Dear Judiciary Committee Members:
I will not be able to attend the Judiciary Committee hearing on County Board Size, but I would appreciate it if the following remarks could be passed on to the Committee members.
I favor keeping the size of the board at 38 for the following reasons:
1. Since 1990, the County has experienced an 11% population increase. I don't think it makes sense for a region to reduce representation at the same time it is experiencing double-digit percentage population growth.
2. The recent election for County Executive demonstrated that the County is horribly divided between North and South. Since a reduction in Board size will be perceived as favoring Oshkosh, a board size reduction at this time will only further exacerbate the tensions. Please keep in mind that the mere perception of favoritism will be more of a divisive factor than whether or not the reduction in board size really does favor South over North.
3. As the number of seats decreases, the ability of wealthy special interests to control the governing body increases. The best example is the City of Oshkosh, in which the local Chamber of Commerce through its Political Action Committee managed to get all of their endorsed candidates elected on April 3 (barring a recount that might put Shirley Mattox ahead of Frank Tower).
4. Reducing the size of the Board will increase the numbers of constituents in each district, and consequently make it more likely that "well-known" and or wealthy special interest candidates will be more likely to win seats. The best example here is the case of William Castle. When Mr. Castle left the Oshkosh Common Council in the mid 1990s, he decided to run for County Board. He was much better known than his opponent, Bill Wingren. However, because of the relatively small size of the supervisory district, Wingren was able to meet and shake hands with almost every voter, and so Castle's special interest Chamber of Commerce connections and name recognition were not as influential.
Contrast that with what happened in the Oshkosh Common Council elections recently. Mr. Castle did not participate in the League of Women Voters debate, he did almost no campaigning, and in fact his entire attitude toward the race was that he was only running because there were open seats. In an at-large system with only 7 seats, the combination of Chamber of Commerce endorsement and advertising on his behalf, combined with his name recognition, put him in office. There was little chance that Erik Barlow, Terry Knutson, or even Shirley Mattox -- all of whom are arguably more in touch with the typical Oshkosh middle class voter--could compete with Castle in a district of over 30,000 potential voters.
My point is not to criticize Bill Castle (who is a decent human being), but to suggest to you that when you reduce the size of the board, you necessarily increase the size of the districts and you make it more likely that "well connected", "name recognized" candidates will get elected.
5. The major criticisms of the 38 member board are that it is "unwieldy" and "expensive to operate efficiently." I suggest to you respectfully that these are red herring criticisms. For one thing, "unwieldy" is another way of saying "small-d democratic." For another thing, in spite of what our local Gannett press says, Winnebago County appears factually to be one of the most responsible in the state as regards budget issues. I have strong disagreements with the board's spending priorities, but I see little evidence to suggest that around the state smaller boards are more likely to be at the service of the common taxpayer as opposed to the big business interests in the region. In fact, as I suggested earlier, a smaller board is more likely to be backed with wealthy special interest representatives, thus moving the government even further away from the common people.
I do not want any of my comments to be interpreted as saying that there are no problems with County Government, or that I believe everything is just dandy as it is. Indeed, I believe that government is in crisis at all levels, from local city councils to the federal legislature. However, I have seen little evidence to suggest that our governing crisis is the result of too much representation at the local, state, or national level.
If you do decide to reduce the size of the County Board, I hope you do it as a result of examining sound and compelling evidence that there is connection between a 38-member board and poor governing decisions. To reduce the size of the board only on the basis of a "hunch" that the size is a problem, or because of pressure from the local press, or because of the self-serving "research" from the "professional government" crowd, would be a travesty and set County government back.
My favorite County Supervisors, even though I frequently disagree with them on issues, are Mike Norton, Julie Leschke, Tom Pech Jr., Bill Wingren, Jeanette Diakoff, and Mark Madison. I believe fervently that people like them exist in each of the 38 supervisory districts. What we need to do is find those people, encourage them to run for supervisory seats, yet keep the districts small enough so that those folks can have the maximum possible chance to defeat entrenched incumbents or well connected special interests.
Thank you for your time.
Best Regards,
Tony Palmeri