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.

I've been meaning to drop in a story about our newly elected Trustee, Tom Fehring.   He's trying to put me out of business.

Sort of.

He has his own blog!   Imagine that, a Village official, tinkering with internet outreach.   So far, Tom's been writing about topics from construction to rain barrels .. he's got a great page on Exploring WFB History .. and one explaining his take on how to Improve the Village .. I hope to see future blog entries on all the secret wheeling and dealing behind Trustee doors. 

Heck, I'd be happy to read about the public wheeling and dealing, as our media coverage is pretty thin.

Oh, and here's something else.  He has a public email address, TrusteeFehring@WFBVillage.org.  Imagine that. 

All the Trustees have private email addresses that some people are fortunate enough to have, but they're not technically public information.  If you want to reach the Trustees via email, the official way is to email the Village Manager (manager@WFBVillage.org) who will forward/print your email for Trustee consumption.  Hardly 2007 technology.

Of course, the reluctance has something to do with open records laws, whereby official communication should be archived.  Now that WFB has a new website, with GovOffice servers, the technology should be available.

I think email correspondence is vital to a more responsive government.  Let's face it, Whitefish Bay's demographics are dominated by busy people.  Families with soccer games to go to.  Dance recitals, kung-fu tournaments.  Not many have the time to go to Village meetings and voice their opinions, or just converse with their officials.  

Email is the great equalizer, as it lowers the bar, making it very easy to communicate with the people who represent you.  Of particular import, though, is that with more communication, vocal minorities can be equalized by the greater community. 

In Shorewood, you can contact your Trustees via email.

In Glendale, you can contact your Trustees via email.  They even have Trustee pages, on their (otherwise abysmal) website.

In Mequon, you can contact the Mayor via email.  Partial credit.

In Brown Deer, you can contact most of the Trustees via email.

In Cedarburg, you can contact your Trustees via email.

In Grafton, you can contact your Trustees via email.

In Port Washington, you can contact your Trustees via email.

Fox Point and Bayside have pretty nice websites, but no Trustee access.  

But extra credit goes to Bayside.  Somehow, their tiny town has got their internet act together, minus Trustee email address.  You want a list of New Ordinances?  How about Resolutions?  (Oh, and notice how a resolution was passed 5 days ago, and posted immediately?  Warp speed.) How about a WEEKLY newsletter on what Bayside officials are up to?  Great stuff.

WFB Trustee Fehring requested his Official email address.  Let's see Pritchard, Roemer, Schmidt, Cheng, Siegel, and Brennan do the same!

Make sure to read Homeowner Rights Suffer Blow.  and ARC-ARGH.

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.

I've been to three meetings at Village Hall in the past year to witness three decisions I cared about.  I am 0 for 3.

The first I attended was to observe the annual decision to continue the practice of having Trick-or-Treating on Sunday afternoon, trumping tradition with convenience, flying in the face of how the rest of the country celebrates Halloween.  While I was disappointed, life will go on, and the GHOST-PAC army will grow each year.

The second, was to witness the debate on allowing Aurora Health Care build a clinic on prime Silver Spring property.  Again, I was disappointed in the decision, but I understood it.  When your business district is in a death spiral, you accept sub-optimal establishments, hoping it will work out.

I went to last night's Trustee meeting to hear the debate on curtailing homeowner rights.   To be honest, this one made me angry.

To summarize, the debate was over how homeowners may use their garages.   As Whitefish Bay residents seek to improve their homes, their dilapidated garages are replaced with glorious new structures, often with room above the car park that can be utilized in ways only bound by the homeowner's imagination.   Maybe a home office, maybe a toy room, maybe a neighborhood ping pong arena, or maybe just a simple room with a couch to read books in peace.

Well, imagine no further, Whitefish Bay residents.  You can't do that anymore. 

Four residents spoke at the meeting, two of them architects, all asking: Where is the public outcry for new regulation?   The answer is, there isn't any.  

The trustees based their decision on two specious elements.  Safety, and privacy (aesthetics).  Since fires can break out in garage spaces, Whitefish Bay "shouldn't" allow habitable space above them.   An audience member debunked that idea with two hits:  First, we allow people to live atop attached garages all the time.  Second, new garages are required to be built to fireproofing standards.  

As for the "privacy" rationale, whereby residents don't want tall remodeling projects blocking out their view, Trustee Siegel aptly suggested that occurs frequently in Whitefish Bay, as people are allowed to construct additions to their homes, which certainly alter the view of neighbors. 

Furthermore, we have an Architectural Review Commission who makes sure all projects are of "proper scale and mass."    For the most part, these garages with floorspace above will be built.  The question is, what can people do with them?

At one point, Trustee Roemer, who was chairing this part of the meeting, said he was uncomfortable with the rules at hand, and he thought the Board would not be able to vote on them until the issues had been resolved, since the debate had exposed many unaddressed problems.  However, since the "Plan Commission had worked on this for so long", sending it back to them wouldn't be productive.  It appeared the Trustees just wanted to move on, flaws notwithstanding.  They then passed each rule as written, with a couple feeble dissents per rule.

As a guess, I think Trustees Roemer and Fehring, who cast the two lone dissenting votes, were frustrated but swept up in the bunch.

Honestly, this kind of regulation is infuriating.  Whitefish Bay is landlocked.  Lot sizes are small.  Homeowners should be encouraged to do their best with the small property they have with the rules already in place, .   The answer to residents desiring more space to inhabit on their property shouldn't be "MOVE TO MEQUON."  

