Monday, March 14, 2016

A TALE OF TWO CHRISES -- ONE PROVES FAR FAR BETTER

By Dominique Paul Noth


Rep. Gwen Moore (left) was on hand when Chris Larson with his family
announced he was running. In front is Moore aide Shirley Ellis.
Months ago, I told colleagues that the race for Milwaukee County executive would be one of nuances – and I frankly doubted the intelligence of the county voters to handle the intricacies of counterclaims and  separate facts from political maneuvers in this era of  ifs. 

I was wrong.  In the first primary warm-up in February, challenger Chris Larson amazed pundits by edging incumbent Chris Abele despite facing overwhelming superiority in dollars, campaign staffing  and name familiarity. That alone was astounding, particularly considering how many of Larson’s current supporters heavily favored Abele in a previous contest, believing him an ideal mix of social responsibility and wealth. That was the aftermath of Scott Walker as county executive. Could Milwaukeeans admit at the polls April 5 how wrong they had been the last time?

It seems so. The public has caught on to original error, or rather outsized expectations of what a billionaire’s son with expressed progressive leanings would actually do.  Abele, accustomed to corporate methodology in his ventures and upbringing and well aware of the respect, even obsequiousness, shown him by those seeking his enormous largesse, is  a big giver to LBGT causes (perhaps that explains the otherwise against-the-grain endorsement from  the Wisconsin Gazette), international women’s rights and classical performing arts as well as Democratic candidates and causes.

But recently he has also given the max to his Republican “friends” and run his own slate of candidates against Democrats in the state Assembly.

He first  campaigned promising a broad approach to what’s best for the county, not left or right, not beholden to any one party (sound familiar?). So he participated in union Act 10 protests in Madison while listening closely to the MMAC and such business giants as Sheldon Lubar. Even normally cautious county budget watchers believed he was sincere in his dualistic  approach, as retired supervisor and noted budget guru Richard Nyklewicz -- a self-described “conservative South Side guy” -- told me in 2012. Just don’t ask Nyklewicz for his sentiments today – they are laced with disappointment.

One heightened cause of distrust is Act 14, sold to the public as a money saver but requiring working with the GOP in Madison in a manner that scooted past cooperation into mutual fawning.  Act 14,  proposed and pushed by Abele,  has had minimal financial impact but gives him more ways to thwart the county’s  elected  board, which also sits well in Madison for political reasons.

Making  supervisors part time weakens  the Democrats’ voting clout. These spring races may be nonpartisan but most supervisors are either liberal or moderate left, and people who get used to voting in these districts also show up at the November polling places. 

Contrast Act 14 with the original hope of many, including a  new state senator named Chris Larson, that Abele would  simultaneously open the business drawer on his desk and the labor drawer, co-mingling the contents  – particularly on issues of  income parity and quality of life  for working families that the county’s $1.2 billion budget and the executive’s bully pulpit can directly influence. 

But Abele  never made the link between the two drawers and, until this election, had been closing up that labor drawer. In speeches he justified voting against the living wage though he agrees in principle. He claims the money would come from “the frail and elderly” – something of an exaggeration that begs the question of his priorities and willingness to develop new sources of funding.

When he now boasts he has a staff he trusts – far larger than Walker’s – it comes at the cost of dynamic sometime contrarian ideas. Insiders at the Courthouse say he expects his hires to tread cautiously in criticizing his concepts.  Remember the fates of a rotating door of hires at several agencies along with some powerhouse names once eager to work with him (including Sue Black, now in charge of Arizona’s state parks, and former head of transportation for the state  Frank Busalacchi). Both were let go in mysterious circumstances after being promised support. All those departures came after Abele won election in 2012 – an ominous reminder that what  Abele says now may not hold true after April 5.

Chris Abele (left) and Chris Larson during Gousha TV debate.
In the  sole scheduled TV debate conducted ably by Mike Gousha, Abele said his approach was to leave every door open. He  squirmed around or smiled when Gousha’s questions got too close or Larson’s rejoinders were too cutting.   What might have once been regarded as the cute naiveté of a nonpolitician was unsettling from a five year veteran of the office who had enforced  a modern version of noblesse oblige. 

Strangers watching the two Chrises  would have thought the calm,  prepared,  point by point analyzer  in the debate was already the county executive, not his challenger. Look at the tape and see if you don’t agree. Larson scored heavily with his  principal concern (plus examples) that Abele was shutting out the local democratic process in favor of his own opinions.  Larson’s view of Milwaukee’s future is certainly more trusting of the people and envisions a Wisconsin undergoing change.

Some of his ideas are an uphill push – for now. Larson’s concept of a separate 1% sales tax excluding food, rent and gas (but not excluding school supplies as Abele countered, forgetting how some supplies for the poor these days are paid for by their own public school teachers) requires the stubborn Madison legislature  to listen. But Larson’s ace in the hole is that many other counties, some once quite Republican,  are also suffering under Walker’s restrictions and eager to free up the sales tax for their own needs.  

It is also clear that if Larson can’t get legislative changes to restore lost authority to the voters, he is pledging not to use these hauls. He is committed to working with the county board and voters as they expected until they were deluded into thinking Act 14 would bring big money savings. 

Abele  is clearly consumed with debt relief – which always sounds great to a segment of the community.  But do Abele’s concern to unleash his rich man’s managerial background on county policies justify asking for so much freedom from public input? Does it even work?  Does  Abele’s track record sound more “my way or the highway” than what we should expect from public  servants?

His preoccupations come across to critics as working with the side he is most comfortable with – the heirs of the wealthy. He does seem overly concerned about  the Republican majority in Madison.

That could backfire even this year.  Given how angry many Republican communities are about restrictions imposed by Walker on how they can pay for simple things like school operations, the Senate is likely to change hands  in November and the Assembly is losing an inordinate number of Republicans who came in on that 2010 tidal wave.  

