it is better to continue to give its space away to non-paying tenants because MATC will collect more rent.

I sincerely hope MATC is not offering accounting or economics classes for future business people using that logic.  By the way, one of the tenants is an economics instructor at MATC and runs his business in one of the incubators.  He indicates that his business isn't likely to employ anyone else for some time.  He sculpts items from driftwood, has been in business since September 2004 and has yet to sell anything he has created.

This is the kind of story that one wouldn't believe if it were published as fiction.  It is simply too far-fetched.  It demands too great a stretch of one's imagination.  But, again we're reminded that this is MATC and nothing should be viewed with disbelief simply because it is nonsensical.

View the whole article here.

"Timing of gift questioned" was the headline of Tom Kertscher's column in the morning Journal Sentinel.  That may well be a classic understatement, although I'm sure Mr. Kertscher needs to remain less 'curmudgeonly' than do I.

This is a blatant attempt to grease the skids for the denial of Germantown's soon-to-be-presented petition to the state technical college board.  MATC has not presented "free" computers to any other community and yet it has done so twice now for Germantown.  This coupled with the recent appointment of Germantown's Superintendent to the MATC board certainly shows that MATC is where we need to be sending our money.  This provides the technical college board a 'hidey-hole' from which they can summarily dismiss our petition.

These so-called "free" computers carry a very heavy price in my opinion.  The property tax increase alone to be collected from Germantown citizens will be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars.  Let's say, for argument, that the increase in MATC's property tax collection will be $300,000.  If that were the case, then the "free" computers cost only about $15,000 each.  Too tough on MATC?  Okay.  Let's say they'll gather only $200,000.  Then each "free" computer will have only cost us about $10,000.  If we add the historic annual over-payment extracted from us without a voice, the cost is in the millions of dollars for "free" laptop computers.

Then there is this whole question of accountability.  Actually, there is a question as to UNaccountability.  How in the world is it that this frugally-run institution can come up with this kind of money when we didn't even request their assistance?  How is it that this appropriation didn't even require board approval?  How is it that WCTC actually sells its used computers at the end of their useful lives, let alone not giving "free" computers to communities in its district?

It appears this could well be validation that the inmates run this asylum.

No connection?  Please spare us the obvious truth-stretching.  Why else would we receive this largess at this time without knowing it was coming or even having made a request for such consideration?  Of course there is a connection.  To try to convince us otherwise gives us a very real look into the utter disregard with which us taxpayers of Germantown are held. 

We not only have no voice, we deserve no voice because we don't know enough to come in from the cold!

The Milwaukee Public School Board's Finance Committee took a vote last evening concerning whether or not to support "equal provision of employee benefits regardless of an employee's sexual orientation or family status".  The committee voted 4 to 1 in favor of that change in the MPS system.

Up to now, there are four school districts that provide similar benefit coverage.  Those schools are in Madison, Middleton, Sun Prairie and La Crosse.  Additionally, the City of Milwaukee and MATC provide domestic partner benefits.  These kinds of changes have been made elsewhere around the country so this is not new although it is still unusual.

It is not possible to fully step away from the 'third rail' of whether or not same sex partners should or should not receive benefits from the employer of one of the partners.  This subject evokes very strong feelings both pro and con.  This is one of those classic 'slippery slope' issue sets where those desiring such benefits nibble away at the elephant a bite at a time, and someday we awaken to find the entire elephant has been eaten.

The language portrayed in the committee's proposition also suggests that this is not simply a subject about same sex couples.  What is to prevent one MPS employee from cohabiting with a boyfriend or girlfriend whether or not there is an 'understanding' other than simple cohabitation for the time being?  Will a 'marriage certificate' be required in order to qualify?

How can a marriage certificate be presented unless it was obtained in one of the brief windows that have periodically opened for a day or two around the country?

If not a marriage certificate, then just what documentation will be required?  What would stop a person who has just been diagnosed with a very serious disease from applying for coverage through a friend employed by MPS or the City or MATC?

My recollection is that Jennifer Morales (the MPS board member who introduced this motion during a recent board meeting) and her partner traveled to Victoria, BC to be married.  Will that certificate be acceptable in Milwaukee, or will the MPS benefits people simply need to take the employee's word for the establishment of a domestic partner?

