From the SHEBOYGAN PRESSPosted February 19, 2006 Supervisor: Cut board to 17
Baumgart plan would halve current size
By
Eric Litke and
Troy Laack Sheboygan Press staff
A Sheboygan County supervisor wants to cut the County Board from 34 to 17 members by the 2008 elections, a proposal that is drawing criticism and calls for caution from other county officials.
The ordinance, which Supervisor Jim Baumgart will propose at Tuesday's board meeting, would take advantage of a new state law to double the size of each district.
It would save about $44,000 a year in salary, per-diem payments, mileage and other board compensation, according to a county Finance Director Tim Finch.
Besides the monetary savings, Baumgart said there are people who want a smaller County Board with fewer committees and less competition for power.
"You'd save some money and you'd become more efficient because when a committee would meet, they'd have to handle a number of items that they don't now and they'd get a broader perspective of the County Board decision-making (process) and responsibilities," Baumgart said.
County Administrative Coordinator Adam Payne said he is not against bringing the board more in line with the state average of 25 supervisors per county, but he said the cost savings would be minimal.
"If more supervisors have to take up more responsibilities, you in turn have to take a look at their compensation," Payne said.
County supervisors are paid $2,100 a year and receive per-diem payments for meeting attendance: $20 for meetings up to two hours, $35 for meetings two to four hours long and $50 for meetings of more than four hours.
Baumgart wouldn't say if he expects the proposal to pass.
"I want it to pass and I want the discussion to take place on the advantages and disadvantages," Baumgart said. "I think what will be an indicator of how serious the County Board is on who signs up as co-authors."
Supervisors will have the opportunity to become co-authors Tuesday, Baumgart said.
"If you get only a few, then obviously there is not an interest by the County Board members to seriously look at lowering the number of people on the County Board," Baumgart said.
Supervisor James Gilligan said such a substantial reduction in supervisors would mean less representation for residents.
"If (supervisors) have to cover two or three towns, it's just detrimental to them," said Gilligan, who said he was one of 64 supervisors when he began on the board 42 years ago. "There's a lot of money (in the county budget), and I think the more representation you get on there, the better it is."
Baumgart conceded that a disadvantage is that there would be fewer supervisors representing more people.
"One voter may not have as much effect on a board member in a large district than they would if they're in an area that has fewer people where they have more board members," Baumgart said.
I
n talking with county officials from another state, Baumgart said he learned that county has only four supervisors.
"They can't see how we run it with 34," Baumgart said. "They think it's got to be chaos."
Payne said the ordinance will not be discussed at the board meeting Tuesday but will be sent to the Executive Committee, which will consider it Feb. 27. The committee also is beginning a review of county government that Payne and Board Chairman Bill Goehring said should be allowed to run its course before any decisions on are made on the size of the board.
"It's a little bit premature," Goehring said of Baumgart's proposal. "Perhaps there could be a reduction in size, but I would not be in favor of such a drastic reduction."
The Executive Committee, at the request of the board, is beginning a review process that will examine all aspects of county government and recommend a new table of organization by the end of the year, Payne said. He warned against skipping that process and slashing the board immediately, but said he expected the committee to recommend trimming the board somewhat.
Baumgart's ordinance seeks to cut the board in half based on a state law passed last year permitting counties to do so. Doubling the existing district sizes and therefore maintaining the ward boundaries is the only option for immediate change, since state law forbids redistricting until a new census is taken, next in 2010.
The proposed ordinance states, "Because of the ability to downsize that is now given to County Boards, there is no reason to study the matter in anticipation of the 2010 decennial census."
Payne said there is reason to study the matter.
"I don't think the right way to do that is just picking a number out of a hat and then assuming that is going to be the right fit for Sheboygan County," Payne said. "If you look at a date that's out a couple of terms, as 2010 would be, then you remove some of the concern that supervisors would have about eliminating their own seat."
Baumgart said he doesn't want to wait four more years to downsize the County Board.
"People will use that as an excuse to put it off even longer," Baumgart said. "If the Legislature was wise enough to allow us do it, why not do it now and get it done with?"
Baumgart has no problem with facing more opponents at election time if the board is downsized.
"I'd be willing to be challenged for my post," Baumgart said.
Payne said the board needs to take a "thorough and thoughtful" approach to cutting county government, looking at the number of supervisors, oversight committees (10) and county departments (23).
Supervisor Michael Ogea, who said he was paid less than $4,000 last year, said cutting the board would limit the field of people who would want to run for a seat.
"We already have a situation where younger people don't run for County Board because of the time commitment," said Ogea, who first won a seat at age 29 and at 37 is still the youngest member of the board. "If you reduce the size of the county board in half, the people we have left are going to have to commit more time to it."
But some board members saw room for consolidation.
"It should be looked at," said Supervisor Carl Otte, who is not seeking reelection this year after 17 years on the County Board. "I think cutting it in half is a little more workable, but if you're looking at saving costs, I don't know how much money it can save."
Otte said the board could be more efficient as a smaller body, but would lose representation if committees were reduced from five supervisors to three, as would almost likely be necessary if the board were halved.