Cooperation with the other side  is great – Larson promises the same. But some of Abele’s pronounced motives in deal-making seem contradictory to his methods.  A  mental health agency run by professionals seemed like a good idea to all, and Abele pushed for it.  But  now its leaders seem afraid to move sensibly without a nod from Abele’s staff – especially Hector Colon, who got a 39% raise while other county workers watched in disbelief.

The board selection process to run the Milwaukee Area Technical College needed strong roots from Milwaukee  (which provides some 90% of its students) and expansion into the health professions where the jobs are growing, Abele vetoed the  top health expert from Milwaukee, Sandy Pasch,  in favor of the MMAC welder choice from outside the county. 

The supervisors go part-time starting April 5,  no longer have any say in the sale of  county land outside the zoned  parks,  have no voice in choosing or vetting department heads  and then saw Abele acquiesce where even Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett wouldn’t (and Barrett  once toyed with controlling Milwaukee public schools!). He accepted an executive role in that  runaway rail car designed  to pollute public education, the so-called Office of Educational Opportunity (OEO). 

Abele and his aides argue that he accepted the OEO position to protect Milwaukee Public Schools and will do nothing to injure them such as opening rival charters or selling vacant MPS buildings directly to such competitors. But if he hadn’t accepted, the Darling-Kooyenga blitz had no local authority to turn to.  His aides have been telling folks that if he hadn’t agreed the governor would have stepped in, but that’s nonsense. Walker didn’t even include the Darling proposal in his budget and there was never a chance of support  when Walker was running for president and even less chance now when he’s dodging criticism about  mucking too much in local affairs.

While Abele  was  playing checkers, GOP insider Alberta Darling was playing chess.  While he and his appointed representative, Demond Means, were assuring the voters they will do nothing to interfere with MPS, along comes Darling’s former chief of staff, Gary Bennett, hired by the UW system to oversee OEO with power to bypass local school boards and establish charter schools in both Madison and Milwaukee.

That means Bennett, whose educational background from long ago is three years teaching second graders in Las Vegas, can  run rings around two school districts led by women with Harvard doctorates in education.

The  central campaign issue has become “who do you trust. “ Abele fought for  sole authority over multiple un-zoned parks, the airport and the zoo,  though he claims he will make no move to privatize them. Larson wants to change the regulations and  in any case promises to involve the community before he acts. But seriously, should any one person have that much power over public land?  And what should we think of the guy who wanted that power when he proclaims innocence of the obvious consequences?

If the  battle of the Chrises is a  chess game, both sides fudged their  opening gambits last year. Larson brought out early his queen of endorsements, Rep. Gwen Moore, whom he may need more for April 5.  Abele was more ham-handed, spending a fortune so early in TV ads that there has been plenty of time to balance his rosy claims against the facts.  (His recent ads trying to link Larson to Walker and Wall Street have been laughable on their face, a further sign of desperation. How dare Larson do so well without Abele’s money?)

The  generic ads still showing tout Abele’s special “find work” help for black fathers, walking coeds gleeful there’s been no raise in transit fees, businesses thrilled  about a new arena and the promise of thousands of new jobs in downtown development.

But his Uplift MKE effort for families in 2014 was a direct steal and expansion of Ready to Work – a program by then Supervisor Eyon Biddle and current board Chairman Theodore Lipscomb that Abele originally vetoed.

Likewise,  his transit video totally ignores how bus drivers went on strike to halt a plan supported by Abele that increased part time workers and would slowly erode family living wages. 

And taking credit for the new arena and all the announced development around it  at $1 a parcel for county land was also a bit much and way too early.  It was, after all,  Herb Kohl who pledged $100 million from the team sale and talked hedge fund titans Marc Lasry and Wesley Edens to put up $150 million more to guarantee Milwaukee as the Bucks home with a new arena heavier on luxury boxes.

It was also Abele who broke up Walker’s plan to spread statewide the $250 million tax burden (half the cost of the new facility).  That led to fine tuning by Sen. Larson and others  to protect county taxpayers from  Abele’s concept that county  bad debtors would pay $80 million over 20 years. In the end, alas, most of that $250 million falls on Milwaukee, along with  a little noticed $5 million plus in land remediation costs not originally advertised.  Abele has even returned to the legislature to restore his funding version, though  even the county  comptroller says it will never work. 

It is too early to determine if Abele’s land gifts to the Bucks and their commercial development arm, the Herd, will pay off. It’s certainly wrong to suggest that all downtown businesses are happy with the deal. Restaurants and bars seem particularly troubled at artificial incentives being given potential competitors without proof of demand. Union workers are delighted by the vision of new jobs, except it’s just a vision aside from the new arena and parking lot itself, which involve short-term construction.

Civic leaders point out that homegrown entrepreneurship made Water Street, the Third Ward and some Riverwest areas thrive, while Abele is gambling on imports and  a hedge fund Herd notorious for making money out of distressed properties. 


The future of the Domes is now a campaign issue.
Some recent events are also putting the race in perspective –  notably the closing of the Domes.  Abele, based on his “look at all options” philosophy, early on floated the possibility of tearing them down. He puts the costs of renovation at $71 million. His own engineering consultants suggest that is inflated. They even told me that Larson’s estimate of $45 million may be inflated until further investigation.

Meanwhile some myths need to be clarified.  The Domes are hardly raining down indoor meteors. The chunk of concrete that caused all the fuss is about two and a half inches in diameter and may not even have fallen from the roof. It was tossed into a collection bucket at a facility that has long been shedding concrete  specks and is subjected to wind and rain damage. Yet one engineer reportedly said it  was so safe he would take his family inside picnicking.

Yet the Domes are closed out of an abundance of caution, political calculation (remember how Walker scooted away from any responsibility for an O’Donnell Park death in 2010) and the headline panic engendered.

Obviously there are liability issues for the county in the face of such publicity, but there also have been intensive regular engineering reports for two decades, warnings about the preventive maintenance needed yet often ignored throughout the county’s buildings and parks, even those less an historic architectural  landmark than the Domes. To put recent history in indisputable context (summer of 2015), the county board set aside $5 million from surplus funds for parks infrastructure and specified $500,000 for Domes repair. They had to restore the money to the budget after Abele vetoed it. That is why the county already has much of the corrective funding. 


