Here is my column that ran in the Washington County Daily News yesterday.

After much debate and a second vote by the County Board, Washington County will have a county executive. The structural change in government offers the citizens of Washington County an opportunity to reset the direction of the county for years to come.

The vote by the County Board last week to change the county’s form of government from a county administrator to a county executive came after the same board rejected the idea in June. Washington County has long had a form of government where the executive function is delegated to a hired administrator by the County Board. The county administrator is unelected and responsible to the County Board that hired him or her.

There is nothing inherently wrong with a county administrator form of government. In it, the elected County Board exercises both the legislative and executive functions of government with the executive functions being completed by a hired employee. This form of government ensures that the executive function will be completed by a competent executive, but all of the power is retained by the County Board.

The choice by the County Board to enact a county executive form of government represents a distinct ceding of power from the legislative branch of government to the executive branch of government. An elected county executive has to power to hire and fire department heads and veto County Board actions. Perhaps most important of all, an elected county executive is responsible to the voters, not the County Board. The County Board will no longer be able to fire a recalcitrant executive. In our county’s new form of government, the executive branch will truly be an independent, coequal branch of government.

The two things that a county executive form of government provides are accountability and direction. In our current county administrator form of government, accountability is diffused and it is difficult for citizens to hold their county government responsible. For example, if a county citizen is upset with a pockmarked county road, or the fee for county parks, or county transit, what can he do?

He can complain to the relevant county officials, but they are all ultimately responsible to the County Board. A citizen can complain to his or her County Board supervisor, but no single supervisor can enact change. It would take a citizen, or a coalition of citizens, complaining and getting 14 individual County Board supervisors to support making a change. If those supervisors will not act, it would take finding 14 people of like mind to run for office and win in order to change the makeup of the County Board. Ultimately, the county administrator form of government insulates the county bureaucracy from accountability.

As we see in other counties that already have an elected county executive who is responsible to the voters, having a single executive allows the citizens to hold that executive accountable if he underperforms or otherwise misbehaves. The county executive is not wholly responsible for policy, but he or she is responsible for the fair and quality execution of that policy. That kind of accountability has a ripple effect through any large organization.

The second thing that an elected county executive provides is the opportunity to establish a vision for the county. Washington County is in transition. While still largely rural with important rural interests, the county is becoming increasingly urban with important commercial and residential interests. What will the Washington County of 2025, 2030, or 2050 look like? With an interstate, land to build, airports, and a fantastic workforce, will Washington County aggressively compete for the economic growth being spurred in the rest of southeast Wisconsin? Or will we prefer to leverage the county’s idyllic natural beauty to attract commuters and nature enthusiasts? Or something in between? What is the right mix and balance?

These are the things that a county executive will help define and give the voters the opportunity to choose the direction they want. And, more importantly, if a county executive takes the county down a path that the voters do not want, it only takes a single election to change direction.

As candidates for county executive step forward to ask for our votes over the next few months, I welcome an array of competing visions for the future of our county so that we, the voters, may debate and decide the future direction of Washington County.

My column for the Washington County Daily News is online and in print. This week it’s actually about Washington County. Pick up a copy!

After much debate and a second vote by the County Board, Washington County will have a county executive. The structural change in government offers the citizens of Washington County an opportunity to reset the direction of the county for years to come.

[…]

The second thing that an elected county executive provides is the opportunity to establish a vision for the county. Washington County is in transition. While still largely rural with important rural interests, the county is becoming increasingly urban with important commercial and residential interests. What will the Washington County of 2025, 2030, or 2050 look like? With an interstate, land to build, airports, and a fantastic workforce, will Washington County aggressively compete for the economic growth being spurred in the rest of southeast Wisconsin? Or will we prefer to leverage the county’s idyllic natural beauty to attract commuters and nature enthusiasts? Or something in between? What is the right mix and balance?

These are the things that a county executive will help define and give the voters the opportunity to choose the direction they want. And, more importantly, if a county executive takes the county down a path that the voters do not want, it only takes a single election to change direction.

As candidates for county executive step forward to ask for our votes over the next few months, I welcome an array of competing visions for the future of our county so that we, the voters, may debate and decide the future direction of Washington County.

Here’s my column that ran in the Washington County Daily News on Tuesday.

