No More Taxation Without Representation
Right now, there are a number of unelected boards in Wisconsin that have taxing authority. This has become a huge problem because it amounts to taxation without representation. These boards can (and do) jack up taxes by extraordinary amounts and the citizens don’t have any recourse whatsoever. The technical school boards and MMSD come to mind. Hopefully, this practice can be put to an end.
This bill is being circulated for co-sponsorship today by Senator Mary Lazich. It would replace all of the various unelected boards (except the baseball park district board) with elected boards. The principle is very simple. If a government body can vote to tax the people, then it should be elected by the people. Who can argue with that?
I hope that this bill gains wide bipartisan support. It should. It’s not a partisan issue. It’s a small “r” republican issue. The people of Wisconsin have earned the right to vote.
UPDATE: The MJS is reporting that this bill is by senators Alberta Darling and Alan Lasee.
You know damn good and well who’ll argue with that. I don’t even have to name the usual suspects. We all know them by heart now. I’d be surprised if 1. it was passed, and 2. Doyle signed it.(which he wouldn’t)
Posted by Billiam on July 30, 2007 at 1521 hrs
I have a question about mechanics. I see the number of uncontested elections now at the local and County level. It’s hard to get good people to run to fill the offices we have now.
Are you at all concerned that it may be tough to find people willing to put up with the folderol that getting elected in 2007 entails? Do you have any concerns that only the most strident will even seek these positions? Do you see any possible downside to changing the way these boards are administered?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 30, 2007 at 1650 hrs
This just seems like such a common sense move. Perhaps it will get support from both sides of the aisle. Those who oppose this are making it very clear that they do not have faith in the electorate, and I find that sort of arrogance very annoying.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 30, 2007 at 1711 hrs
Don’t be so annnoyed by the lack of faith in the electorate. It is actually an American tradition. Remember, the Electoral College elects the President, not the people. Even US senators weren’t elected by the people until what, 1915 or so. That said…I do support these boards being elected out of principle, but I also know that the results won’t change much. Plenty of elected officials who promise not to raise taxes later vote to raise taxes. As a rule, it is much easier to run on no tax increases, and virtually impossible to govern that way.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 30, 2007 at 1720 hrs
I understand the sentiments behind the bill. But all of these officials in question are already elected indirectly. We elect legislators, mayors, governors, and other legislative/executive members who are responsible for their appointment and confirmation. What’s wrong with the current system? If you don’t like the choices your elected officials are making, vote your elected officials out of office.
Considering how little the average American knows these days about how our country is governed or those doing the governing, I’m not sure I’d expect them to do any better a job in picking officials for small offices like the ones listed in this bill. One only needs to look at the train wrecks that regularly occur in California as a result of their desire for direct democracy. Millions of people end up trying to make complex decisions on policy based on well-funded pandering and 30-second demagoguery.
For me, it’s not about a particular outcome in one direction or the other. I just don’t think the average Wisconsinite will do a better job making these decisions than the politicians they can already barely be bothered to learn anything about. In fact, I think they’ll probably do a much worse job.
I’d rather have a governor and a Senate elected by 50% of voters handle these matters than a bunch of yokels elected by 15% of the voters in some spring election nobody’s paying attention to. And if you think this will make voters pay more attention to spring elections, it’s not gonna happen. If people can’t be bothered to care about electing mayors, or town board members, or DPI Superintendents, why do you think they’ll care about electing members to a cultural arts district or tech college board?
Posted by Recess Supervisor on July 30, 2007 at 1817 hrs
Are referendums are over-representation then?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 30, 2007 at 1836 hrs
Fair question. Personally, I believe referenda only serve to take away power from elected officials, and accordingly cause people to become even less engaged in the selection of their representatives. I’d rather have fewer referenda and more accountability from elected officials than more referenda that circumvent elected officlals and lead people to pay less attention to what they’re up to.
For example, as long as people have direct control over school spending (to an extent), what’s the incentive in paying attention to what the school board does? As a result, many school boards are filled with people that have questionable credentials and, in some cases, are simply the handmaidens of the local teachers’ association. It’s easier to get people to show up and vote for a referendum than it is to get them to care about how their schools are actually run, and who’s actually running them.