Suprevisor Gerry Broderick blames neglect.
Engineers now believe that for under $800,00, their  netting and wrapping can lead to reopening all three Domes and give more time to evaluate the future.  Gerry Broderick, retiring chair of the county board’s parks committee, is convinced that failures of maintenance are a base cause.

While Abele seeks public support by announcing a committee to investigate all options, including razing the Domes and replacing them,  his group will have to play second fiddle. This is parks land and the authority rests with the board, where Broderick’s committee  has already offered  a task force committed to keep the Domes open and operating, as some 75% of the public wants in opinion polls.

After Abele floated $71 million as the cost of reconstruction and raised the idea of  the Domes being replaced with something like an amphitheater, he said during the  debate he was raising all options and would hold public hearings. But Abele did not attend that  public hearing hosted by the board which was attended by several hundred citizens. Nearly all who spoke favored preserving the Domes.

Imagine how they felt in the subsequent debate when Abele said the public has not been heard from about the Domes, implying that he believes those at the hearing and in media reports are not representative of citizen sentiment.

Larson was quick to pounce, pointing out there were no public hearings on the Arena deal or other Abele decisions about county land use.  Why now?

Larson’s implication was clear. This time there is an election. 


About the author: Noth has been  a professional journalist since the 1960s, first as national, international and local news copy editor at The Milwaukee Journal, then as an editor for its original Green Sheet, also  for almost two decades the paper’s film and drama critic. He also created its Friday Weekend section and ran Sunday TV Screen magazine and Lively Arts as he became the newspaper’s senior feature editor. He was tapped by the publishers of the combining Milwaukee Journal Sentinel for special projects and as first online news producer before voluntarily departing in the mid-1990s to run online news seminars and write on public affairs and Internet and consumer news. From 2002 to 2013 he ran the Milwaukee Labor Press as editor. It served as the Midwest’s largest home-delivered labor newspaper, with archives at milwaukeelabor.org.  In that role he won top awards yearly until the paper stopped publishing in 2013. His investigative pieces and extensive commentaries are now published by several news outlets as well as his culture and politics outlets known as Dom's Domain.  He also reviews theater for urbanmilwaukee.com. 


Wednesday, March 2, 2016

THE ALTERNATE UNIVERSE OF GOP THINKING

By Dominique Paul Noth
          
“First you must understand the times,” said a lifelong conservative Republican whose intelligence I normally respect, seeking to explain why he and other responsible elders were supporting their party’s presidential front-runner despite even their own inclinations. Primary election results March 1 vindicate his vision based on who is voting on the Republican side. 

Sipping a vodka gimlet in the posh bar of a downtown Milwaukee hotel, he described “a fever over the land, a fever of disgrace, of indignity, of hunger. We had a democracy, yes. But it was torn by elements within.”

“Above all, there was fear: Fear of today, fear of tomorrow...fear of our neighbors...and fear of ourselves. Only when you understand that can you understand what Trump meant to us.

“Because he said to us: ‘Lift your heads. Be proud to be an American. There are devils among us: Liberals, Socialists, Muslims, Mexicans.  Once these devils will be destroyed, your misery will be destroyed.’”

Aghast, I asked: Do Republicans really believe this?  The nation has actually moved forward in jobs, the economy, military sophistication and health care. Perhaps the methods and ideology don’t meet with your approval but you can’t deny the progress, nor the fact that our standing in the world has risen by every poll measure after the years of Bush.

“What about those of us who knew better?”  he conceded.  “We who knew the words were lies and worse than lies? Why did we sit silent? Why did we take part? Because we love our country.”

“What difference does it make if a few political extremists lose their rights? What difference does it make if a few racial minorities lose their rights? It is only a passing phase. It is only a stage we are going through. It will be discarded sooner or later. Trump himself will be discarded sooner or later.”

He certainly explained one mystifying aspect of Trump’s surge in the polls. Some of it is the sheer entertainment value of the insults, absolutes and generalities he lays down without details.  Some of it is how the media is fascinated and has been for decades, refusing to give more time to rounded detailed debates and even basic fact checking. Perhaps his own self-delusion about his larger than life image catches voters up to the point that they don’t see that basic contradiction in his slogan “Make America Great Again.”  If Trump,  who is so like them in his most uncensored moments, can become a billionaire, they think, perhaps we all can and perhaps that is the real American dream. 

Yet much of his method is painting a country that has lost hope, belief in the future and the ability to appreciate that democracy requires humbling ego rather than glorifying it.

Even during the Great Depression, suffering Americans didn’t abandon the Constitution.  There were waves of violence from the poor and abandoned, but even those movements did not grab the throat of a major political party. In circumstances far worse in more than 230 years, the country never abandoned itself to fear – and it is certainly hard to imagine a President Trump telling a nation that “the only thing to fear is fear itself.” Without fear, he’s nowhere.  Why has that changed? Who besides Trump should be held responsible? 

I contemplated all this recently watching a television parade of Oscar winning hits over the decades including “The Best Years of Our Lives” (about the readjustment to civilian realities of returning World War II veterans) and particularly “Judgment at Nuremberg” (1961) in which Spencer Tracy in one of a trio of judges deciding the innocence or guilt of German judges who had reached their maturity far before the advent of Hitler.

Interestingly, going out of its way to set a tone above politics and centered in moral issues, Tracy in this film describes himself as “a rock-ribbed Republican who thought FDR a great man.” 

Introducing Hitler into any modern social debate is usually a no-no, disqualifying the user because it seems so extreme an example. But what if the moral problem is comparable? What if a look 16 years after the war senses that comparisons are apt?

In fact, other students of movie lore will recognize that all the words in quotations above that I credited falsely to a conservative in a bar are directly lifted from Abby Mann’s screenplay for the “Judgment at Nuremberg.”  The only changes were in proper names and in modernizing (from
Communists, Jews and Gypsies) the sacrificial lambs of that original.

