Forgive me for sounding like Andy Rooney, but have you ever wondered why five out of seven members of the Green Bay School Board are female while this year’s City Council will have a maximum of one female out of its 12 members? Furthermore, if every woman on the ballot for County Board is successful in April, it will still leave only seven females on a board of 26.

Celestine Jeffreys, who has been a very effective alderperson for the past several years, has decided to make a run for the School Board this year leaving Amy Kocha
as the lone female on the ballot for Green Bay City Council. Celestine may, in the near future, give us an appraisal of the difference between the two governing bodies and why she preferred the academic setting. In the meantime, her decision got me thinking about the five women who served on the Council in 2000 and the fact that, like Celestine, four of those five left voluntarily rather than being removed by the voters.

That type of attrition is significant when considering the fact that men have rarely left office unless defeated at the polls. It is even more so when viewed against the gender makeup and longevity of School Board members.

By the way, that City Council in 2000 may have been the best I ever worked with and, while their successors were certainly decent people, the voluntary departure of four talented alders within a couple of years is disconcerting. Equally disconcerting is the fact that less than a handful of women have even sought those seats since then.
Linda Queoff served one term on the Council and left in 2002. She has said that she loved the experience but enjoys what she’s doing now which includes serving on the City Planning Commission, volunteering at church and spending time with her family. Linda has also dedicated an awful lot of time to the School District’s Enrollment Task Force. She hints at why these roles are preferable to her term as alderperson by acknowledging that she felt that she “could serve best in other ways and in roles where everyone is respected regardless of where they stand.”

Beth Zeise Mader also left the Council in 2002 and cites timing as the primary reason. She became engaged to be married while serving the City and made starting a family her top priority. While she fully enjoyed the learning experience of serving on the Council, there was likely nothing that could have kept her involved at that point in her life.

Jane Hansen served from 1998 to 2002 and left to replace her husband on the County Board so he could devote his full attention to his State Senate duties. She left that role shortly thereafter and seems quite content to be a doting grandmother
and very active political spouse. Jane remembers fondly her partnership with Kathy Johnson in leading the City Council but she too raised the civility issue in declaring that, “the issues always needed a pro and con but it’s much more rewarding when the parties are respectful regardless of position.”

Kathy Johnson is the only one of the five women who served beyond 2002, leaving one term later to concentrate on the County Board from which she is voluntarily departing this year. Kathy cited her successful private career as a prime motivator
in scaling back her public duties in 2004 and explained that, “Women look at things differently than men, probably because of the Venus and Mars concept. We definitely need more of us in local government in the future.”

We do indeed. It is disappointing that only eight County Board races are contested in April but it is particularly discouraging to have half of our population so poorly represented on City and County ballots in general. And, it is downright sad when bold and talented women succeed at the polls and, for whatever reason, choose another path so soon after their election. - Paul Jadin

As featured in the December 2009/January 2010 BBJ magazine 

Ritter Forum showcases best in collaboration

In 2003, prior to my tenure at the Chamber of Commerce, President Bill Hynes of St. Norbert College approached me about resurrecting and moderating the Ritter Forum. The Forum’s purpose was to examine local government issues and generate a dialogue among students, staff and practitioners about cooperation and best practices, but it had been dormant for several years and needed a new direction.

I gladly assumed the responsibility on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce and proceeded to coordinate two annual conferences at the college which focused on local government finances. They were reasonably successful in that they brought most of the area’s municipal officials to the table but nobody left with a specific action plan which was particularly troubling to the forum’s benefactor, Dan Ritter.

Mr. Ritter wanted to see us tackle something that would bring about lasting positive change in the Green Bay area, and he wanted the dialog that the Forum facilitated to be the catalyst. Fortunately, local units of government had recently considered the possibility of police consolidation and, while most of the suburbs decried the notion, there did appear, at least to me, to be a foundation for further dialog. Unfortunately, after interviewing each of the community leaders about their appetite to revisit the issue I learned that I was wrong. Police consolidation was a back-burner issue at best.

However, during these conversations with municipal leaders it became clear that virtually everyone was willing to tackle some other aspect of government services and the leading candidate for a Ritter focus quickly became fire department collaboration.

