Highlights from the Common Council: December 10

Financial affairs mea culpas, election results, and memos from the desk of Ald. Lowe

[Note: I will be out of town next week. The next newsletter will be on Saturday.]

Gun Laws and the CROWN Act

→ One sort of thing most people realize with a bit of introspection is that what they do or say is usually based on some internalized model of how they think the world works. The next step—which not everyone takes and which is easy to forget even if you’ve figured it out previously—is to realize that other people also have internalized models of how the world works, and usually the reason they disagree with you, or say and do things that appear irrational or biased or even evil is not because they actually are irrational, biased, or evil but because their model of the world is different than yours.

I think it’s useful to try to understand other people’s models of the world partly because theirs might actually be better or more accurate than yours, partly because understanding where other people “are coming from” can help you be more persuasive or more effective, and partly because it’s just what allows people to cooperate and get along together.

So you could maybe imagine two potential models of political action. In one model, political actors in government are rational but constrained. They are more-or-less reasonable people, capable of being persuaded by logical argument or empirical observation but they also have a lot on their plate and don’t have an infinite amount of free time to understand things. They are not well-heeled boffins chasing their curiosity wherever it leads them but instead tend to seek understanding in service of some immediate and pressing goal.

Credibility in this model is established or maintained when political actors display at least some recognition that other actors operate in conditions of bounded rationality. If someone fails to act, it is not that they are necessarily blind to how much the community cares about a particular problem but because the solutions to those problems are unclear, complex, or difficult to achieve. In this model, if you want to persuade people in government to take action, you need to offer a solution or at least a clear course of action, provide a compelling argument for that action, and make that argument concisely and at a time when they could conceivable act on it. Call this the sausage model of political action. It probably appeals to lawyers, technocrats, and political insiders.

In the second model, the relevant actors are not so much other politicians but the citizenry and the media, and the important component is not timely argument but social proof. You want to create a groundswell of support for some action that is so overwhelming that politicians simply can’t ignore it, and you do this by taking symbolic actions that people can be inspired by and coordinate around. In this model you want your actions to be vivid and headline-worthy but perhaps general enough to attract a wide coalition of supporters. You want to take advantage of the salience of recent events, and you want to build off what others are doing and do things that others can build off of in turn. Call this the Civil Rights model. This appeals to people like Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and, I think, Sean Lowe.

These might not be great models (I have my own qualms about them), but I think they do at least gesture at some important differences in how people understand the role of government and approach political change.

Anyway, at the Government Affairs meeting on November 29th, Ald. Lowe submitted two memos for consideration. The first was an appeal (page 23) for the City to “do a resolution to request the State of Wisconsin to look into having stricter gun laws to make our communities safer.”

In presenting the memo, Ald. Lowe said that,

I left this very generic on purpose. Because there’s not a specific law in general I’m asking us to ask the State to change. But just overall. Looking at all state gun laws and see if we can get stricter laws across the state of Wisconsin.

I think that if every community in the state of Wisconsin from a local government perspective did resolutions like this then the State would see where Wauwatosa stood on this issue and allow them to take a deeper look at all of their gun laws and get some things changed across the state.

And during another part of the conversation:

I left the language broad on purpose […] so more people can chime into it […]. So the headline can be, “The City of Wauwatosa asked the State of Wisconsin to adopt stricter gun laws.” I think that language could be there. Period. Maybe another sentence or two on top of that. But nothing more. I’m not even looking for a full paragraph or page of words or legislation. That’s why I left it that broad. Just a simple ask that officially the City of Wauwatosa is asking the State of Wisconsin to adopt stricter gun laws.

[…] Because if I get too strict in terms of the language, then that would obviously lead to broader discussion in other cities and lead to less people saying, “We want to support that” or “We don’t want to do it” if the language gets more complex, so to speak.

To which Ald. Fuerst replied with a suggestion that maybe it would have a greater impact if he partnered with other municipalities first to come up with some common language that they could all get behind. Has he looked into that? Could that work?

Ald. Lowe:

I think with media coverage? Yes. Me talking to common council members in other cities? Yes—“Hey we did this. Would you be interested in doing this as well?”

So, I would be more than happy to do those things if this gets passed. Yes, absolutely. Mmhmm.

Although Ald. Arney and O’Reilly were supportive of the idea and Ald. O’Reilly thought that “sometimes it’s just time to say, You know what? This community, this council, has had enough,” Ald. Moldenhauer suggested it might be worth waiting given the number of state gun laws, specifically in New York, that have recently been struck down by the Supreme Court: “I feel we need to get farther along with where this stands in court to even consider something coming out of this committee.”

Ald. Wilke pointed out that Ald. Lowe hadn’t actually provided the text of a resolution to discuss or vote on and that “without a resolution to respond to or to send to the State, there’s no solution yet other than an idea that this would be good to change the gun laws. […] I don't know that we have something we can work on tonight.”

