At tonight's special session of the WFB Trustees, 6 candidates were interviewed for retiring Trustee Brennan's position.  One applicant withdrew her name prior to the meeting.

The process was to allow each candidate 15 minutes to answer 4 questions:

1. Describe your WFB experience, and any skills or talents that you have that would apply to being a Trustee
2. What specific areas would you be interested in while serving as a Trustee
3. What do you think are three greatest challenges for WFB
4. Do you have any questions for the board?

To kibbitz a little .. Question 2 and 3 frequently elicited the same answer.   Generally, people talk about what interests them because they see it as a challenge.  For example, many answered that they were interested in seeing Silver Spring improved, which, no surprise, is also the answer to the "biggest challenge" question.

Question 4 is a throw-away question that doesn't tell you much about the candidate, because in the end, the Trustees went around the table, answering that question.  Honestly, Question 4 told me more about the Trustees, than it did the candidates.

I would have loved to have heard more about how each candidate values, for example, homeowner rights.  Or what specific ideas they could bring to the table concerning their "biggest challenge."   -- That being said, I think the process allowed the cream to float to the top, so to speak.  It "worked."  -- And I suppose my perspective, as a villager who has interests, versus the perspective of a Trustee, is vastly different.  I want to elect someone who shares my values.  Their criteria for appointment should reflect the whole village.  I get that.

These 4 questions were designed to figure out "what kind of guy/gal" the person was, were they thoughtful and articulate, could they talk the talk.   It was very different from how someone would run an election, which should be based on issues, and answers to challenges .. i.e. a "platform."

After all 6 were interviewed, the Trustees each voted for their top 3 candidates.   The top two were Richard Foster, a 40 year journalist veteran, and Shawn Finnigan, a very bright young attorney. 

As an aside, I penciled in my votes, and Foster and Finnigan were my 1 and 2 as well.  

The Trustees then voted on Foster and Finnigan, but couldn't reach the required 4 votes to declare a winner.  (Trustee Cheng was not in attendance.  So the winner needed at least 4 of 5 votes.)   Originally, it was 3-2 for Finnigan, but after two rounds, it flipped to 3-2 Foster.     No discussion was heard between votes, which I thought was a bit odd, since it left the Trustees up to blindly changing their votes back and forth, hoping to hit 4 votes eventually.

Surprisingly on the 5th ballot, Richard Foster won, and will be sworn in next week as our newest Village Trustee.  If he wishes to retain his seat, he will need to run again next April (2009).

I had Foster as my #1 choice after listening to all six.  He was well spoken, had solid answers to all the questions, and knew the issues surrounding Whitefish Bay, which should come as no surprise, as he'd run for Brennan's seat in April 2006.  Welcome, Trustee-elect Foster.

One other note .. I was very irritated that no one from the "real" media came out to observe these official proceedings.  This is an important deal here, people.  -- It was also sad that no other members of the public showed up to hear, what really amounts to, a "mini-campaign" for an elected office.

Good night!

 Don't want to keep checking for news on this blog?  Have it delivered to your inbox, so you won't miss anything.  Free.  Click here.

Ok.. now that the primary is over, we can get back to WFB issues!

I have the list of Villagers who have applied for Trustee Jim Brennan's position.  Brennan resigned about a month ago.

From what I've pieced together, these seven applicants will be interviewed by the board later this month, with the Trustees picking one.  With seven candidates, I can imagine several rounds of voting to reach a majority on one individual.

It's interesting that, last April 2008, we had to beat the bushes to come up with 3 candidates for 2 Trustee positions.   Now we've got SEVEN applicants for 1 spot.  

Is there a new surge of people who want to lead?  Or is this because people would rather be appointed, instead of running for election?  If so .. whoever gets appointed is going to have to get really good at running campaigns, real quick, if they wish to keep their seat.

Why?   This appointment  is for 6 months, and will go until April 2009, at which time, there will be an election for the position.  Trustees Schmidt and Cheng will be up for re-election in April 2009, for 3 year term, but also, the appointed Trustee's position will be up for re-election to "fill out" the original term of Brennan, which ends in April 2010.

So the newly appointed Trustee will need to run two campaigns, one in 2009, and again in 2010, which takes them to 2013.

I want to commend all seven of these villagers for stepping forward:

• Chad Wiener,  N. Cumberland, Attorney (website)
  
• Sean M. Finnigan,  N. Shoreland, Attorney (website)
  
• Julie K. Gilpin,  N. Sheffield, HR Manager
• Richard Foster,  N. Murray, Retired -- former Editorial Writer, Milwaukee J-S (Click for list of editorials)
  
• Thomas L. Williams,  N. Santa Monica, Interim Minister
• Heather Nill,  N. Elkhart, Sales Manager
• Kevin McMahon,  E. Beaumont, Stay-at-home Dad

I tried to do some google searches on each person, couldn't find much .. linked to their bios or, in Fosters' case, a list of editorials he wrote for the Journal Sentinel. 