I’ll be the first to admit that it’s not a black or white matter - and as it goes, a specific funding issue is pretty simple, as political issues go. Letting voters have their say on a specific spending proposal is a lot easier than, say, letting them vote on the state’s school funding formula - and causes a lot less harm in the aggregate if they make a poor decision.
Some people would have us vote for every official, on every spending issue, and every policy decision, and those people are crazy. This isn’t Athens. 300 million people on a hill isn’t an effective form of governance.
Two-thirds of Americans can’t name a Supreme Court justice. Sixty percent can’t name five of the ten commandments. Another sixty percent can’t name the three branches of government.
If those people could be barred from voting, I’d be all for this proposal. But otherwise, no way in hell. The fewer decisions they’re involved in, the better. Elitist? I suppose. But so were our founding fathers.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on July 30, 2007 at 2031 hrs
it would be much better to have an appointed board made up of elected officials but this is a step in the right direction.
Once this is done maybe we can change the practice of allowing un-elected bureucrats to write laws that we call “Administrative Rules”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 30, 2007 at 2103 hrs
Nice to see I would still be allowed to vote in the Recess Supervisor’s world
I’ll submit that the problem is too many layers of government.
Posted by steveegg on July 30, 2007 at 2117 hrs
Dang, Recess Supervisor. With such cogent opinions, there’s no chance this thread will be derailed the way I’d hoped. I wanted it to head towards the side-track of the public’s hypocrisies regarding public-financed sports arenas, the abhorrence of taxation and creeping socialism, and the open-records exemptions for these various sports entities.
I think Owen wants this law so his people could run on a “government doesn’t work” platform. Once elected, they’d proceed to prove it.
Posted by John Foust on July 30, 2007 at 2122 hrs
Sweet. I have “people” again. JF, have your people call my people and we’ll get you on one of these boards.
Posted by Owen on July 30, 2007 at 2126 hrs
Well hurray, Owen. Let us invoke James Otis.
Taxpayers must be represented. Period.
hiho
MpetersonPosted by Mpeterson on July 30, 2007 at 2328 hrs
Don’t get me wrong, Owen. By “people” I meant groupies and fellow travelers, not automatons. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with groupies.
And to appeal to your city-council-loving soul, I’ll add that I’m always appalled at dereliction of duty and the rubber-stamping of responsibility. I see it in small town government all the time. They appoint a committee of the unelected, then rely on their advice without significant discussion. Worse still, they rely on advice from even the un-appointed.
In nearby Fort Atkinson, for example, for years they’ve relied on a private, non-elected economic development group to shape their city’s decisions about growth, their industrial park, industrial bonding, TIFs, etc. The council accepts their report and rarely questions it. It’s a good ol’ boys club, in other words. They don’t get any city funding, so they’re not open. No reporters ever attend their meetings. No opportunity for public input until they hand a completed report to the Council.
In Jefferson, for years we had a similar ED group making decisions for the city that met in private - until I dug to discover how they were in violation of the open meetings law. They disbanded and the city created a new committee. At the county level, there was a similar private group. No reporters, no public input. For years, they received their full operating budget from the county and the cities. Every year, no one bothered to check if they’d actually delivered the deliverables listed in their contract. I did, and found they’d never delivered - and to top it off, they refused to deliver. Off to the DA and AG again on open records violations, and they disbanded.
Even if you had elected officials, if they acted like many other elected officials, they can find ways to defer the guiding decisions to someone else. You know, like hiring consultants and then ignoring their advice, which is a two-fer if you’re upset about spending to begin with.
Posted by John Foust on July 31, 2007 at 0615 hrs
I have no problem with appointed commissions that are charged with making reconmendations to the elected officials who would then actually make the decisions re: taxes etc. But to simply appoint a commision or board and then let them do whatever they want is just wrong. The line of accountability gets broken and too much power is shifted.
IMHO the best solution would be too take away these boards’ power to do anything except reconmendations and require the lege to actually vote on the tax increases etc. that the boards advocate.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 31, 2007 at 0814 hrs
Can’t we just vote to get rid of the boards altogether?