Ald. Tilleson added that there may be more effective ways of going about this:

The most effective resolutions that I’ve seen in my time on council are ones that are tied to specific legislation where there’s a pending proposal and we’re communicating to the state legislature and saying, ‘This is before you. This is how this legislation impacts our city, and this is our position on this legislation because of how it impacts us.

Ultimately, the committee voted unanimously to table the proposal until at least March and until Ald. Lowe could provide a draft resolution that responded to some specific piece of legislation the state legislature was considering.

The second memo asked the common council to pass a local version of the CROWN (Creating a Respectful and Open Workplace for Natural hair) Act.

In the memo, Ald. Lowe said, “Some schools and workplaces around the nation have used dress codes and grooming policies prohibiting natural hairstyles seen in the Black community such as braids, bantu knots and locs. Black children have been treated like criminals due to their hairstyles.” Therefore, he would like, “a resolution as a Common Council to send to the State letting them know we are urging the passing of the Crown Act that was previously introduced by WI State Rep LaKeshia Myers.”

One again, alders Tilleson, Wilke, Makhlouf, and others responded that while the issue seems important, there needs to be an actual resolution to adopt. Ald. Tilleson also pointed out that the legislation Senator Myers proposed was not taken up during the last legislative session and was effectively dead. He suggested waiting until April when she will likely re-introduce it for consideration again.

Ald. Moldenhauer was a little more blunt:

I'm going to watch my words here, but we lose a lot of credibility when we just throw things against the wall. […] I’m not here to attack people’s desires to move forward with meaningful legislation. I just want to be clear that I think [Ald. Tilleson] is trying to lead us in the direction of having an impact and being taken with credibility in Madison.

Ald. Wilke, summarizing the objections of many of the members of the Government Affairs committee, said, “There's no resolution. You've got to put the words together for us to actually approve. You just have a requested action on a memo.”

The proposal was tabled by a vote of 7-1 (Ald. O’Reilly dissenting) pending a draft resolution and further legislation at the state level.

Smaller Items

Government Affairs: November 29

→ Before providing a rather detailed summary of last month’s election results, city clerk Steve Braatz introduced his new deputy city clerk Ed Kessler while assuring everyone that, “we did not plan our dress together.”

Some highlights:

• Absentee ballots processed on election night: 11,635

• In-person voters on election day: 15,073

• Total voters: 26,708 for a turnout of 79.77%.

• Overall Milwaukee County turnout: approximately 65%

• Of the eight polling sites, Hart Park was the least popular with 1,735 and McKinley Elementary was the most popular with 2,100 voters.

• Absentee ballots mailed: 6,734

• Absentee ballots picked-up in-person: 5,086

• Absentee ballots returned: 11,646

• Absentee ballots rejected: 11

He then proceeded to provide a rather excruciatingly detailed review of various polling places, hiccoughs, logistical failures, the shape of various lines, wait times, parking difficulties, equipment needs for the next election, complaints that the Greek Annunciation Church had a bunch of tables that took up half the gym, and how it’s a shame that the biggest room in the Hart Park building is an ice rink in November, because that would have been a great place for voting.

Despite these problems, he thought everything actually went pretty smoothly.

Ald. Moldenhauer thanked them for their report, said he’d like to start seeing unofficial election results posted on the city’s website again, and suggested maybe hiring a consultant to help with all those line problems. [My note: If the city clerk likes to DIY, he could also start here or here.]

Financial Affairs: November 29

→ Taking on debt involves a lot of paperwork. The ratings agencies want to know how credit worthy you are, investors want clear disclosures of potential risks, and the IRS and the SEC have a lot of requirements and laws and rules you need comply with. Making sure you follow all those rules and laws and requirements requires a fair amount of expertise, and the City of Wauwatosa usually hires someone to help them. Unfortunately with an increasing number of disclosure and transparency requirements those services have become increasingly expensive.

Finance Director John Ruggini, in addition to his report on the 2021 audit results I wrote about earlier, also came before the Financial Affairs committee on November 29th for a “mea culpa” as he requested retroactive approval of “bond counsel services” totaling $79,860. Generally, all contracts greater than $50,000 require a request for proposal (RFP) and competitive bidding but this did not happen because, according to Mr. Ruggini, it’s not normally that expensive. He’s also not looking forward to soliciting bids in the future, because the city has used the same bond counsel for 20 years, and he kind of likes them: “We have never, ever had an issue with bond issuance. It’s a very complicated area.”

The Financial Affairs committee unanimously approved to retroactively waive the requirement for an RFP.

→ City Engineer Bill Wehrley proposed a $325,000 contract with RASmith for consulting and “design services” related to paving and storm sewer enlargement along 109th Street from Potter Road to Wisconsin Avenue as well as the construction of a multi-use trail along portions of Potter Road. He described the project as requiring a “high level of effort, can't be handled by staff.”

While the consulting cost would be part of the yet-to-be-approved 2023-2027 Capital Improvement Plan, the cost for the actual construction and sewer enlargement will be will be budgeted in 2024.

The request was approved unanimously.