Groups that overall most embrace the American ideals, such as immigrants, are apparently the lambs being burned for the gods this year.

Love Obama or  hate him (I am an admirer but in intense disagreement with his policies on education and foreign trade deals), no one except GOP candidates for president can truly disagree that he has provided a stable uplifting approach to the presidency far removed from the schoolyard insults and negative tones of the GOP presidential candidates. The truth, or at least the way I look at the world and think most Americans do, was reflected in a Facebook post by an old friend and much admired colleague, Paul Hayes, the retired environmental reporter for The Milwaukee Journal:

Reflect on this: We've had more than seven years with Barack Obama as president and there has not been a whisper of scandal -- financial, political or personal. I have lived under FDR, HST, Ike, Kennedy, Lyndon, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, both Bushes, and Clinton. Of these only Ford and Carter come close and they served half as long. No wonder the venal Republicans hate him.

It’s natural for presidential candidates in both parties, of course, to pound away at the missed opportunity and bring out the ignored needs, putting the blame that should be spread around many levels of government on the president. Campaigning to replace him in effect means caricaturing him as the tyrant that Trump envisions and hoping the uneducated voter will believe a new president can solve it all.

Have you noticed how much of the Republican attack considers us a nation in decline? Trump is not alone among those calling for voters to abandon the principles of cooperation and mutual respect that have sustained the US for centuries. Nothing between now and November can make citizens forget the sheer negativity, the ugliness, hatred and glimpses of bigotry the Republicans have seared into our brains.

About the author: Noth has been  a professional journalist since the 1960s, first as national, international and local news copy editor at The Milwaukee Journal, then as an editor for its original Green Sheet, also  for almost two decades the paper’s film and drama critic. He also created its Friday Weekend section and ran Sunday TV Screen magazine and Lively Arts as he became the newspaper’s senior feature editor. He was tapped by the publishers of the combining Milwaukee Journal Sentinel for special projects and as first online news producer before voluntarily departing in the mid-1990s to run online news seminars and write on public affairs and Internet and consumer news. From 2002 to 2013 he ran the Milwaukee Labor Press as editor. It served as the Midwest’s largest home-delivered labor newspaper, with archives at milwaukeelabor.org.  In that role he won top awards yearly until the paper stopped publishing in 2013. His investigative pieces and extensive commentaries are now published by several news outlets as well as his culture and politics outlets known as Dom's Domain.  He also reviews theater for urbanmilwaukee.com. 

Wednesday, February 17, 2016

FEB. 16 ELECTION THROWS FEAR INTO STATE POWER GRID

By Dominique Paul Noth
Kloppenburg likely to pick up Donald voters
in advance to April 5 election.

The margins rather than the results conveyed the big stories in Wisconsin’s February 16 runoff election.  (It’s technically a primary but since it reduced to two the candidates facing off in the real primary April 5,  rather than settling any contest, “runoff” strikes me as more descriptive.)

With low turnout predicted of 10% turning twice as large, the anger was palpable at how the Republicans and the quasi-Democrats who catered to their power had been running Wisconsin.

Thus the votes for the  two more progressive and experienced challengers for Wisconsin Supreme Court rivaled the number of votes  received by Gov. Scott Walker’s machinery plus  the whopping $415,000 in shadow third party advertising  money for Rebecca Bradley. No one expected this kind of grassroots showing in the face of that blitzkrieg.

Bradley’s  vote total at 52% indeed  led Fourth Appeals Court Chief Judge Joanne Kloppenburg’s 78,000 votes but failed to dominate at the 60% her campaign insiders predicted -- despite frantic last-minute calls for extra ballots and volunteers in Waukesha County, bastion of right-wing voting.

When you add in, as probable for Kloppenburg,  the nearly 40,000  supporters of Milwaukee Circuit Court  Joe Donald, the numbers rival Bradley’s total – and the anger is just developing.

It’s hard to predict April 5 turnout based on the Feb. 16 preliminary contest. But in this case as in several other races it indicated that progressive forces were in clear shot of taking back power in a number of contests – which is likely to scare the better heeled entrenched, whose only recourse is  greater spending and advertising (they seem to have run out of ideas). 

Nowhere was this clearer than in the technically nonpartisan race for Milwaukee County executive (though both sides are selling themselves as Democrats and only one can really be telling the truth). It ended as expected  in that the  two Chrises were on top and advancing out of four candidates – incumbent Chris Abele and challenger Chris Larson (and if you think the fact that both have the same first names isn’t important, you should have seen the number of fouled ballots caused at the polls).
Chris Larson gets more votes than Abele.

But again the margin was a shock to the GOP in Madison. They had  been cozying up to Abele in a number of bills specifically aimed at increasing his power.  All that late-night voting may have been for naught. Though outspent 20 to 1 by the billionaire heir, Larson actually topped Abele by 700 votes (48,258 for Larson to 47,550 for Abele).

When you add in the votes for Pirate Party candidate Joe Klein, whose 4,685 supporters are likely to head Larson’s way on policy (and even splitting the 6,541 votes for Steve Hogan, the 69 year old retiree from Franklin who supports referenda for a parks sales tax) Feb. 16 threw a scare into Abele precisely as other aspects of his dictatorial style and failure to anticipate citizen needs are coming to a head. 

It’s about to emerge as front page news how he  turned down and even vetoed funding for preventive maintenance at the Domes, just as the Milwaukee landmark is closed because of panic over falling debris. Early reports indicate the whole dilemma could have been prevented by maintenance and few accept Abele’s suggestion that the real issue is whether the county wants to pay $85 million to fully repair or some unknown millions to replace the Domes. That’s a huge jump from the preventive efforts suggested just a few years ago.