The Milwaukee Teachers' Education Association immediately jumped on this and will expect this to be made available to bargaining unit employees prior to the expiration of the current contract.  The slippery slope increases in angle rather quickly on occasion.

Is this a case of cart and horse in reverse?  Should this issue have been resolved in courts of law prior to these small incursions in one location and then another?  Or, is it the mood of the country that this is what should be available pure and simple?

The pure and simple truth is rarely pure and never simple.  Oscar Wilde

The morning Journal Sentinel carried a brief story about the Germantown Citizens Action Coalition and attributed several points to the group's president, Larry Prodoehl.

Mr. Prodoehl reportedly stated this group of Germantown citizens wants the raises for non-bargaining village employees trimmed or eliminated and that they want the proposed recycling center 'tipping fee' dropped entirely.  He reasoned that the tipping fee, expected to raise between $40,000 and $45,000 per year, was approximately the amount needed for the raises.  That has been estimated at $36,000 for the initial year.

The 'tipping fee' is now apparently off the table for good after a flip flop or two.  There has already been discussion amongst the board members regarding a reduction in the proposed 3% increases down to 2%.  The village has gone through a period where several key people had moved to other positions outside Germantown to earn more money.  The recent survey of area communities supported the idea of increases, as you would expect to have been the case.  Surveys aren't typically referenced if they do not support one or another point of view.  That is not an accusation, but simply a statement of the norm.

Incidentally, the idea of banners strung across Mequon and Pilgrim Roads has finally been axed.  No matter the cost, that simply was not a good idea if we want to maintain the 'feel' of our community. 

What about a pay increase for the non-bargaining village employees? 

I have little problem with that if the employees are rewarded on merit and not simply on longevity.  My recollection of this proposal was that it contained an initial increase followed by regular step increases over time.  The initial increase might well be needed although the amount might be questioned. 

The idea of automatic step increases bothers me since the employee who lags is given the same increase as the one who excels.  I believe, further, that fellow employees will not be pleased to see their less-productive counter-parts receiving the same increase they received.  Rather than to improve morale, this actually works in reverse.  We'll face the loss of employees simply because there is no way for the good employees to earn more than the poor employees.  Ultimately, our village staff will be comprised of mediocre employees who are paid more than they're worth.  We'll all suffer as the result.  If you'll recall, MATC uses automatic step increases; we can see the out-of-control tax increases that result by simply looking at this situation.

Remember, if you have points of view that you want to be heard, comments to any Blogs are welcome.  You need not agree with me to get the comment published.  The other thing you can do is show up at the Village Administration Center on Monday, November 19th at 7:00PM.  Citizen input is welcome...and necessary!

A Germantown citizen, John M., provided me a copy of the e-mail letter he sent to Rep. Wasserman on October 20th.  It seems that Rep. Wasserman knocked on the John M. residence door and spoke with Mrs. M.  John M. then sent his letter seeking clarification on various matters so as to be able to make an informed decision about voting for either Rep. Wasserman or for incumbent Sen. Darling when that time comes.

I received a follow-up e-mail from John M. yesterday advising me that he had received no response to his original letter.  He also mentioned that he had telephoned Rep. Wasserman's office on October 29th and left a message asking if the assemblyman would respond to his letter.  He has since had no response to either his letter or the phone call.

There are some very tight rules regarding campaigning and it is possible that Rep. Wasserman is not allowed to respond to campaign-related issues from his Madison office on state time.

It is possible, however, for the private Sheldon Wasserman who is running for the Senate trying to unseat Sen. Darling to respond to the issues in other forums.  I have previously asked for his participation in a series of Q&As that would be published on Curmudgeon's Corner, all to no avail.

So once again, let's try to get some answers to common questions anyone might ask.

Candidate Wasserman, you refer to yourself as a "fiscal conservative".  How do you define that term and how does it apply to your record?

Candidate Wasserman, as you know, Germantown is moving toward filing petitions seeking to be allowed to leave the MATC district and to move to either the WCTC or to the MPTC district.  Do you support this effort?  If yes, why?  If no, why?

Candidate Wasserman, what is your position on the entire issue of appointed boards with taxing authority that are not directly responsible to the taxpayers?  Would you support legislation that would make such boards elected rather than appointed?  If yes, why?  If no, why?

