I mentioned in a previous post that Shorewood shows a slight but distinct political pattern in terms of the relative likelihood to vote for conservative or liberal candidates.  I checked a few of the recent election results which are shown below.  Although the pattern is not perfect, there is generally about a 10-15% difference between the most liberal wards (7-8), and the most conservative (11-12).  The chart below shows the % of the vote that each candidate received in the Feb and April 2008 election cycles. 

Ward Number	BUTLER	TAYLOR	OBAMA
Wards 7-8	78%	68%	63%
Wards 3-4	72%	59%	61%
Wards 5-6	73%	57%	61%
Wards 9-10	69%	57%	57%
Wards 1-2	71%	56%	55%
Wards 11-12	68%	53%	54%

As a side note, the wards on the bottom of the list are West of Oakland Ave.  (View Ward Map)

A few highlights from Tuesday's election.

1. Overall turnout was 34%, significantly lower than the 53% who turned out for the February presidential primary.
2. The highest turnout wards were 5 and 6, located along the lake, at 40% of registered voters, . 
3. The lowest turnout areas were wards 1 and 2, the southwest corner near SIS, at 27% of registered voters.
4. There is an interesting bit of political geography going on here in Shorewood, which I will cover in a future post.  Generally speaking, those who live west of Oakland voted more conservatively in this election cycle than those who live east of Oakland.  More on that later.
5. In other elections, not already covered on ShorewoodNOW, Shorewood residents voted as follows:

CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE BRANCH 40

REBECCA DALLET	82.52%
JEFFREY NORMAN	17.48%

COUNTY EXECUTIVE

SCOTT WALKER	41.68%
LENA C TAYLOR	58.32%

STATE PARTIAL VETO REFERENDUM

YES	68.98%
NO	31.02%

A few notes on the presidential primary in Shorewood. 

• Turnout in Shorewood was solid, overall (53%). 
• Per usual, the highest voter turnout numbers were in wards 3 through 6 (57% - 59%). 
• Shorewood voters almost all opted for the Democratic primary, at a rate of 85% to 90%, depending on the ward
• Barack Obama pulled off a resounding win in Shorewood, capturing between 54% and 63% of each wards total Democratic votes.  The table below shows only those voters who participated in the Democrat primary.

Wards	1-2	3-4	5-6	7-8	9-10	11-12	TOTAL
Hillary Clinton	32%	25%	24%	25%	30%	30%	27%
Barack Obama	55%	61%	61%	63%	57%	54%	59%
Other Democrats	13%	14%	15%	12%	13%	16%	14%

Both the Village Board and School Board races will be unopposed this year.  Very disappointing.

Village Trustees Mike Maher and Dawn Anderson have taken out campaign registration forms for 2008, the first step in running for reelection.  According to Village Clerk Kathy Grieg, no other candidates have surfaced at this point.  Nobody that I have talked to knows of other potential candidates who are thinking of running.

Local election season will be upon again soon.  Trustees Maher and Anderson will be the incumbents, should they decide to run.  This will be Trustee Anderson's first election, having been appointed to her position following former Trustee Guy Johnson's unopposed election as Village President. 

The one potential (though unlikely) wrinkle in this election cycle is the Feb 19th primary, which is scheduled to coincide with the presidential primary.  Because turnout on this date will be higher than usual in Shorewood, this would be the date most likely to cause unusual results in the Trustee election.  More people will likely turn out than the usual 1,200 - 2,000 people who typically vote in Shorewood. 

Although this would an intriguing scenario, it is also fairly unlikely, as we will only have a primary for Trustee if there are more than 4 candidates for the 2 open spots.  The last time Shorewood had a Trustee primary was in 2004, in the height of the library battles.  Having more than 4 candidates this year seems very unlikely, given the relative lack of highly divisive issues. 

If we have 4 or less candidates for the 2 positions, the election will be the first Tuesday of April.

We are now only two and a half months away from the beginning of election season in Shorewood.  The terms of Trustees Mike Maher and Dawn Anderson expire this coming April.  Maher was first elected in 2005, while Anderson was appointed in 2006, when now President Guy Johnson vacated his Trustee seat to run for President. 