Last week this column covered a proposal by the Washington County Planning and Parks Department to impost a new annual fee on the 20,312 private onsite wastewater treatment systems in the county. The passionate opposition to the proposed $11 fee reminds us that the fires that heated the tea party movement and continue to burn for President Trump are still very hot in Washington County.

For what was supposed to be just another sleepy public meeting at 7:35 on a Thursday morning, well over on hundred agitated citizens showed up to have their say. The main room overflowed into two other rooms. At one point, the meeting was paused for 15 minutes while they removed the chairs to be in compliance with the fire code.

By the time the meeting was over, hours later, over sixty people had spoken. Many more people had signed up to speak, but had to leave for reason or another as the hours dragged on. When the speakers had finished, 146 pages of letters and emails that were sent to public officials regarding the proposed POWTS fee were read. The people were almost universally in opposition to the proposed fee, but the commentary exposed the many fissures in the public’s trust of government.

Several of the speakers pointed out that the meeting was being held at an incredibly inconvenient time for anyone who works. One speaker pointed out that everyone in the room was of retirement age — to the jovial objection of a younger woman swimming in the sea of grey. The speakers and letters continued to emphasize that a government that really cares about what the people think makes an effort to schedule public hearings for a time when people can actually attend.

Some of the opposition centered on the fact that the proposed fee is simply a tax by another name and that government fees inevitably and unrelentingly go up. The wise citizens of Washington County are not to be bamboozled by arbitrary word games. They know that money being taken out of their pockets by their government is still money they no longer have, whether referred to as a tax or a fee by government officials.

Much of the outrage had to do with how the money from the proposed fee was to be spent. One woman pointed out that the first nine items in the list of expenses were for salaries, benefits, overtime, retirement, etc. for county employees. These items comprise more than 75% of the entire costs associated with the POWTS program. It is an enormous cost for such a rudimentary government function. Further larded into the cost are expenses for membership dues, advertising, travel, lodging, vehicles, and all of the other expenses that seem so unnecessary and wasteful.

One speaker highlighted the fact that Washington County still insists on having 26 county supervisors – each of which is paid a salary, per diem, and expenses. Meanwhile, the county continues to run Washington County Fair Park and a golf course.

Another speaker pointed out that POWTS owners already pay a county sales tax on all of the construction and maintenance of their POWTS that far exceeds the money allocated to the POWTS program. County citizens have not forgotten that the county sales tax was originally imposed as a temporary necessity to pay for a handful of critical infrastructure projects, but now it is a permanent county fixture.

While the written and spoken opposition to the proposed POWTS fee was wide-ranging and fierce, there was a common theme: The people are sick and tired of government that doesn’t listen to them, doesn’t care about them, and doesn’t respect them. Politicians and government bureaucrats too often operate in a world detached from the realities of the people they are supposed to serve. In this case, a proposal for a silly $11 fee/tax revealed just how large that detachment is.

My column for the Washington County Daily News is online and in print. I was marveling at a truly fascinating public meeting regarding the proposed POWTS fee. I’m hearing whispers that the County Board is just going to ram it through. They do so at their own peril. Here’s a sample:

Last week this column covered a proposal by the Washington County Planning and Parks Department to impost a new annual fee on the 20,312 private onsite wastewater treatment systems in the county. The passionate opposition to the proposed $11 fee reminds us that the fires that heated the tea party movement and continue to burn for President Trump are still very hot in Washington County.

For what was supposed to be just another sleepy public meeting at 7:35 on a Thursday morning, well over on hundred agitated citizens showed up to have their say. The main room overflowed into two other rooms. At one point, the meeting was paused for 15 minutes while they removed the chairs to be in compliance with the fire code.

By the time the meeting was over, hours later, over sixty people had spoken. Many more people had signed up to speak, but had to leave for reason or another as the hours dragged on. When the speakers had finished, 146 pages of letters and emails that were sent to public officials regarding the proposed POWTS fee were read. The people were almost universally in opposition to the proposed fee, but the commentary exposed the many fissures in the public’s trust of government.

[…]

While the written and spoken opposition to the proposed POWTS fee was wide-ranging and fierce, there was a common theme: The people are sick and tired of government that doesn’t listen to them, doesn’t care about them, and doesn’t respect them. Politicians and government bureaucrats too often operate in a world detached from the realities of the people they are supposed to serve. In this case, a proposal for a silly $11 fee/tax revealed just how large that detachment is.