Posted by Shana on July 31, 2007 at 0831 hrs
You can do whatever you want, remember, this is America, a “Free Country” you just have to get permission from the bureaucracy before you do anything.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 31, 2007 at 0838 hrs
I’ve got mixed feelings about this proposal. It is a good idea, especially when the board has the power to add significantly to the tax roll. It’s a bad idea for very small boards that do not levy significantly. My case:
I am the secretary of our local sanitary district (population approximately 500), meaning I was appointed by the Town board to the sanitary district board. We have the power to levy taxes, and we do so annually. The SD levy on my tax bill is a little less than one percent of the bill.
Now, if I and the other members of the board (there are 3 of us plus a clerk) had to run for our position, I can guarantee that at least 2 of the members wouldn’t bother. It’s too much of a hassle to go through all of that for a board position that pays nothing but sometimes demands a lot of attention.
Each time we have a vacancy on our board, it takes months to find a replacement, someone to volunteer to serve. How long will it take to find someone who would be willing to go through the machinations of taking out papers, getting signatures, etc. etc.
I’m not against the bill in total, it’s a good thing for large boards that significantly impact tax rolls. But it is going to be a great burden to the small town boards like mine.
I think there should be a limit on how “much” a board is able to tax (perhaps link it as a percentage of the total tax bill). If it exceeds a certain value, then the board should be elected.
Or, as an alternative, I would be happy to drop the ability to levy taxes from our sanitary district’s job description (remove that ability from the statutes) and allow the elected board who appointed us consider and approve our recommended levy.
Posted by Larry on July 31, 2007 at 1001 hrs
Or how about the appointed board can manage the sanitary system, but tax increases have to be passed through and approved by the elected town board?
I don’t have a problem with appointed boards managing things. I have a problem with them having the power to raise taxes.
Posted by Owen on July 31, 2007 at 1009 hrs
Just glancing briefly through the bill, the case for requiring elections for town sanitary districts is weak. The current law already gives the public the power to require election, and not appointment, of commissioners:
Upon petition
of a number of electors of the town equaling at least 20 percent of the vote cast for
governor in the district at the last election, the district must change the method of
selection of commissioners from appointment to election, and if a petition is approved
by the electors of the district in a referendum, must change the method of selection
of commissioners from election to appointment.For the case of the small sanitary district, this appears to be an appropriate way of addressing this issue. It ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
Posted by Larry on July 31, 2007 at 1128 hrs
I too have mixed feelings about this. Technical College presidents have proven to be very adept at stacking boards with their friends, you can see that in the levy growth. I also do not think this is a good opportunity for elected representation for the reasons RS cites. What you would get is elections decided by resumes and I fear TC presidents would adapt in whatever way they needed to get their friends with the best resumes to run.
I’d like to see the budgets go through an elected body. I’m just not sure which elected body it would be.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 31, 2007 at 1208 hrs
These appointed Tech boards are a joke. They’re all lackeys of the administrators who recommend them to county board chairs. The meetings never get media coverage. The votes are always unanimous. Presidents like the one in Eau Claire get to vacation two months in Florida during winter months while on the taxpayer payroll, and nothing is said. There is zero accountability. Its time to elect board members, and hold those members to account for all those bureaucrats milking the system.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 31, 2007 at 1841 hrs
The tech schools do seem to be the big problem at which this bill is aimed. So perhaps it ought to start there rather than get stopped by these good arguments about others sorts of boards.
Or even just start with the worst case, the tech school in Milwaukee, where the teachers get paid more than the faculty at the universities (public AND private, for pity’s sake) in Milwaukee?
Or, how about tech school boards recommend budgets that have to be approved by every county board in each tech school district? Or at least a joint committee of representatives from each county board in each tech school district?
But that there is a bill about this at all to get the debate going is good work by leggies—and Sen. Darling owes us this, after what she cost us in leading the push to sales-tax us in several counties for decades to come for the stadium.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 01, 2007 at 1326 hrs
Total Entries: 20000
Total Comments: 134051
Most Recent Entry: 05/25/2012 06:26 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 10:25 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 120
Total anonymous users: 1
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 11:03 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).