The other facts emerging are that Abele shouldn’t be seeking sole credit for saving the Bucks or forcing a building boom Downtown. This may be a case of who fooled whom and who blinked first, and the blinker does not seem to be the new hedge fund owners of the Bucks, Marc Lasry and Wesley Edens, who bought the Bucks from Herb Kohl by pledging to keep the team in town. They also hold controlling interest in the Head of  Herd, which got a sweetheart deal from Abele to build around the new Arena ($1 for 10 acres of county land plus, it now turns out, taxpayer help with paying for remediation of further parcels).

Businesses contacted  Downtown are of mixed mind about all this. They like the idea of keeping a pro basketball team around and maybe getting new customers in the plan for new housing, retail and entertainment.  But  will what is added be overstuffing the golden goose?

Some recall  how home-grown entrepreneurship was a slow and steady secret for development on Water St., Riverwest and the Third Ward. To hear them talk, they believe the new Bucks  owners clearly were intending to stay but used their purchase of the team and Abele’s eagerness to wangle a golden fleece. 

Larson points out that Abele either doesn’t know what he’s doing or knows too darn well. He  got more power from the legislature in Madison that he now says he doesn’t intend to use (such as freedom of action with 43 unzoned parks and the zoo and airport he could under the bill dispense on his own without board say-so, not to mention putting an oar in the K-12 education system). The whole issue raises the question of why ask the legislature for more authority to privatize than you say you ever intend to use.

Not satisfied with getting all county taxpayers to pay $80 million over 20 years to build the Arena (half of the structure cost is coming from taxpayers, $250 million, and most of that from Milwaukee), Abele said in recent interviews he now wants to return to his original funding idea that was weakened by Larson and others. It would use the state to collect bad debt owed the county. A number of county experts including some hired by Abele say the $80 million is simply not there even though the state has power to garnish wages. It’s a scheme savaged for placing undue burden on the poor and disenfranchised while Abele defends it as protecting property owners.

Abele has turned to a costly trail of mailers and TV ads to counter the attacks from Larson, who without much money drew more votes Feb. 16.  Larson is currently a state senator and a former supervisor who clearly knows how to play politics and is riding a lot of progressive and working society wrath against Abele.

Nothing else can explain his great showing. Marina Dimitrijevic, a county supervisor and state head of the new Working Families Party (it supports progressive candidates like Larson but is picky about its choices) called Larson topping Abele in the votes “an earthquake.” For most political observers, that is hardly an overstatement.
Incumbent mayor Barrett looks in good shape.

For city of  Milwaukee mayor, incumbent Tom Barrett won handily with 46% of the four-way vote, leaving him to face Ald. Bob Donovan who got 33% of the vote. Normally, if we do what we did in other races and give Barrett’s opponents the balance of all the voting, it might seem he is in trouble, but look again.

Third place finisher was Ald. Joe Davis Jr., whose popularity in the black community means most of those votes are going to Barrett and not to the somewhat white racist (given his remarks) anti-streetcar character Donovan.  So Davis’ 19% (12,000 votes) are mainly for Barrett’s taking.
Bielinski still alive against Donovan.

In a highly unusual move, Donovan is also running to retain his aldermanic seat in District 8. Looking at that  race from the outside, I assumed Rep. Josh Zepnick would make a better showing – and even thought his drunken driving case would create sympathy among Donovan voters. I lost that bet. He finished a horrible third, leaving the April 5 contest between Donovan with 1,094 votes (a lousy turnout) and   teacher and hard-working door knocker Justin Bielinski who has earned abundant  progressive support.  If Bielinski works hard and makes the aldermanic race a challenge, Donovan may be split in two,  given Barrett’s dominant lead. He may be forced to focus hard on his own district or lose any job April 5. 

In other Milwaukee contests, the future seems a bright road for Common Council incumbents  Bob Bauman (Downtown District 4 with 58% of the vote), Nik Kovac (District 3, 77% of the vote with triple the turnout of most other such races) and Milele Coggs (68% in District 6).
Lewis squeaks ahead to face Puente.

In District 11, incumbent Robert Puente topped all five opponents but could still be in trouble. The last minute 2nd place finisher (my early pick because of her strong campaigning) was Chantia Lewis who squeaked by former county supervisor Martin Mac Weddle. That alone was a surprise to many besides Weddle who had 799 votes to Lewis’ 864. But there are some 720 other scattered votes, suggesting that a united campaign front could put Puente into some trouble in that sprawling and economically troubled upper northwest county district.

District 7 – an open seat with the departure of  Ald. Willie Wade – saw his own backed successor in the lead, former county supervisor Khalif Rainey. But 232 votes behind was Milwaukee School Board president Michael Bonds, so this may end up a  battle of name recognition.

In District 2, vacated by Davis to run for mayor, former Barrett aide and noted youth activist Chevy Johnson emerged with a commanding lead over former Davis aide Sherman Morton.

There is one county supervisor race with more than two candidates. Whether it fits or not, District 11 may emerge as the most conservative county board district. The vote leader with 3,702 votes is ardent conservative Dan Sebring, who ran and lost heavily many times against Rep. Gwen Moore for the House and once proclaimed she should face a firing squad. (But at least losing so often and so ugly gave him name recognition.) Opposing him is Patricia Najera, a community activist, member of the city planning commission and UWM doctoral candidate who has ideas to help this southwestern county region advance in development. 

Donald’s loss in the state court race was a disappointment for me and many others, since he had 20 years of bench experience on the Milwaukee circuit court and clearly the best judicial instincts and record in the race. From my first article on this contest in October I had lamented how  the presence of Bradley would prevent what I hoped for, a rousing debate on judicial conduct between the only two judges who knew the law and how to conduct themselves. Now that can’t be. 

Kloppenburg has a  lot to offer. For many Donald voters she was always  a close second choice. Where her campaign succeeded in political terms was coating her in the partisan dislike for Walker in a nonpartisan race (only fair since Bradley has wrapped herself in Walker’s protective political arms). Kloppenburg’s campaign went hard at suggesting Donald has ideological  sympathy for Bradley, who has been chosen by Walker three times for black robes  while barely surviving one election with outside money. But all Donald did as a senior judge at the circuit court during her first bench term  was extend his normal courtesy. After absorbing the Feb. 16 loss Donald made it clear he could be back – and indeed Justice Annette Zeigler could be vulnerable in 2017.