They have voted in opposition from time to time, including the smoking ban (Maher for, Anderson against), the closing of wards during the Feb-06 primary (Anderson for, Maher against).  There are likely other times as well, which I will look into more deeply if they both decide to run.

Several people in the talkback forums and comments to various blogs have been questioning what they can do to oppose various parts of D2D or even stop D2D altogether. In our system of government, you do have specific legal remedies. Understand that I am not in any way advocating any of these alternatives. But for those of you who want to know what you can do, here are some of the options you have.

1. Put a referendum on the ballot. You can pass and ordinance about almost anything you want by collecting signatures to get it on the ballot. You could add an ordinance preventing the construction of air-inflated domes in the Village of Shorewood. You could ban the use of Astroturf. You could require public building projects of over $1 million go to referendum. You will recall this was done inb April of 2006 with the referendum on the war in Iraq. WI Statute 9.20 has everything you need to get started.

2. Organize a campaign now and run candidates who oppose D2D for both School Board and Village Board in April of 2008. If the candidates you support are elected, they are then free to reallocate spending however you see fit. Phase I of the project will be well underway if not completed by the time these candidates take office, but they would still be free to prevent any other phases from going forward.

Again, I am not advocating these measures. But if those opposed to the project would like to direct their dissatisfaction into action, the list above gives you several ways of doing so.

Monday’s Journal Sentinel editorial observed with concern the dwindling participation in local elections, and the rising number of these elections that are uncontested (READ THE FULL EDITORIAL). They then went on to advocate “an effort like the one under way in Madison , where the business community, the media and the Democratic Party are working to get more people engaged in politics and government.”

To completely turn the tables on the editorial board, one of the main things we need in the Milwaukee area, in order to increase citizen participation in local elections, is an increase in media participation. The editorial reads, “Political parties, media and the business community of southeastern Wisconsin need to figure out a way to get more citizens engaged.” If the editorial board of the Journal Sentinel wants citizens to get engaged, they should begin by getting the media engaged.

By way of example, as I have said many times in the past, the amount and the depth of the press coverage given to Shorewood elections is woefully inadequate. Bloggers were the only “press” covering any of the debates this year. Although I do my best to cover what I can of Village politics, I have another full time job, and really do not have the time it would take to do it right.

The only NOW articles written about the elections were superficial pieces centered on candidates’ answers to a few softball questions. No paper went the extra mile to get voters involved by showing how the candidates were different on key issues. No reporter uncovered a big story by analyzed campaign finance statements. No media outlet created an issue tracker to show how the candidates differed on the 6 or 7 main issues. Surely reporters can find time to attend some of the debates, track the statements made by the candidates, analyze the issues in the election, pore over the voting records of incumbents, write about the differences between the candidates, and so forth. If editors do not make the effort to include this type of information in their publications, why should we take seriously their calls for us to participate in an event they do not deem worth covering?

How can the Journal Sentinel help convince voters that our local elections matter? By covering them as if they matter.

Comments

1. Hi Steve, The lack of participation in local elections is pathetic and the absence of good media coverage, except where there is serious contention or controversy (see the school referendum in Brookfield) does play a role. However, the way local elections are scheduled almost insures a lack of participation. If the local elections were combined with the national elections participation would be up (although our national participation is poor as well). I know that holding separate elections for local issues generally brings out those who are interested (and hopefully informed). My feeling is that local officials really don’t want a large turnout; it is easier to get issues passed. The situation was even worse in New York where school board would bring budgets and referendums to the voters three and four times until they “wore down” the electorate and got the issues passed (usually with a fraction of the votes cast in the first election). Hope to see you soon.
- Ed Duncklee, Shorewood Resident.
April 23, 2007

The Forum

The crowd was small, probably less than 20, but this Wednesday's debate was the most interesting and confrontational forum I have seen in a while. Since I wrote the rules of the debate, I added one which allowed the candidates to directly question one another. This changed the event from just being a "forum," and gave it more of a "debate" element. This led to a much more direct exchange of views, and prevented any candidate from being able to offer dubious statements without being questioned.