Foster may sound familiar, as he ran for Trustee in April 2007.  Thomas Williams ran for Trustee, back in 2004.  Both Williams and Foster lost races to Brennan, whose very spot they are now trying to gain again.

It will be interesting how many Trustees will need to recuse themselves, during questioning and voting, because of close relationships with applicants.  It's one thing to appoint someone to a committee who is your friend, it's quite another to have them join you on the Village Board of Trustees.    Clearly, many Trustees have a wide spectrum of friends and acquaintances because of their time in the Village, so lines need to be drawn somewhere or you might not have any impartial votes.  In the end, the Board needs diversity of opinion, not a good ol' boys/gals club.

And .. one wonders what the Trustees will ask in their interviews.

Here are a few questions I'd want to know from each .. feel free to add more in the comment section:

1. What skills and ideas will you bring to the table to help revitalize Silver Spring? 

2. How respectful are you of homeowner rights?   Will you pass codes that restrict homeowners and what  they can do with their property? 

3. Name three ordinances that you'd like to see changed, removed, or added in Whitefish Bay.

If any of the seven candidates wishes to have an opportunity to describe their candidacy to the public, please email me at KevinBuckleyWFB@gmail.com ..

Finally .. to the hundreds of new readers of this blog .. welcome!  The past few weeks have been dedicated to the 22nd race .. future entries will mostly be about Whitefish Bay.  Stick around!   Even better .. no need to check the blog every day to see if something has been written ..  Have it delivered to your inbox, so you won't miss anything.  Free.  Click here.

So yesterday I read the email alert for the posting of the agenda for Monday's WFB Trustee meeting.   I noticed two items, a "Commendation for Jim Brennan" and "Discussion of vacancy on Board".  Putting two and two together, I emailed a village official and got confirmation that indeed, Brennan had resigned July 31st due to health reasons.  (Village Spillage wishes Trustee Brennan well.)

But this episode is a great example of how poor the Village is at communication.

The resignation of a Trustee is pretty big news.  It means that a 3rd new member will be joining the board in 2008, which is significant turnover.   Brennan wasn't some member of an arts & crafts committee.  He was one of the seven elected officials who run our Village. 

How did Villagers find out?  Some silly blogger just happened to read the agenda and wrote about it.   Crazy.

Now, maybe the Village put out a notice to the media, and they'd left for a long weekend.  Maybe.  But meanwhile, how about using that new Village website, and its "Announcements" page?  Seems like a great place for something like this.

Next up .. is the debate on how to fill the vacancy.  Brennan was re-elected in April 2007, so his term goes to 2010.

Shorewood just finished going through this same problem.  They discussed 4 options.

1. Leave the slot vacant until 2010
   
2. Appoint someone until 2010, or until a special election
3. Have a special election on the November 2008 ballot (3 months from now)
4. Add the spot in the April 2009 election.  (Currently, Trustees Schmid and Cheng will be up for re-election at that time.)

I think my least favorite option is to leave the slot vacant.  2nd least favorite is to wait until April of 2009 .. we had enough trouble scaring up 3 candidates for 2 spots in April 2008.  Imagine filling 3 spots.

Then there's trying to do a November 2008 election.  Logistically, that's pretty tough as well, to find candidates, get them to run in a compressed election time-table.   It can be done, though.  The wildcard is just trying to finding multiple decent candidates who will give it a try. 

Finally, appointing a villager has its pros and cons.  I can't find where our municipal code explains how this is done, but I'd guess the Trustees interview interested parties, then choose one.  On the one hand, it shortcuts the effort necessary to run an election and it probably guarantees multiple candidates, and allows the board to flunk out light-weights. To have 6 Trustees pick someone to join their club has a spectrum of possibilities, more skewed however, to choosing the like-minded.

Tough choices.

Make sure to read the entry on the 22nd District Candidate Roundup for Wasserman's Seat.

Don't want to keep checking for WFB news on this blog?  Have it delivered to your inbox, so you won't miss anything.  Free.  Click here.

Trustee James Brennan said his abstention should have been considered a "no" vote, under Robert's Rules of Order, leaving the vote tied. A tie vote would mean the motion failed.

When the original vote for using Eminent Domain on the Famous Footwear/Talbots building passed 3-2, one Trustee recused himself, and Jim Brennan abstained.

Now, it appears, Trustee Brennan wanted the measure to fail, now arguing that his abstention should have been counted as a NO vote. The village's attorney has explained that an abstention is a blank vote, and the measure stands as originally reported.

Making Silver Spring into a vibrant community asset continues to be an uphill battle.