Theo Lipscomb
Milwaukee County Supervisor Theodore Lipscomb was elected chair of the Milwaukee County Board of Supervisors in July and comes into power at a unique time in Milwaukee County history. As a result of the secretive political maneuvering by County Executive Chris Abele along with the conservative Republican legislators in Madison, the Republican-controlled Legislature passed a series of bills that have ignored the voters of Milwaukee County and stripped the board of much of its power, while boosting Abele’s control. The board now has no say over sales of county land other than park land, lost its involvement in mental health services, can only approve large contracts, has no authority over county salaries and personnel issues, and will go part time next spring. Shockingly, it could have been worse. Abele had asked for—and received from the state Joint Finance Committee, co-chaired by River Hills Republican Sen. Alberta Darling—the ability to completely override any action by the county board, which would have given him essentially complete control over everything to do with county government. Somehow, cooler heads prevailed and the full Legislature scaled back Abele’s self-serving request in the final state budget.
Lipscomb was elected in 2008 to represent the northern suburbs of Bayside, Brown Deer, Fox Point, Glendale, River Hills and a section of Milwaukee’s Northeast Side. He sat down with us last week to discuss Milwaukee County’s changing governance, the pending Park East land sale deal to the Bucks’ majority owners, and the similarities between Abele and Gov. Scott Walker.
Shepherd: Why did you want to run for board chair?
Lipscomb: It wasn’t a new interest. I had run in 2012. It’s an important position, helping to lead the direction of the board and trying to build consensus and bring people together on issues where we have some common ground.
Shepherd: Republicans in the state Legislature took away much of the power of the county board, including many of the checks and balances used by an independent branch of government, and gave them to County Executive Abele. What power has the board lost?
Lipscomb: The most recent responsibility they took away was [overseeing] land sales, other than park land. The new state budget gives [Abele] nearly unilateral authority over the sale of non-park assets. He essentially has to get either the comptroller or a private citizen—he just has to find one—living within the municipality wherever the asset is located to agree to sell it. That comes after previous changes that really gave him much more power over contracting and raised the threshold of contracts that came to the board for approval.
|
|
Regarding the state budget, as shocking as the things they have given him is how close they came to giving him more—and the fact that he was unashamed about the fact that he had asked for all of those powers. He had asked for unilateral authority over all contracting, all procurement, and essentially they were ready to give him like a supreme veto. The ending language in the motion that had passed Joint Finance said that anytime there was a disagreement between the board and the county executive, the county exec’s position should prevail. So more than a veto; there was a supreme veto. The plain reading of it was that there was no point in having a county board, because it was his way or the highway all the time. I guess reason prevailed and they pulled back on that. But for them to even draft it and adopt it once was shocking. And the fact that he was so unashamed to say, yes I asked for that authority. I think my first reaction was that I would distrust anyone who would seek that kind of authority. I think it’s a recipe for corruption and I wouldn’t want to give that kind of authority to anyone, even a friend.
Shepherd: What power does the board still have?
Lipscomb: We still have the power of the purse. At the end of the day we still adopt the budget. This year it’s a $1.3 billion budget. And in many cases that’s the backup to the policies that we set. Just look at a couple of attempts that [Abele] made in recent years. He had a clear vision of a privatized transit system. The board set a clear policy saying no, you’re not. Unless we agree to an outsourced, out-of-state contractor, you should bring it in house. And ultimately that’s what we did. We embraced the nonprofit that had served us for four decades and pulled them in, basically with some representation on their board we now control [Milwaukee Transit Services]. And they continue to serve the public. I think with that we were giving [Abele] responsibility. And you see the first thing [his administration] did, they put us into a labor turmoil for the first time in 38 years.
Shepherd: With the responsibilities given to him, what are some of your fears of what might happen, in terms of corruption or the sale of assets?
Lipscomb: That was one of the most interesting things. We started to probe what the non-park assets are. Well the airport is a non-park asset. The zoo is a non-park asset. And while it sounds like a stretch to some, it’s not a stretch. There were people who were trying to sell or lease the airport in the Scott Walker administration. While people say it’s far-fetched, it’s not. And you don’t have to go that far back to see that there are people scheming to get their hands on such assets. It is scary to think about what kind of people are walking in the door now with all sorts of requests.
Shepherd: The state Legislature made county supervisors part-time employees, slashed their wages and eliminated their benefits. How do you think this will change the demographics of who will run for the board? What’s the board going to look like in a few years?
Lipscomb: The whole idea is back to the future, right? They’re saying that that’s what it always was. And what you had was a less diverse board, tending to be older with some other source of income. They were overwhelmingly lawyers, Realtors and insurance agents—that’s the narrative I’ve always heard. This board is probably the most diverse board anywhere in the state. You’re going to lose much of that diversity over time. And I think that was the intent.