Unfortunately, my recorder ran out of batteries about three minutes into the evening, so I cannot provide direct quotes. I will recount what I recall of the evening (since once again, no press attended).

Eckman wins handily

Although all three candidates stated clear positions on the issues, Ellen Eckman clearly won this debate. While she and I have had our many differences over the last few years, I also am committed to being forthright with my observations on this blog. As such, I must tell you that Eckman won this debate handily.

She won mostly for presenting the most pro-business agenda, which was the main issue of the evening. This issue took center stage given the way the board has treated the Legion Post, and also because of the several landlords and business-people in the audience. Eckman also wins for not getting dragged into the arguing over obscure policy points, which was one of the main problems the other two candidates faced.

Business and the smoking ban

While Michael Phinney insisted that he has been a champion of business in Shorewood, Eckman pointed to her vote against the smoking ban as evidence of her pro-business stance. This point was well taken by the audience, who are understandably concerned about a smoking ban in a business where 80% - 90% of the customers, and all of the employees smoke.

Eckman also claimed credit (somewhat dubiously) for some of the new businesses in Shorewood, at least one of which is actually located in a building owned by Dave Tatarowicz. Whether this particular piece of the argument won her any points is certainly questionable.

Phinney claimed that the smoking ban is good policy because it will prompt the State Government to finally act on the issue. The long implementation date will allow the state sufficient time to take action, he said. Eckman won this point as well, insisting that her primary responsibility is to the businesses of Shorewood, rather than to promoting a particular agenda at the state level. Tatarowicz also decried the ban, primarily due to his position as a self proclaimed Libertarian on this issue.

Business Improvement District

Tatarowicz also continued to question the usefulness of the Business Improvement District, an issue he brought up at the SRC debate, and in a recent blog post. He slammed the BID's loan program, which offers low interest loans to area businesses for a variety of purposes. Michael Phinney sharply criticized Tatorowicz on this point, which prompted accusation between the two of them of misrepresenting the actual facts of the program itself. This disagreement was followed by a lengthy debate on policy minutiae, which rapidly lost the attention of the audience. Eckman largely stayed out of this confrontation, winning further points with the audience by sticking to comprehensible and relevant issues when it was her turn to speak.

An important reminder from the Village Manager's Memo:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

2007 Village Elections
Shorewood Village Manager's Memo
11/22/06, Page 2

Campaign materials and nomination papers for the municipal offices held by Trustee Ellen Eckman and Trustee Michael Phinney are available in the Clerk's office (Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.). The first day nomination papers can be circulated is December 1 and they must be returned by 5 p.m. on Tuesday, January 2, 2007. For all village offices, 20-100 resident signatures are required. If a Spring Primary is necessary, it will be held February 20, 2006 and the date for the Spring Election is April 3, 2006.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I dug up the response I sent to Dawn Anderson in response to her note about the smoking ban:

----------------------------------
Subject: Smoking Ban Comment
From: Steve Koczela
To: Dawn Anderson
CC: Margaret Hickey
Date: 11/21/06<

Trustee Anderson -

Thank you for your comment on my blog. I will be posting it tonight, to allow for other people to comment.

I am not arguing with the process. I actually am impressed with the process, and the amount of time the Board/Village have spent thinking about this issue. I have attended a large number of meetings concerning the smoking ban, dating back quite a ways. I actually believe there should be a smoking ban, a position which I have stated publicly, both verbally and in my campaign materials. I am not opposing taking a vote as a way to oppose the smoking ban. Instead, I believe we should wait until we have a stronger consensus on one side or the other of this issue before bringing it to a vote.

The Village does not appear to be united on one side or the other of this issue. Given this fact, I see no reason why the board has to take action on this issue, thereby prompting the disappointment of one side or the other.