In 2006, with Nan Nelson from my staff and Amy Sorenson from St. Norbert College very ably providing the organizational framework, we convened the first Ritter Forum on Fire Services with fire chiefs, mayors, village presidents and city/village managers in attendance. Over the course of the next year we also received help from the City of Green Bay Purchasing Department, the County Planning Department and a handful of energetic undergraduates at St. Norbert.

It was, however, the chiefs who, early in the process, took ownership of the effort and dedicated themselves to sustainable outcomes, which is exactly what Mr. Ritter was demanding. It didn’t hurt that we were catching these dedicated administrators at a time when the Mutual Aid Box Alarm System (MABAS) needed to be agreed upon and implemented. All of the cooperation and trust that was necessary on that effort carried
over to our Ritter project.

After about a year of cooperation on purchasing through Linda DuPuis at the City of Green Bay, another six months of examination of training, inspection and maintenance issues and even a few months of seriously exploring functional consolidation the chiefs and De Pere city administrator Larry Delo came up with a master agreement and several addenda that De Pere’s City Attorney Judy Schmidt-Lehman fine tuned from a legal perspective.

These agreements provide the basis for collaboration and cooperation on “operational and non-recurring administrative and support functions” and, by Jan. 1, 2010 could be signed by nearly 30 different government entities in Brown County. Much more important, however, is the fact that participants in the Ritter Forum, elected officials and administrators alike, have unanimously agreed to continue meeting and pursuing additional collaborative opportunities. St. Norbert College, through its new President Thomas Kunkel, and the Chamber of Commerce have emphatically agreed to continue as conveners, and Mr. Ritter has graciously offered to continue as the forum’s benefactor.

Further cause for optimism can be found in the fact that labor has been
kept informed throughout this process and rather than undermining it,
its leadership has made overtures of assistance and even encouraged
bolder steps. The recent announcement that Firefighters' Local 141 has
all four Brown County fire unions under its auspices is an additional plus.

To be sure, there is clearly a long way to go but we’ve managed to
create a recipe for communication, cooperation and even consolidation
and, while elected officials and facilitators help season the dish, it has
become clear that department heads were/are the primary ingredient
for success. I am particularly grateful for the fine work of Jeff Roemer of
Green Bay, Ed Jahnke of Howard, Eric Dunning of Ashwaubenon and
Chris Hohol of Bellevue.

When you really want to find out what makes a community tick, your first stop should be the Chamber of Commerce.

I followed that advice last month when I surveyed my own employees on why they feel it is "Better by the Bay." In other words, what distinguishes us, what do we feel comfortable bragging about and indeed, how have we earned the tagline that we are now employing? The answer, from 20 employees of the Green Bay Area Chamber of Commerce is, drum roll please…PANCAKES. Well, sort of.

Actually, the three pages of responses turned up eight basic themes, which are:

Packers. I’ve always called the Packers our Eiffel Tower and there’s no reason we shouldn’t lead with them when bragging about Titletown. Virtually every conversation with an outsider starts with some version of the rich and unique tradition that the community shares with its beloved team.

Attractions. Bay Beach, Heritage Hill, The Neville Museum, National Railroad Museum, Green Bay Botanical Garden, NEW Zoo, Lambeau Field, Resch Center, Weidner Center, Oneida Casino, Meyer Theatre, Kress Center, Barkhausen and many other venues provide plenty of opportunity to be informed, entertained and inspired.

Nature. Yes, Virginia, we are on the water, which is something that few Midwestern CEOs were aware of when surveyed last year. The river and bay provide ample opportunities for fishing, boating, wakeboarding and hunting while our proximity (see "accessibility") to other natural resources make camping, biking, hiking, skiing and bird-watching very enjoyable.

Community. My apologies to those who thought the "C" stood for climate. Unfortunately, we’re not quite there yet. We do, however, have a community that most people, including the staff of the Chamber of Commerce, describe as a "small-town atmosphere with big-city amenities." Green Bay natives extol the value of being "tight-knit." Indeed, others may argue that we’re so tight-knit that we can give the appearance of being exclusive. We need to work on that.