Here is my full column that ran in the Washington County Daily News yesterday.

Perhaps taking their cue from the Republicans in the Legislature, the Washington County Board is considering implementing a new fee on Washington County taxpayers to do something that the county has already been doing for nearly 20 years. The public hearing being held by the Washington County Planning and Parks Department is at 7:35 a.m. on Thursday. Since, like many people, I work and cannot attend a public meeting at 7:35 a.m. on a weekday, I will offer some thoughts in this space.

The new fee being considered is to pay for tracking the maintenance of private onsite wastewater treatment systems (POWTS). Much of Washington County is rural and residents do not have access to municipal sewer systems, so they install and maintain a private septic system. There are about 20,312 parcels in the county with a POWTS. The state has mandated since 2000 that counties track and report to make sure that these private systems are properly maintained. Washington County has been complying with this state mandate with the use of general county funds since then. The new annual fee being considered is $11 for the vast majority of POWTS owners.

The POWTS tracking system is fairly rudimentary. Every three years, the county sends a postcard reminder to the POWTS owners to remind them that they need to have their system maintained. The POWTS owner contracts with a private company that inspects the system, completes any necessary maintenance or cleaning, and then notifies the county that it is complete. The POWTS owner bears the cost of all of this.

Philosophically, there is nothing wrong with a fee to fund a government service. The difference between a fee and a tax is that a fee is usually voluntary and charged to the specific person who is receiving the direct benefit of the service. For example, a fee for a marriage license is perfectly reasonable. The couple getting married is receiving the direct benefit of the county service and there is no rational reason that all of the other taxpayers should bear the burden.

In the case of a new POWTS maintenance fee, it is not voluntary and the entire county is receiving the benefit. For the vast majority of POWTS owners, it is not optional. There are not any other waste treatment options available to them, so they must install and maintain a POWTS at their own expense. The purpose of the government tracking the maintenance of them is to help ensure that the water supply for all county residents is not unduly polluted. Given that the fee is not optional for POWTS owners and every county taxpayer is receiving the benefit, the fee being proposed would be more correctly described as a selective tax.

Furthermore, remember that this is a service that the county has been providing for nearly 20 years. As they consider supporting this service with a standalone fee, there has not been any corollary proposal to reduce the county property tax levy or sales tax by a corresponding amount. The fee is just in addition to all of the other taxes that county taxpayers are already paying. As presented, this is not a discussion about whether or not this particular service should be funded with a fee or the general tax. It is about whether the county should charge a fee for something they were already doing and then just use the liberated general tax revenue to spend on something else. It is a straightforward path to more spending.

Finally, one must really question the cost. At $11 per parcel, the proposed fee would raise roughly $230,000 per year. Look back at the third paragraph for how this program works. It is sending a postcard every three years and logging that the work is complete. It is something that could be completed by an intern with a spreadsheet. $230,000 per year?

In the program cost detail shared by the Planning and Parks Department, the annual program cost is actually listed at $227,527.28. Only $2,200 is allocated for printing, copying, and postage. The rest is for wages ($126,370), overtime ($400), benefits ($45,100.60), advertising ($300), office supplies ($600), vehicles ($6,300), conference fees ($1,400), cost allocation for planning ($25,578), and on and on. That is a tremendous amount of overhead and larded-up costs for a very, very simple POWTS maintenance program. I find it difficult to imagine why POWTS owners should be charged an extra fee to shoulder the costs of things like conference fees and advertising.

The proposed POWTS fee looks suspiciously like another money grab by a government to continue to fund bloat and waste. The Washington County Board should categorically reject it and apologize to the taxpayers for ever suggesting it.

My column for the Washington County Daily News is online and in print. Here’s a taste:

Perhaps taking their cue from the Republicans in the Legislature, the Washington County Board is considering implementing a new fee on Washington County taxpayers to do something that the county has already been doing for nearly 20 years. The public hearing being held by the Washington County Planning and Parks Department is at 7:35 a.m. on Thursday. Since, like many people, I work and cannot attend a public meeting at 7:35 a.m. on a weekday, I will offer some thoughts in this space.