We invite answers from Sen. Alberta Darling (who has already committed to responding) as well, and we'll publish those when and as received.

The Monday evening joint meeting of school and village boards included two guests from MATC.

Among the tidbits from those two presentations are these:

TIF District - If Germantown were to stay in the MATC district, it would actually receive a better break on its TIF districts due to the higher MATC tax rate being paid.  Really?

Secession - If Germantown is successful in its attempt to secede from the MATC district, MATC might have to continue to levy property taxes against Germantown due to the debt load being carried by MATC.  What?

MATC Performance - Graduation rates for those students completing 80% of elected courses in 2006 showed MATC at 66%, MPTC at 75% and WCTC at 82%.  The MATC representatives stated that, while this looked bad at first glance, they were actually very proud of the 66% rate given that they have 52,000 students and implied they serve some of the most under-educated students in the community.  (And at a cost that staggers the imagination.)  Huh?

Dual credit courses - Dual credit courses are those that are taught in high schools using technical college approved texts, approved high school teachers and subject materials.  These course credits are readily transferred to the technical college and advance the students' rate of completion while reducing the cost.  MATC has some 475 dual credit courses, while MPTC has 1,471 and WCTC has 1,439.  When asked why none of the MATC dual credit courses were available in the Germantown system, there was a noticeable silence from both the school district representatives as well as from the MATC representatives.  It was finally agreed that these courses relied on both sides meeting in the middle...which tells us that we've not reached out to them, nor they to us.  Our value proposition is what?

Current full time students - Seven high school graduates went straight from Germantown to MATC this school year as full time students (full time defined as carrying a load of 30 credits per year).  Only Seven?

FTE Students - MATC has some 13,000 full time equivalent (FTE) students in its entire system.  In 2007, 82 of those FTEs declared that they are Germantown High School graduates.  That appears to be about 6/10ths of one percent.  We have 6/10ths of one percent of the FTEs but we pay over 1.3% of the budget.  Wow!

Very few Germantown students are attending courses at the downtown Milwaukee campus.  It appears that very few Germantown students are relying upon MATC at all.  Is it possible that MATC has so oriented itself to the students coming from Milwaukee (which makes sense simply based on numbers), that the vast majority of our students find nothing of interest in the curriculum that can't be had elsewhere with a more convenient commute?  I suspect that both WCTC and MPTC have been more attuned to the needs of the workplace in the suburbs and beyond (which also makes sense). 

As each layer of this onion is peeled away, the picture simply gets sharper and sharper.  We are not doing well by our students nor our employers and citizens.  Students are voting with their feet and going elsewhere for their further education.  We may well be subsidizing the failures of the Milwaukee Public School system as MATC tries to prepare these young people to at least be able to find employment.

While I sympathize, that is not a burden our taxpayers should to be tasked to support beyond property taxes already levied and state support already paid.  We already support an excellent system in Germantown.

Even though the deck is stacked against us and our petition, we must pursue secession.  To do anything less would be to ignore the obvious and permit it to continue unchecked.

The people who run our state have little or no concern for those of us who pay to have them running the state.  That is so apparent as to be a truism.

The tech colleges had already been given the ability to increase their take by 4%.  That is considerably greater than the inflation that had occurred, but it still wasn't enough!  The governor just had to take the cap away.  He said, "If technical colleges do not have the ability to respond to the rapidly changing needs of businesses in Wisconsin, economic growth will suffer".

Does anyone believe that excessive taxation spurs economic growth?

Michael Rosen, head of the MATC teachers union and a member of the state technical college board had this to say: "Governor Doyle again demonstrated his commitment to growing Wisconsin's economy through training and investing in the labor force today.  The veto he took today continues his commitment to that vision."

I suspect that Rosen is sincere with his statements.  The lockstep between the state technical college board and the Governor is very, very apparent.  Appointed boards tend to be that way, don't they?

By the way, the 4% cap would've pared an estimated $7.9 Million from the budgets already passed by the sixteen tech colleges.  Of that amount, MATC would've "lost" $3.9 Million.  Interesting that MATC is one of sixteen colleges (6.25%), while its share of the 'lost" tax money would've amounted to over 49% of the total.  Only two of the sixteen colleges had already come in under the 4% property tax cap.  That means that 13 colleges split the remaining 50%

Does this sound like a well-run and properly guided system to you?  It doesn't to me.