I recognize that, if you do not take a vote, those pushing for a ban will be disappointed. However, people of my point of view (supporters of the ban), need to recognize that this is not a "win-at-all-costs" battle we are fighting. If we push and push, and get a ban in place, prompting a backlash of bitterness and resentment, what have we accomplished? Instead, we need to work deliberately, creating consensus before taking action.

We are a small Village, filled with friendly neighbors and people of good will. I believe our government should reflect this characteristic, and avoid taking premature action on this issue so certain to cause resentment and division.

Best Wishes,
Steve Koczela

------------------------------

Trustee Anderson sent me the following response:

-----------------------------

Subject: Re: Smoking Ban Comment
From: Trustee Dawn Anderson
To: Steve Koczela
Date: 11/21/06

Thanks for your response and comments Steve - and I agree on many of them. And thanks for posting my comments. dawn
----------------------------




Comments

1. "As you probably have already noted from the cigar-smoking smiley in my signature, I'm a smoker! I agree that some form of regulation needs to be in place for the good of those who wish to not be subjected to unhealthy smoke. I make a conscious effort to keep my smoke away from others; I also abore having to smell smoke when I'm dining! While present attempts at 'non-smoking sections' in establishments are akin to having 'non-peeing sections' in a swimming pool, an outright ban on all smoking would certainly be a hardship on some local businesses. While I can't disagree in it's merits, a ban would discriminate against a portion of customers.

Your comment that a rushed vote would cause resentment and division is certainly true.

Do I have a great idea to solve this stalemate?? ....nope! Maybe later in the day!

RE: Dawn Anderson's reply to your comments. Her response shows how quickly she's assumed the 'politician mode; "Thanks...I agree on 'many'(nothing specific) of them...thanks again...seeya later" On the other hand, it's reassuring to see a village trustee express an opinion w/o once using the word 'disingenuous'!"
- Jim Genthe, 11/24/06

2. Just something for Shorewood to ponder when passing the ban. Hector's on State St. has been am asset in Tosa for over 17yrs. Since the revenue in food exceeds alcohol consumption, he was forced into no smoking. Well get this, the kitchen closes every night at 8:oopm and thus, bar patrons from that time on only. He can't get an exemption and his night business is gone. How did he get around it? He opened a new place in Bay View, I hope for the sake of good Mexican food he doesn't close the Tosa location. I am a smoker and I back the no smoking ban in restaurants, not bars or taverns. By the way, Hector's was non smoking in the dinning room for years.
- Tom, Village Voice, WauwatosaNOW.com, 11/28/06

As a veteran of the war in Iraq, it pained me when Shorewood ran a referendum in April on an immediate withdrawal of our troops. I have no problem with people opposing the war. Indeed, one of the popular mantras of today's anti-war movement is, "oppose the war, but support the troops." I respect that point of view, and have publicly stated my thanks to opponents of the war who nevertheless actively and generously supported me during my time in Iraq. I believe our ability to make this distinction reveals an important way in which our nation has matured since the disgraceful treatment visited upon draftees returning from Vietnam.

That being said, I think we crossed a line of departure with the referendum, beyond which the nature and specific actions of opposition to the war negated the verbal and spiritual support offered to the troops. Organizing a village-wide statement of principle against the effort for which I fought, and some of my friends died, cannot be legitimately construed as supporting the troops.

I am a soldier. I will be a soldier until 2010. And I can tell you first hand, this referendum did not support the troops.

Just to warn you, this post is going to rapidly devolve into "inside baseball" talk about Shorewood politics. So if this doesn't interest you, please hit the "back" button on your browser.

Joe Mangiamelli's post questioning whether democracy can work raises some valid points. However, his presentation of the history of the coffee patio idea for seniors needs slight modification. There are a several assertions about my own role in the process which are not entirely accurate.

Joe says this:

"I got two of the three candidates during the campaign at the last election to say that they thought a coffee patio in connection with the senior center sounded like a go idea. But I couldn't get a follow-through after the election."

First off, I was one of the candidates who supported the creation of informal gathering space for Seniors at the Village Center. Since I was not elected, only one person who approved of the idea is now on the board. Jeff Hanewall never supported the idea. I would be happy to follow through on the idea, but unfortunately have no power to do so.