The new fee being considered is to pay for tracking the maintenance of private onsite wastewater treatment systems (POWTS). Much of Washington County is rural and residents do not have access to municipal sewer systems, so they install and maintain a private septic system. There are about 20,312 parcels in the county with a POWTS. The state has mandated since 2000 that counties track and report to make sure that these private systems are properly maintained. Washington County has been complying with this state mandate with the use of general county funds since then. The new annual fee being considered is $11 for the vast majority of POWTS owners.

[…]

As presented, this is not a discussion about whether or not this particular service should be funded with a fee or the general tax. It is about whether the county should charge a fee for something they were already doing and then just use the liberated general tax revenue to spend on something else. It is a straightforward path to more spending.

Finally, one must really question the cost. At $11 per parcel, the proposed fee would raise roughly $230,000 per year. Look back at the third paragraph for how this program works. It is sending a postcard every three years and logging that the work is complete. It is something that could be completed by an intern with a spreadsheet. $230,000 per year?

In the program cost detail shared by the Planning and Parks Department, the annual program cost is actually listed at $227,527.28. Only $2,200 is allocated for printing, copying, and postage. The rest is for wages ($126,370), overtime ($400), benefits ($45,100.60), advertising ($300), office supplies ($600), vehicles ($6,300), conference fees ($1,400), cost allocation for planning ($25,578), and on and on. That is a tremendous amount of overhead and larded-up costs for a very, very simple POWTS maintenance program. I find it difficult to imagine why POWTS owners should be charged an extra fee to shoulder the costs of things like conference fees and advertising.

The proposed POWTS fee looks suspiciously like another money grab by a government to continue to fund bloat and waste. The Washington County Board should categorically reject it and apologize to the taxpayers for ever suggesting it.

Here is my full column that ran in the Washington County Daily News yesterday.

The Washington County Board of Supervisors is considering changing the structure of county government to create a county executive instead of the current county administrator structure. The County Board should move swiftly to enact this change in time for the voters of Washington County to elect their first county executive next April.

Wisconsin allows for three forms of county government that have progressively more powerful executive functions. The first form has a very weak administrative coordinator. In this form of government, the county board appoints a coordinator who has very limited power, but is responsible for coordinating and executing the orders from the board. The coordinator does not appoint department heads and does not have any independent budget authority. Thirty three Wisconsin counties use this structure.

The second form has a stronger executive function held by county administrator. The county board still appoints the county administrator, but the administrator has the authority to prepare and present a budget, appoint and remove department heads with confirmation from the county board, and coordinate departments. This is the form of government that Washington County uses along with 28 other counties.

The third form of county government empowers an elected county executive with responsibility for the executive functions of government. In this form, all of the voters in the county elect a single executive. As such, the county executive cannot be removed by the county board. Only the governor can remove a county executive for cause. The county executive has all of the powers and responsibilities of a county administrator, but also has the power to veto county board actions and remove department heads without board confirmation. Eleven, mostly more urban, Wisconsin counties have a county executive including neighboring Fond du Lac, Waukesha, and Milwaukee counties.

The main benefit for Washington County of switching to a county executive form of government is that is gives the electors a single person who represents the entire county. That person would be able to set a vision and direction for the county, as well as be held responsible for the overall performance of county government.

In the current form of Washington County’s government, there are 26 supervisors (still way too many) who each represent a few thousand citizens. They elect a county chairperson, other board officers, and appoint the county administrator. Each county board supervisor is elected to represent the interests of his or her constituents — as it should be. Nobody on the board represents the entire county.

Similarly, if the citizens are dissatisfied with the direction of county government, it is extremely difficult to make their will known across a slate of 26 board supervisors. To enact a change in direction, at least 14 new people must run and win across the county to build a new majority on the County Board. And if the County Board passes something outrageous, there is not any veto check on their action like there is at the state and federal levels of government.

By having a county executive, Washington County would have a single person who would represent the entire county’s interests with businesses, state government, and other interests. The citizens of the county would also have a single person to take their grievances to when a county department fails them. It would make county government more nimble and more responsive to the citizens and external interests.

The down side of having a county executive is that the legislative part of county government, the Board of Supervisors, would have to cede some of their current power over executive functions. This is a small price to pay for the benefits a county executive would bring to the county.

Our nation has a long history of having three separate, distinct branches of government that balance and check each other. Washington County has reached a level of population, complexity, and maturity that make this the right time to create an independent executive branch.