Kloppenburg also has potent history behind her. A former assistant state attorney general under Gov. Jim Doyle, she came in a close second in a 2011 supreme court race against David Prosser – in fact, at the end of the election she seemed to have won. Then Waukesha election clerk Kathy Nickolaus, whose name lives in infamy among Democratic circles, found 14,000 missing votes – and that put Prosser ahead by 7,000 votes.

Kloppenburg was readily elected by southwestern Wisconsin voters to the state’s Fourth District Court of Appeals, a sign not only of her competence but at the continued anger and sense of robbery that surrounds her in Democratic circles. That continues to stir her to success, particularly against Bradley, who is clearly a willing servant to the right wing despite her attempts to portray herself as independent.

Bradley’s subservience to the conservative cause (and the voting power of police associations)  became painfully apparent February 10  when she broke judicial norms by  actually not sitting in on case arguments  before deciding it. She  provided the winning vote in expanding police powers though she  had not participated in the whole case before either the appeals court or the supreme court, arguing that she listened to the oral hearings that took place under her predecessor, Justice Patrick  Crooks, whose death in September provided the excuse for Walker to elevate her to the top court. 
Justice Abrahamson laments Rebecca Bradley's
intrusion into case she didn't hear.

As the dissent by Justice Shirley Abrahamson pointed out, the majority’s interpretation of the case not only overturned the appeals court decision but provided a rationale  so broad as to “swallow the Fourth Amendment,” which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.

In the case, the police were refused entry to a locked bedroom by the owner while investigating an unrelated beating case, but entered anyway and found an illegal marijuana plant.  Justice Prosser, who worries a lot about overly broad police powers, actually joined Abrahamson and Justice Ann Bradley (no relation – in fact highly regarded as jurist, unlike Rebecca) in the dissent, so without R. Bradley’s vote – which many regard as violating judicial precedent – the lower court decision would have stood.

“This alone,” one state  judge commented to me, “should disqualify her from serving – judges don’t do such things.” 


About the author: Noth has been  a professional journalist since the 1960s, first as national, international and local news copy editor at The Milwaukee Journal, then as an editor for its original Green Sheet, also  for almost two decades the paper’s film and drama critic. He also created its Friday Weekend section and ran Sunday TV Screen magazine and Lively Arts as he became the newspaper’s senior feature editor. He was tapped by the publishers of the combining Milwaukee Journal Sentinel for special projects and as first online news producer before voluntarily departing in the mid-1990s to run online news seminars and write on public affairs and Internet and consumer news. From 2002 to 2013 he ran the Milwaukee Labor Press as editor. It served as the Midwest’s largest home-delivered labor newspaper, with archives at milwaukeelabor.org.  In that role he won top awards yearly until the paper stopped publishing in 2013. His investigative pieces and extensive commentaries are now published by several news outlets as well as his culture and politics outlets known as Dom's Domain.  He also reviews theater for urbanmilwaukee.com. 



Wednesday, February 3, 2016

MANY REASONS TO VOTE FEB. 16 – HERE’S THE BIGGEST

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal

By Dominique Paul Noth


Joe Donald, the best choice for
Wisconsin Supreme Court.
My dream is far more modest than Martin Luther King’s and even less likely of success. It is focused pedestrianly on Wisconsin’s February 16 primary (actually a runoff that brings down to two the  competitors in races April 5 where many more are vying for the nonpartisan office in question).

My dream won’t happen in the statewide contest. It is that common sense will triumph over conservative-liberal gridlock and move forward  to April 5 the only two truly independent and qualified judicial minds for the state’s highest court, ignoring the third appointed by Gov. Scott Walker to hold his coat if he gets into legal trouble. But  I’m not holding my breath for this self-evident truth. In fact, my idea given our current state of politics is ridiculous.

Here’s why common sense won’t  happen. The extremely conservative machine (the one that real conservatives think is on their side though the results clearly aren’t) along with Walker have leaned on the scales of justice with money and influence to try to make Rebecca Bradley one of those advancing to April 5 – and there are still enough unthinking diehards in their ranks to give her  a likely chance.

My idea is the contest for high court that should emerge in the Feb. 16  election would be the  actually experienced judges who offer some balance to a court that badly needs independence  – and then we could have  a real discussion without  the prepared blandness of  “I love everybody and will work with everybody” that Bradley has already trotted out at judicial forums.

But the really qualified --  Milwaukee court veteran Joe Donald and appeals judge veteran Joanne Kloppenburg -- will split the intelligent and truly passionate  vote, leaving only one of them  standing Feb. 16 to face Bradley, who has just been assured of a gigantic war chest.

She could still lose April 5, but that  will require the forces of Donald and Kloppenburg to forget their difference,  unite and drive Bradley into the dust, a two-step election thinking process that, frankly, progressive voters in the spring elections seldom seem capable of. 

Bradley has experience on the conservative cocktail party circuit but as a judge of Wisconsin’s diverse humanity and legal needs – hardly any. Even as she proclaims she will be free of bias she is the most biased of the candidates,  the most clumsily advanced,  the least experienced and least independent. This is   Rebecca Bradley we’re talking about, definitely not to be confused with Justice Ann Walsh Bradley, no relation, one of the few respected pillars left on the high court  who has been on the bench for decades and just won re-election for a 10-year term in 2015. 

Rebecca of sunny Walker farm was appointed to the high court by the governor acting alone  on the death of Justice Crooks Sept. 21 (the same day Walker withdrew from presidential politics). That means she has held three judicial positions with only one public election, and that one was tainted.

Walker had months earlier appointed her to a vacancy caused by another death on the state’s First District Court of Appeals (she was never elected to that job) and three years ago appointed her to a Milwaukee circuit court  retirement vacancy. About a year into that appointment she won the  Milwaukee County  election for the seat but only because Club for Growth (yes, the same shadowy money that has put Wisconsin uncomfortably on national front pages as a corrupt state) contributed an unprecedented $167,000 in campaign funding to carry her through against opposition that soon won judgeship in their own right. 