What angers me the most, however, is that this is a classic case of lawmakers passing a regulation that the public would overwhelmingly reject.   There were 4 village residents who spoke passionately and knowledgeably against passage.  There were ZERO residents there to speak in favor, besides the ARC chair who spoke informationally.  Yet the Trustees imagined hoards of Fonzies, secretly renting out 2nd floors of garages (with no plumbing).  The Trustees imagined fictional Villagers taking umbrage with neighbors using space above their new garages for offices, or recreation, or dozing.  

To an extent, I blame myself.  I should have written a column weeks ago, maybe snared a few more residents who care about their rights as homeowners to show up.  On the other hand, would the Trustees have listened had 10 people showed, or 20?   The Trustees were using their imaginations about unspoken, theoretical neighbor unhappiness which apparently trumped the passionate pleas from those actually in attendance.

(And for the record, I don't have a garage, so I am not biased to favor lax rules.  I do, however, realize my family has doubled in the past two years, and my 1300 sq. foot home is getting smaller by the minute.  A home with an extra room over the garage could be exactly what I'm looking for in my next WFB residence, but alas.)

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.

Voter registration roles are public information .. the data for WFB is interesting.  There's a record for each of the 9,892 registered voters in Whitefish Bay, detailing their name, address, and voting record.  Yup.  I know if you, William Whitefishbay of 1234 Henry Clay, voted or not.  If you lived on Henry Clay, there's an 81% chance you didn't vote.  More about that later.

The data for the April 2008 election is not out, except for knowing that there was a 43% turnout.

I crunched the numbers from the April 2007 election to compare two similar elections.  In 2007, 4 candidates were on the ballot for Village Trustee (Brennan, Roemer, Foster, Anderko) .. and there was a WI Supreme Court race with two candidates, Ziegler and Clifford.  2008 had a contested Village Trustee race (Fee, Siegel, Fehring) and a WI SC race, Butler and Gableman.

2007 Compares to 2008 in that, for both years, there were WI Supreme Court races, and a contested Village Trustee race.   2008 also had a Milwaukee County Executive Race (Scott Walker/Taylor), a WFB Judge Race, and the Frankenstein Referendum -- It is interesting that voter participation went from 32% in April 2007, to 44% in 2008. 

I'm not sure how to explain that 12 point, 37% increase in participation from 2007 to 2008.  Maybe it was the Walker/Taylor race.. or the 100s of ads for State Supreme Court, but were there more ads for the 2008 SSC race, than the 2007 SSC race?  In comparison, Shorewood's turnout rate stayed around 34% for both April 2007 and April 2008.  So if the ads motivated WFB residents to vote, it should have also motivated Shorewood's residents.  And it did not.

Maybe WFB's voter increase had something to do with the nature of the Trustee race?  You could theorize that Villagers have been inundated with Silver Spring business closures over the past 12 months, which may have spurred people to vote.  Heck, I suppose one difference between 2007 and 2008 is that no one wrote extensive Candidate Profiles (cough, cough) in 2007, so who knows .. maybe this very blog made a difference, yielding a more informed electorate and higher turnout.  (I'd like to think I helped out.)

Ok .. enough with that.  Here's a table of a street-by-street breakdown of who voted in WFB for the April 2007 election. 

Clearly, short streets shouldn't win the prize for "Best Voters" .. I think that prize goes to streets like Lake View, Circle, Birch, Woodburn and Newhall.  Chateau, Anita, and Henry Clay are where the slackers live.

StreetName	Registered Voters	DIDN'T VOTE	VOTED	% Vote
MONROVIA	4		4	100.0%
SCHOOL	3		3	100.0%
KIMBARK	15	3	12	80.0%
MEADOW	30	13	17	56.7%
FLEETWOOD	4	2	2	50.0%
BLACKTHORNE	38	21	17	44.7%
MORRIS	36	20	16	44.4%
LAKE VIEW	120	67	53	44.2%
PALISADES	34	19	15	44.1%
CIRCLE	113	64	49	43.4%
BIRCH	97	55	42	43.3%
WOODBURN	265	152	113	42.6%
FREDERICK	12	7	5	41.7%
NEWHALL	142	84	58	40.8%
WILSHIRE	69	41	28	40.6%
CONSAUL	15	9	6	40.0%
DEVON	10	6	4	40.0%
COURTLAND	79	48	31	39.2%
BRIARWOOD	26	16	10	38.5%
SHEFFIELD	141	87	54	38.3%
HAMPTON	162	101	61	37.7%
DAY	85	53	32	37.6%
LEXINGTON	171	108	63	36.8%
SYLVAN	87	55	32	36.8%
WILDWOOD	74	47	27	36.5%
MAITLAND	22	14	8	36.4%
ELKHART	246	157	89	36.2%
BEAUMONT	89	57	32	36.0%
LAKE HILL	14	9	5	35.7%
MARLBOROUGH	90	58	32	35.6%
CUMBERLAND	292	189	103	35.3%
CARLISLE	88	57	31	35.2%
BELLE	20	13	7	35.0%
SHORE	118	77	41	34.7%
WOODRUFF	182	119	63	34.6%
BERKELEY	589	388	201	34.1%
MURRAY	44	29	15	34.1%
KENT	515	340	175	34.0%
ARDMORE	192	128	64	33.3%
LAKE	567	378	189	33.3%
LAKE DRIVE	15	10	5	33.3%
LANCASTER	67	45	22	32.8%
IDLEWILD	314	211	103	32.8%
WFB AVERAGE				31.8%
GLENDALE	60	41	19	31.7%
HOLLYWOOD	374	256	118	31.6%