Secondly, there were many influences to my position that seniors need this space. I met with the head of the Senior Resource Center, Elizabeth Price, before the 2005 campaign even started. I was convinced at that time that of the need for expanded space for Senior activities. So although Joe's advocacy of this issue has been consistent, it was certainly not the only thing driving my viewpoint.

All of that aside, Joe's question of whether democracy extend past the election is certainly valid. Mike Maher talked a big game about improving parking before he was elected in 2005, but the Shorewood renters still live with the same old draconian parking regimen. Margaret Hickey talked extensively during the 2006 election about improving the Village's use of technology. But the Village website is still an embarrassment, and Village Hall is still snowed under with paper-based processes. So the question that Joe poses remains valid. Are we electing a person to do what they said they would do? Or are we just choosing who gets to hold the position for the next three years?

Part of what Shorewood needs to succeed long-term is young leaders stepping up to participate in our Village organizations and government. In the next few years, one of these leaders will be Wesley Warren. He recently moved back to Shorewood, after working his way through an impressive, Ivy League education, and several years living and working in Milwaukee. He and I graduated from SHS together in 1995, and reconnected earlier this year, while working at Northwestern Mutual.

I sent him a few questions about his thoughts on returning to Shorewood, and what the future may hold for him.

_______________________________________

1. Where did you do your undergrad/in what?

Yale University, B.A. Political Science 1999 (though it crossed my mind to try to do Art History)

2. Where did you do your grad work/in what?

Harvard Law School, J.D. 2002

3. What is your current job title at NM?

Counsel

4. Why did you choose to move back to Shorewood?

In my time out East, I always knew that I would return to Wisconsin. First, and most importantly, my family is here. But more than that, I thoroughly enjoy the way of life, the pace of life and the values of the Midwest (not to mention the Packers).

As for Shorewood in particular, I fell in love with the community when I bused in a "Chapter 220" student (my family relocated to Shorewood from the north side of Milwaukee in 1994). At its base, what I like most about Shorewood, and what I suspect most people would say, are the people that comprise the community.

5. What would you hope to contribute if/when you did decide to run for office?

A different, more diverse viewpoint. I am a young, minority professional, who has lived within and without Shorewood. However, I attended Shorewood schools my entire life and essentially grew up in the community. Accordingly, I have an understanding of the traditions and values important to Shorewoodians over time, but I have also been privy to other ways of doing things and bring a rather unique perspective to the table.

Nobody that I have asked has the remotest interest in running for office. Nobody that I have asked knows of anyone who has the remotest interest in running for office. The question is, do we really want two incumbents running unopposed in 2007?

Below are some of the comments I got when I asked people if they or anyone they knew might be interested in running.

_______________________

"Thank you very much for considering me as a potential candidate, but I'm going to have to decline the offer. Although I know how important it is, I just don't feel that I can successfully manage that along with the work and meeting the kids' needs (and be able to maintain some balance/sanity)."

________________________

"I have not heard of anyone even remotely interested in running."

_________________________

"No I have not heard anything. Not sure anyone has the hutzpa to deal with all there is to deal with when running for an elected seat in Shorewood. You need thick skin, and I for one, do not have it. I will ask around."

________________________

"I'm a bit jaded. I saw 3 great candidates run and not get elected - I'm not sure Shorewood understands the consequences yet.....

But eventually they will!"
________________________

If I learn anything about potential candidates for the 2007 Trustee election, and who might be running, I will post it here. I emailed Trustees Phinney and Eckman to see if either of them have made up their minds. Trustee Phinney has not yet responded. Here is Trustee Eckman's response.

____________________________

Steve
Thank you for your interest in my candidacy. I have not made any decision at this point but will certainly make my decision in a timely fashion. I can let you know at a later date.
Ellen Eckman

____________________________

I will not be running this year. Hopefully we can find some good candidates though, since unopposed elections are not good for anyone since nobody has to discuss the issues if they are unopposed.