Major Southwest contributors to Wisconsin Club for Growth (dumbfounding how much of this  money comes from outside the state)  were reportedly ticked off to see their money go to a Milwaukee only judicial election – they thought they would be helping Walker anchor his statewide power ahead of his presidential bid.
Rivals are already having fun adding their own captions to
the shadow ads already appearing for Bradley.

But despair not Koch Bros. types!  A shadowy outside group that does not reveal its donors -- but apparently has a lot of overlap with Club for Growth and the Koch Brothers --  just announced they would pour $4150,000  immediately into known advertising to support Bradley’s Feb. 16 and April 5 run for the Wisconsin Supreme Court, confident that she will survive Feb. 16.  The group is dubbed  “Wisconsin Alliance for Reform”  and is clearly shifting money to Bradley originally aimed at defeating Russ Feingold for Senate in November. The group, while denying any coordination with the candidate, is using exactly the same “walking and talking in her robes” footage that Bradley uses in her own campaign ads!

But this is only the surface on how the Walker machine is leaning on electing Bradley, which would give them a fifth vote of seven on the Wisconsin Supreme Court in expectations that two of their most vulnerable incumbents,  Annette Zeigler and Michael Gableman, face re-election in 2017 and 2018, when Walker could still technically be in the governor’s mansion and desperate for a court that would protect him from the law.

For citizens who long for the days when courts were the site of restorative and intelligent justice --  the place for checks and balances in interpreting the state constitution and deciding rules of evidence and the like – the mere manufactured presence of Rebecca  Bradley represents an unseemly heavy digit on the scales of justice.  

The high court has long disappeared as the balancing wheel for justice. The 10 year appointment of judges was supposed to neutralize political involvement.  But no one can look at the excesses of the current conservative court rulings and envision Bradley as any help at all in working for the little guy and standing up to corporate excess.

More than that, Walker is trying to pad her reputation as a judge.  After she was appointed to the high court, several decisions made by the 1st state appeals court in the few months she sat on it were dumped onto the supreme court for review, though eight were normally what legal experts call per curiam (routine).  But all upheld prosecutors in criminal proceedings, so they could be labeled “law and order” decisions in a raw effort to deepen her record on the bench. 

The Milwaukee circuit court is known for its camaraderie, so it is no surprise that during her time there she was treated kindly by the senior judges – including Joe Donald, a 20 year veteran on the bench who is the most practiced and praised candidate in the  high court race in terms of actual bench experience.  He was also key in starting Milwaukee’s successful drug court and has strong ideas about the need for impartiality (while the current high court majority has moved to protect itself from legal action against the boodles of money it has taken from corporations that appear before it).  Donald also would be key on the supreme court in addressing Wisconsin’s horrifying incarceration rates and practices (which include an unseemly number of minorities and minor drug offenses).

I’m a fan of Donald’s, who represents to me the center sophistication and breadth of practical life experience  the court desperately needs.

But I also understand a lot of the Democratic enthusiasm for Kloppenburg, who has strong legal credentials from serving as assistant attorney general under Jim Doyle and was elevated two years ago by voters in Southwestern Wisconsin to the Fourth Court of Appeals, where she was quickly appointed chief judge.

Many Democrats feel she was already robbed once of the high court in 2011 when she declared victory at the end of election day  with a 204 vote advantage over David Prosser – only to watch the Waukesha election clerk “discover” more than 14,000 votes uncounted from Brookfield, which gave incumbent Prosser an unchallengeable 7,000 vote margin. Democrats cried foul but election experts more accurately cried incompetence. Still  the feeling that Kloppenburg was cheated lingers into this election despite some recognition that she was hardly an experienced campaigner.

Many concede that Donald is a firmer presence and would represent a more balanced approach to the judiciary. Still I would have been fond of hearing after Feb. 16 what I won’t – a discussion of judicial ethics between Donald and Kloppenburg.


Chris Larson campaigning hard to
become new county executive.
There are other Milwaukee elections that casting votes Feb. 16 makes important.  Don’t be misled by how many races won’t appear on the ballot until April 5 since they don’t have multiple opponents.  

But there are actually four candidates for Milwaukee county executive that should in votes scale down to incumbent Chris Abele and the state senator and former supervisor Chris Larson, who is mounting a formidable challenge despite Abele’s huge financial advantage. 

Franklin’s Steve Hogan is also filed and Pirate Party’s Joe Klein is running a formidable Facebook campaign pleading not to be ignored, but Feb. 16 should bring the community the conflict it wants – the battle of the Chrises, exploring whether Abele playing footsie with Madison was bipartisan or power-hungry and whether Larson, with experience in both Milwaukee and Madison, will offer balance and working family attention to the executive office.

Both candidates have made tactical errors – Abele wasted an early fortune (and he has a fortune from this father’s  Boston Scientific empire) on a barrage of  TV ads around Christmas touting his achievements -- and already forgotten by most of the voters.  About the same time, Larson brought out early the big guns of endorsements, notably Rep. Gwen Moore, and then saw the media making hay out of how difficult it was for him to keep campaign aides (not unusual in shoestring campaigns but somewhat unusual when the last resigned over a nonpolitical issue of an affair with a minor). Both are embracing credentials as a Democrat though the race is nonpartisan, but clearly that’s stretching the definition of the party given how ferocious is their disagreement about how to work with others.

Abele has angered many in the community for his high-handed ways of dealing with employees and working groups (some call this dictatorial) and proclaiming he is responsible for keeping the Bucks in town (though Larson as senator worked to reduce what remains a horrible cost impact on county taxpayers that Abele was all too eager to embrace). Larson clearly represents a younger age more open to the needs of the underclasses, which Abele never rubbed shoulders with in his business circles.  Abele is embraced by the business community, but frankly employees need a responsible business community to help on the job front. These are not easy issues.