Shepherd: Part of the deal for the new Bucks arena is Abele’s willingness to sell nine acres of Park East land to the majority Bucks owners for $1. Steps were taken to have the supervisors vet it and potentially take a vote on that. What’s the status of the Park East sale now that the board has lost its authority to oversee non-park land sales?
Lipscomb: We’re told that the terms of the deal are the same as what was presented to the board. It is unclear that we have any authority with respect to that sale or to enforce the provisions that they say are part of the sale. Does it in fact honor the PERC [Park East Redevelopment Contract, a community benefits agreement], as they’ve said? Will there be workforce hiring requirements and those sorts of things? I can’t be certain. He talked about ensuring community benefits, and I thought, how can that be when you are opposed to living wage?
Shepherd: Part of the Bucks deal is that the county will lose $4 million annually in shared revenue from the state. How will the board deal with that?
Lipscomb: The financing package passed by the Legislature is a direct $4 million deduction from the county’s state shared revenue, the money that the county would normally receive for the safety net services, for all of the services we provide. In order to fill that hole you either need to find $4 million in cuts or the equivalent tax levy increase is about 1.4%, which is almost as much as we raise the levy in any given year, but this is for just one thing. So it’s disingenuous when it’s sold as if this is not a levy impact, that this does not directly impact our ability to deliver services. It’s a significant hole in our budget.
The bad debt collection plan as proposed by Abele has clear problems, as have been identified by the comptroller, the clerk of courts and the treasurer. So it’s not just the county board saying that this is problematic. Three other independently elected officials have raised significant concerns about that plan. But the premise that you would finance an arena for billionaires on the backs of those who are least able to pay their debts, I think that strikes people as being unfair and inequitable.
Shepherd: Back to politics. The county exec has picked many fights with many individuals and groups within the county, including the county board. Out of the 18 members, how many reliable votes can he count on?
Lipscomb: If you look at his record on vetoes, it’s a pretty extensive list because he vetoes a lot of things. I’ve always said that he has a worse record than Scott Walker in terms of the county board and veto overrides. Scott Walker could get maybe 30% of his vetoes sustained. All you have to do is get a third of the body to agree with you [to sustain a veto]. That’s not a high bar.
But what you’ve seen is that Abele is regularly overridden by significant margins, a couple of times on a unanimous or near unanimous override. That just shows you someone is not even attempting to find a bloc of support. If you’re vetoing things and you don’t even know if you have two people out of 18 to support you, then is it for show or do you really expect to sell your idea? You’re clearly not selling your idea. That points out the fact that I could not even tell you who serves as his legislative liaison right now. I don’t think anyone has come down to the county board for a year or more.
Shepherd: You’re going to be going over the budget this fall, but what issues concern you, in addition to the loss of $4 million from the state?
Lipscomb: The other big hole is the result of more recent pension errors. The actuarial error and the changes they’re making are about a $20 million hole. It’s a combination of the changes they’re making, and accelerating things, and then there’s the error. I think the bigger issue as we go into this budget is that the board has the power to set policy, but the Abele administration is seemingly willing to ignore policy and essentially break the law to not carry out the policy. It’s one thing to say you disagree and we have a fight. But once your veto’s overridden, the job you were elected to do is to execute policy. We’re seeing that they’re often unwilling to do that.
Shepherd: The Journal Sentinel and the right wing have totally mischaracterized the conflict between the board and the county executive, claiming that a dysfunctional board is hampering the county. How much of the conflict do you think has been initiated by the county exec?
Lipscomb: I think he’s definitely tried to use that conflict and dysfunction narrative. He’s definitely using that playbook, and it was the Scott Walker playbook and he picked it up and he’s running that same game. The reality is that we are 18 supervisors, very diverse, representing very different communities. They all came into office their own way, knocking on doors, having conversations on porches, with the people they represent. That stands in stark contrast to the executive’s path to office, where he dropped $1 million on media and then once there he continues to live in his echo chamber. You only hear from people who agree with you. No one else is going to get a meeting, quite frankly.
The life that you live as an elected official is very different. Where do I run into my constituents? I probably have more of these conversations in grocery stores and parks and the playground than I do at the Courthouse. People don’t drop in unless they’re on jury duty. But they do stop me everywhere else in the community. Contrast that to the county executive, who lives high above the rest of us and now surrounds himself with private security, partially paid by the county, but private security nonetheless. He’s insulated. I think the way you govern is affected by your interactions with constituents. When we disagree, I don’t think of that as dysfunction. I think of that as democracy.