Accessibility. Location, location, location. Staff repeatedly mentioned geography and the fact that we are so close to Milwaukee, Madison, Chicago, the northwoods and Door County. What you can’t find here is only a day trip away and our quality transportation system (including Austin Straubel) makes those trips a lot easier. Staff also used the word "accessible" when referring to local government and community leaders. That’s a good thing.

Kids. Add quality education, great neighborhoods and strong values to the attractions and natural resources mentioned earlier and it’s no wonder that Kiplinger’s rated us among the top five cities in the country to which couples migrate or return when they have kids.

Economy. It’s diverse and healthy in spite of the national debacle we’ve experienced this year. Manufacturing continues to hold its own while we’ve grown in areas like health care, banking, insurance and tourism. Our influence in the trucking and food processing/packing areas is also extraordinary, and a great workforce with a typical Midwestern work ethic guarantees that we’ll be strong for decades to come.

Security. All of the above is rendered far less significant if the Green Bay area didn’t continue to enjoy a crime rate that is the envy of most communities our size along with a sizable public investment in the protection of people and property in Brown County.

There you have it. The next time someone asks why we’re so bold as to claim that it’s "Better by the Bay," tell them that the staff at the Chamber of Commerce insists it's all about the PANCAKES.

- Paul Jadin

This originally appeared in the August/September issue of the BBJ:

Fix what’s broken

The State’s Legislative Fiscal Bureau has determined that tax collections are short of projections by $1.6 billion which has sent the Governor and Joint Finance Committee back to the drawing board to develop a budget for the next biennium. The Governor is calling for 16 days of unpaid leave for state workers along with 1,100 layoffs (if contracts can’t be renegotiated) and rescission of the two percent pay increases that were granted to nonunion workers.

Cuts to shared revenue and school aids are almost certain to be a part of the budget-balancing recipe which means that local units of government will have to rethink their next budgets as well. Property tax increases are inevitable as are significant staff and program cuts.

This is all very painful but necessary medicine in this unprecedented economy but, at a time when bold and creative solutions are more likely to be given an appropriate hearing (i.e., "Never let a good crisis go to waste."), why is there still no talk of revamping the state pension system? The state has nearly 600,000 people covered by a defined benefit plan with assets of more than $90 billion and is collecting roughly $1.3 billion a year from employers. The City of Green Bay, Brown County and the Green Bay Area School District are paying a combined total of more than $26 million a year to the fund.1

The vast majority of public employers are paying 100 percent of this cost through labor agreements which, decades ago, eliminated any employee share. Trying to "take back" this benefit at the bargaining table is virtually impossible under Wisconsin’s Municipal Employment Relations Act because any attempt to do so would lead to arbitration and arbitrators have consistently argued that, when eliminating or reducing a benefit, the employer must provide a dollar-for-dollar quid pro quo. Therefore, if you want to cut a million dollars’ worth of pension costs all you have to do is create a new benefit, or supplement an existing one, at a cost of one million dollars.

That’s not the approach I am suggesting here. Indeed, as a former labor negotiator I can appreciate labor’s argument that these benefits were achieved through good faith negotiation and should not be removed, therefore, by legislative fiat. Instead, why shouldn’t the legislature mandate that all public employees hired after a date-certain, say Jan. 1, 2010, be required to invest in their own retirement? An employee who historically may have had a 12 percent contribution made on his/her behalf could, under this new provision, be required to match a certain portion. For instance, the employer would be mandated to pay only six percent while the employee could match up to an additional three percent.

This would still represent a very generous benefit, would grandfather existing employees, would get new employees to appreciate the benefit more and would save public sector employers throughout Wisconsin 25 percent of their current costs upon full attrition. Using the numbers above there would be a $325 million annual savings statewide and our three largest local public employers would save about $7 million a year. Granted, these savings would be phased in over 30 plus years as existing employees retire but the initial savings would be substantial and would grow each year. Furthermore, the new employees would have foreknowledge of this benefit and would make their employment decision accordingly.

The private sector has made extraordinary changes in the way it funds retirement over the past couple of years and it is foolish for us to treat our nearly one hundred billion dollar system as if it is off limits. Maybe then we can look at abolishing the nonsensical sick leave payout for new employees as well.

1 2006 Employee Trust Fund Annual Report (most recent available)