Does this send a solid and positive signal to employers?  I don't think so, no matter how much the governor and his team preach the same sermon.  We are an over-taxed state and we will stay that way.  We continue to elect those who can only think 'spending increase' and who do not have the phrase 'expense reduction' in their vocabularies.  Then, we step back and wonder why we get the same thing over and over again.

The author of the Lil' Abner comic strip may have had it right when he said (paraphrased), "We have met the enemy, and he is us".

Can you even begin to believe this? 

Governor Doyle has indicated that he is vetoing the technical college tax increase limiting them to a mere 4%.  He has reneged on his promise of no tax increases in so many ways as to be almost comical...but this is not funny.  It is a sad day for Wisconsin.  We will continue to lose population since jobs are leaving our state; we'll ultimately be down another seat in the House with the next reapportionment

It is imperative that we get an Assembly bill moving immediately to make the technical college system accountable to the taxpayers.  We need to get a companion Senate bill moving immediately, as well.  Call your elected representatives today and express your disgust, and get their commitment to move this forward!

The Republicans should be able to get this passed in the Assembly.  The Senate is a different arena given that it is controlled by the Democrats.  With Sen. Russ Decker now installed as the Senate Majority Leader, the likelihood that this will even get out of committee in the Senate is remote.  If we thought the former Senate Majority Leader was difficult with whom to work...'we ain't seen nothing yet'.

However, we need to establish, once and for all, that the technical college system is broken.  That can begin to be accomplished with a debate.

If anyone has had the idea that Democrats can be relied upon to control government spending in Wisconsin, they ought to be disabused of that notion by now.  The only ultimate solution is for the taxpayers, who are also the electorate, to dump the Democratic majority in the Senate while increasing the Republican majority in the Assembly.  Ultimately, we need to get a fiscal conservative into the Governor's office but that won't happen until at least the next election.  And, our track record is rotten on that score.

Once again, everyone who voted for Governor Doyle either loves more and more taxation, or they were hoodwinked.

Given this move by the Governor, what do you think our chances of leaving the MATC district look like today?

This travesty simply has to end!  And the voters...us...are the only people who can make that happen!

MATC will, if the newly agreed compromise budget is passed today, be limited to a 4% increase in its property tax levy over the next two years.

It had already passed a 5% increase hoping that would be permissible when the state budget was finalized.

MATC teachers' union president, and state technical college board member, Michael Rosen was quoted in the morning Journal Sentinel saying this is bad news for students and for economic development.  "It's going to cause the colleges to increase tuition and price out the workers who will be fuel for business expansion".

What do you do when your income doesn't support your expenses?  You and I reduce our expenses.  What has MATC done over its history when its revenue didn't meet its expense needs?  It raised its revenue by increasing taxes and/or tuition.

This statement is indicative of one of the major problems at MATC, and possibly with other tech colleges.  They simply do not consider balancing a budget by reducing expense.  Here are a couple of ideas for their consideration.  Either eliminate positions since that consumes something close to 90% of their total budget, or sell some land and buildings and lease those back from the new owners.  If their agreements do not permit 'permanent layoff' then offer a buy-out that can be spread over future years.

Businesses use these tools all the time.  Incidentally, WCTC just took its increase and had no problem living within its means.  It also just completed negotiations with its labor organizations and held increases to a very manageable level.

Why not MATC?

The village board and the school board are running on nearly parallel routes as each researches and prepares its petition to be presented to the state technical college board.

They are each in agreement that we need to leave the MATC district for a variety of reasons.

They do not, however, appear to be in agreement about the district to which we'd prefer to be tied.  The village president appears to favor Moraine Park Technical College (even thought the tax rate would be higher) while the school board vote specified Waukesha County Technical College (with the lowest tax rate of the three choices).  I have been told by other trustees that the village president's position has two elements:  He recognizes that we must not be a 'one-trick pony' focused solely on the tax side of the question; and that MPTC appears to be more oriented to working with Germantown on courses that are needed by our businesses.  

Certainly we know that taxes alone will not suffice as the driver for our petitions.  Similarly, there would be little question as to whether MPTC or WCTC would be responsive to our needs. The marketplace is driven by the hirers, not by the educators...except, of course, in the MATC system...but I digress.