Many in the working community still credit Abele with downtown development that means construction jobs though there are many more naturally created downtown businesses who fear the consequences of such artificial input (such as Abele seeking from Madison sole approval in shedding non-parks county land for a dollar a parcel to outside developers).

Larson wants more community input on everything from mental health care to land sales and he has earned support from many community organizations, the Working Families Party, unions and others (though there are building trades people uncertain which way to bounce, not sure what to believe from each side – they just want the jobs). There are so many factors to weigh in this contest that Feb. 16 and April 5 voters are going to have to listen carefully and weigh hard – an exercise in mental nimbleness that is difficult to bring about in the spring elections.  This could be the ultimate test if voters can simply be bought with ads or really think the issues through.


No one looks better than returning
Tom Barrett as mayor.
City of Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett is also facing three challengers Feb. 16 – little known James Methu,  former Ald. Joe Davis Jr. who at least resigned his seat before tackling the mayor, and Ald. Bob Donovan, who is running for both his seat AND for mayor (legal if weird for now). 

Barrett is well heeled for the campaign and despite sniping from the sidelines has steered the city through some tough waters, not as bold in tacking as some would like but hard to see anyone running against him better at the helm. One can never underestimate the redneck law and order appeal of Donovan but I suspect Davis will squeak through to face Barrett. However Davis may be  riding a black vs. white issue the African American community has outgrown and that Barrett will be understandably loathe to criticize.

Over at District 8, Donovan has Rep. Josh Zepnick among the duo opposing him, and Zepnick who has his own maverick touch leaning more to the progressive side has strong support from the growing Hispanic residents in the district. I think Feb. 16 will come out Donovan vs. Zepnick.

The busiest Common Council districts will be  2, where Davis abandoned the field;  District  7, where Ald. Willie Wade has already resigned for a position with the workforce board, and District 9, where incumbent Robert Puente is so disliked he has attracted five challengers while running himself.


Chevy Johnson gets the edge in District 2.
In District 2, there are familiar personable names such as Keith Bailey and Tracey Dent, but I suspect the top vote getter, endorsed by unions and other community groups, will be former Barrett aide Chevy Johnson, who has worked long and hard for his chance at public office, focusing mainly on youth work development. 


Khalif Rainey leads community support in District 7
In District 7, the departing Wade gave a nod to Khalif Rainey, who has acquitted himself well as county supervisor and is likely to lap a field that includes David Crowley and Michael Bonds – yes, the chair of the Milwaukee School Board whose presence in the race is a flatly mystifying signal of unhappiness.

In District 9, Puente is facing a strong field that will require a lot of loyalty shifting. Among his opponents – the newest county supervisor, Martin Weddle, who seems to be leaping quickly to seek full time pay; former union bus leader and lobbyist Penny Sikora, whom many credit with rising above a checkered past, and three others. One of those may be a surprise winner Feb. 16 given how hard she works the doors and how personable she is – Chantia Lewis, an Emerge Wisconsin graduate, military veteran and mother.


Chantia Lewis may work a surprise in District 9.
District 9, located in the extreme upper northwest portion of the county, is a difficult region to campaign and historically somewhat complacent about its representation. But this field is so busy and so active that the election could create several surprises.

Like honey attracts flies, there is also a busy field trying to knock off Ald. Milele Coggs in District 6, a vibrant chunk of the central city. But I perceive no threat to her reputation for working within the community.

There are some other curiosities on the Feb. 16 ballot affecting Common Council races. Incumbent Ald. Bob Bauman seems a shoo-in for Downtown District 4 (few have his breadth of knowledge and interest in this area) but is facing strident challenges particularly from Monique Kelly. In District 3, another alderman highly regarded for his concern with community  development, Nik Kovac, will probably brush off challenges from Ira Robins  (yes, the late  Lawrencia Bembeneck’s lawyer) and right-wing backed Shannan Hayden.

There are surprisingly few competitive county board races.  There is only one three-way I can find requiring voter decision Feb. 16  and that is for Mark Borkowski’s old seat in District 11 where a Republican operative named Dan Sebring, accused of racism when he ran against Gwen Moore, is hoping the conservative district (it is also a working families district) will yield to his tenacity of attitude. Opposing him and with early dual endorsements from neighborhood factions  are community organizer Patricia T. Najera  and former corrections officer  Yaghnam F. Yaghnam. Both may advance if the community takes umbrage to the way Sebring is trying to label them.

So Tuesday Feb. 16 (absentee voting already allowed) gets people’s feet wet on getting accustomed to the importance of regular voting despite such off-putting laws as photo ID (you don’t know much about this because the state put no money aside to educate you). But in reality  Feb. 16 only focuses direction in a few races, so you’d better motivate yourself to the polls out of recognition that voting is your only tool for real change. 

Because election power needs to get going now in Wisconsin. After Feb. 16 comes those essential races April 5  that control your community and your fate even though they lack party labels. Then in November half the state Senate is up for grabs and the contest will be competitive,  all the Assembly is fresh ground, there is  one US Senate seat (Feingold vs. Johnson), all House seats and the presidency.  Wisconsin voters have important work ahead of them.


About the author: Noth has been  a professional journalist since the 1960s, first as national, international and local news copy editor at The Milwaukee Journal, then as an editor for its original Green Sheet, also  for almost two decades the paper’s film and drama critic. He also created its Friday Weekend section and ran Sunday TV Screen magazine and Lively Arts as he became the newspaper’s senior feature editor. He was tapped by the publishers of the combining Milwaukee Journal Sentinel for special projects and as first online news producer before voluntarily departing in the mid-1990s to run online news seminars and write on public affairs and Internet and consumer news. From 2002 to 2013 he ran the Milwaukee Labor Press as editor. It served as the Midwest’s largest home-delivered labor newspaper, with archives at milwaukeelabor.org.  In that role he won top awards yearly until the paper stopped publishing in 2013. His investigative pieces and extensive commentaries are now published by several news outlets as well as his culture and politics outlets known as Dom's Domain.  He also reviews theater for urbanmilwaukee.com.