As election season is heating up, a thought crossed my occasionally feverish brain. If the Village Board’s original plan would have been implemented, we would now be having an election to fill Trustee Anderson’s seat. You will recall the original plan was to appoint someone to fill the seat temporarily, and then hold a new election scarcely four months later. Later, after Village Attorney Ray Pollen had spent additional time analyzing this option, and after I personally called the State Elections Board to seek clarification on the matter, it because clear that the option the board had selected was not only bizarre, but illegal. Thank God for small graces.

If the original plan for November elections had passed, we would already be deep in the throes of a new campaign, with our valiant Trustee candidates trying to break through the deafening thunder of Green and Doyle screaming at each other, the fallout from Mark Foley, Harry Reid land deals, and the tidal wave of partisanship now sweeping across the land. It is best that Shorewood elections do not need to compete for attention with the "Marriage Protection Amendment", the death penalty, the war in Iraq, North Korean nukes, immigration policy, and Mark Foley. Imagine trying to get people interested in TIF financing, sewer management policies, and walkability at this point. Believe me, it is hard enough to get people to listen in April, when nothing else is on the ballot.

On another level, Dawn Anderson should be given enough time to learn the processes, and make a positive difference, rather than merely keeping a seat warm for four months before being shuffled out the door. Anyway, this is a policy matter probably not of the least interest to most people at this point in the election cycle.

Election day is a ways off yet. But filing day is only a few months away. If you know anyone you think would make a good Trustee, now would be the time to start talking to them about running.

In my view, it would be helpful to strive for more of a demographic balance on the Village Board. Specifically, we need a broader swath of Shorewood's economic spectrum represented on the Board. Also desirable as Trustee candidates, in my view, would be renters, senior citizens, residents who live west of Oakland Ave, and young families. While none of these characteristics alone would indicate a qualified candidate, any of them would provide an increased level of diversity to the points of view represented on the Board.

I do not mean to suggest that there is perfect homogeneity of thought on the current Village Board. But adding different perspectives could only be positive in terms of more thorough debate on the issues. For instance, renters will likely have differing opinions on how the Parking Enterprise Fund's budget should be written. Younger families may feel differently about what the Village should look like in 15-20 years. Senior Citizens may feel more strongly about walkability issues, or about additional space for the Senior Resource Center.

Let's start now looking for candidates. Let's have a healthy debate again this year.

There is a fairly serious misapplication of words in the Village that I need to address. During the previous two election cycles, I heard a number of times that, while an individual voter may have liked me personally, s/he would not support me because "I heard you are a Republican".

First off, I campaigned on a variety of issues including environmental responsibility, improved senior citizen facilities, rights for low income renters, installing wi-fi infrastructure in Shorewood, more money for Shorewood schools, fiscal restraint, and shifting part of the tax burden onto businesses by encouraging pro-growth policies. Those positions could not possibly be used to triangulate any partisan affiliation on either side.

I would further argue that the words "Republican" and "Democrat" have no place whatsoever in Shorewood political parlance. For example, would Republicans differ from Democrats in their approach to road construction and sewer maintenance? Do Democrats take a differing stance on the unfunded pension liability or TIF financing? What would a Republican say about Zoning variances or parking fines? Do Democrats have unique beliefs on pet licensing, class B liquor licenses, or joint purchasing agreements? What would Republicans do to reduce the duplex vacancy rate? How would a Democrat approach asbestos abatement contracts?

These are the types of issues that are the responsibility of the Village Government. They do not, in my view, have even a remote relationship to partisan politics.

So come next year, when you hear whispering from a neighbor that one candidate or another is a hard right, reactionary fascist or a left wing, bleeding heart communist, I challenge you to do two things.

1. Read the candidates literature or listen to him/her speak. See if you agree with the candidate on the issues rather than making your decision based on a label applied to him/her by someone else.

2. Ask the rumor-monger which particular municipal issues they believe will be affected by that candidate's alleged party affiliation.

We have enough partisanship at the state and national levels to cause division and bitterness. Let us not let it infect our Village politics.