The certainty that emerges is this:  If we present a unified position, we stand a better chance of emerging victorious.  If we present a split position, we'll almost assuredly see both petitions rejected.  The state technical college board is not likely to view our petitions very favorably simply based on everything we've been told and have read.  We cannot afford to be anything but fully aligned if we have a hope to prevail.

We need the village board and the school board aligned in their positions.  The differences in apparent positions are not huge.  The 'issues' will resolve themselves if our petitions are approved.  We need alignment, and it seems to me that the village needs to move into full agreement with the school board's stated position. 

It makes sense to move into the district with the lowest tax rate impact when one considers that the other benefits will be equal to the citizens of Germantown and the Germantown School District.

Incidentally, the school board has apparently learned that any petitions not filed by October 1st will, even if approved, not take effect until July 1, 2009.  This is a standing policy of the state technical college board.  What other obstacles will suddenly materialize as we push forward?  This will be a long and strenuous battle for what is right.  After all, the last time the state technical college board approved a change was in 1971 when it agreed to move Germantown into the MATC district.  Lightning can certainly strike twice!

The CRG study on which these MATC Blogs have been based, drew multiple conclusions:

• MATC has not engaged in improvement processes such as those employed in the private sector.
• MATC has no competitive or adversarial forces that would drive it toward improvement.
• MATC's board has favored special interests and the current tax rates stand in testimony to that.
• IF MATC were to continue on its present path, taxes would double in ten years or less, outstripping the public's ability to pay.

CRG's recommendations were as follow:

Recommendation 1:  Replace the entire MATC Board, possibly with an elected board, but certainly with new constituencies to 'clean house'.

Recommendation 2:  Establish mandated state revenue caps on MATC to force it to work on improvements rather than to simply charge people more for the same product.

Recommendation 3A:  Bring MATC's tuition in line with that in the UW system and eliminate duplicated programs.

Or, Recommendation 3B:  Allow the UW system to take over the operation of MATC programs and facilities.

It seems a simple conclusion, to me, that change is required.  Such change needs be all-encompassing.  We need an elected board as Sen. Alberta Darling has proposed.  We need changes in the hierarchy of leadership.  Mr. Cole has simply not done the job on behalf of either students or taxpayers.  I'm not sure about rewarding the UW system with the right to operate MATC, for that system is rife with the waste of taxpayer dollars, as well.  The UW system is permissive and supportive of the same special interests that dominate MATC.

MATC needs be brought to understand that it will no longer be permitted to operate with impunity, as it has over these many years.  One way to demonstrate that loudly and clearly is for the state technical college board to begin an internal audit of this institution, and to conduct that audit in the full light of day.  We've looked at the results of the well-conducted and well-documented CRG study, but that was done without the full cooperation of the institution being studied.  It would not be unreasonable for the state board to severely reprimand Mr. Cole; or ideally to cause him to desire to resign (since tenure would require an extended investigation in and of itself) even if it meant the payment of additional funds.  An additional hundred thousand dollars or so is 'chump change' compared with the travesty visited on us taxpayers over and over again!  While many will argue that it isn't right to reward someone with this history, it is equally apparent that not to do so would cause the perpetuation of these acts at a significantly higher cost.

The legislature must act quickly, in this term, to alter the entire technical college system.  This may be the only district where such egregious conduct has occurred, or it may not be the only one.  We don't know.  We do now understand, however, that anything is possible in the current environment.  The foxes have long ago taken over the hen house.  That alone should propel the legislature to effect change immediately, and to do so with a 'veto proof' majority on both sides of the aisle since we can expect the governor to veto any such action.  Except for one hold-over appointed member, this board is the governor's creation, after all.

The CRG study published last year raised some additional points that suggest serious issues.

The composition of the board lends itself to decisions that do not reflect the circumstances of the general populace.  Two members are elected officials, three members are in the public sector heavily represented by unions, another is a business manager for a union local, one is a lawyer and and another is a consultant for a firm representing special interests.  The vast majority of the board at that time, seven members, came from the public sector and/or an environment tied to organized labor.  Many have personal wage and benefit packages that are similar to those found at MATC.  Given their perspective, it seems clear why special interests are better represented than is the average taxpayer.

Board member e-mails were obtained through open records requests.  Following are highlights:

In discussing financial decision-making, then board member Dr. William Hughes (Supe