Despite Milwaukee County’s long-standing Anti-Secrecy Policy, County Executive Chris Abele and his administrators often operate in the shadows. Four county committees addressing parks issues, convened since 2016 by Abele or his administrators, repeatedly have conducted meetings outside of public view.
One such committee, the Milwaukee County Parks’ Pay-to-Park Work Group (which proposed parking meters in our county parks), was “specifically subject to Wisconsin’s Open Meetings Law” (OML), according to the county’s corporation counsel, Margaret Daun. Nonetheless, that committee’s meetings were closed. Abele’s aides and administrators have also stonewalled about whether other committees were subject to, or complied with, OML requirements. The four committees were all officially named, and each convened multiple times to discuss hot-button issues regarding the county’s parks. Appointed citizens as well as county officials served on them, and none was apparently an ad hoc group randomly assembled.
The committees that have failed to post public meeting notices are the aforementioned Pay-to-Park Work Group (to implement paid parking in county parks); the Earned Revenue Task Force (formed by Abele regarding increasing park fees and other income); the Ravine Road Bridge Work Group (to assess options for the long-neglected historic footbridge); and Abele’s Conservatory Advisory Committee (to recommend policy about the Mitchell Park Domes. To be clear, however, the Milwaukee County Task Force on the Mitchell Park Conservatory Domes—a committee created later by the Milwaukee County Board of Supervisors—does follow OML requirements.
County administrators have since erroneously claimed that these advisory committees properly served as “public engagement” about controversial issues and have touted “recommendations” purportedly made by the committees. In fact, transparent engagement was mostly avoided, and few (if any) meeting minutes can be accessed. Also, none of these committees is listed among the “Special Committees, Task Forces and Commissions” on the County Legislative Information Center (CLIC)—Milwaukee County’s online public-information hub.
Why Open Government Matters
Transparency is essential to good governance. Wisconsin’s OML states that “a representative government of the American type is dependent upon an informed electorate…[and] the policy of this state [is] that the public is entitled to the fullest and most complete information regarding the affairs of government…[To] advance this policy, the open meetings law requires that ‘all meetings of all state and local governmental bodies shall be publicly held in places reasonably accessible to members of the public and shall be open to all citizens at all times unless otherwise expressly provided by law.’ There is thus a presumption that meetings of governmental bodies must be held in open session.” Additionally, Milwaukee County’s Anti-Secrecy Policy reiterates open meetings and public records laws.
|
|
The Wisconsin Open Meetings Compliance Guide (see sidebar) states unequivocally: “Any doubts as to the applicability of the Open Meetings Law should be resolved in favor of complying with the law’s requirements.” When asked about closed-door meetings, numerous county administrators have posited that a respective committee was somehow exempt from OML—without offering credible reasons for such assertions.
The Pay-to-Park Powder Keg
A parks paid-parking scheme was snuck into the 2018 county budget, as reported in the Shepherd Express in November, with a committee charged with setting parameters. The Pay-to-Park Work Group did not issue public notices of its only two meetings—Dec. 6 and Dec. 14, 2017. When asked for copies of such notices, Jeremy Lucas, a senior budget analyst, replied, “There were no responsive documents.”
At the Thursday, Feb. 1, 2018, county board meeting, Corporation Counsel Daun confirmed that the Pay-to-Park Work Group was subject to open meetings law. Responding to Milwaukee County Board Chairman Theo Lipscomb’s questions about the committee’s OML compliance, Daun said, “I can’t speak to prior meetings as my office was not involved in their scheduling or other matters.” Lipscomb noted that he had raised the open-meetings issue with Abele prior to the committee’s formation. “They [administrative staff] continue to appear to function as if they are not subject to open meetings.”
County administrators also failed to appoint “representatives of park advocacy groups,” as mandated in the budget amendment creating the parking committee. When Abele was asked by a reporter on Tuesday, Feb. 6, about why no park advocates (from among 50 “park friends” groups) were on the committee convened by his administration, the county executive replied, “You should talk to the county board about that.” Board chair Lipscomb responded in an email, “I do not believe I was ever consulted or requested to make any appointments to the work group.”
Supervisor Sheldon Wasserman had responded in an email of Tuesday, Jan. 16, “I had absolutely no knowledge of this group’s formation. It was created by the county executive’s office, without my input, so contacting their office would be the best route to gain more information regarding the members of the group.” Wasserman’s district includes the Milwaukee Lakefront north of Downtown, where hundreds of parking meters were being planned. An explosive public meeting that was held on Feb. 6 at the Domes Annex resulted in Abele’s abandonment of all pay-to-park plans—for now.
Earned Revenue Task Force a Private Concern
Last summer, the county board requested “a written informational report regarding the status and purpose of the Earned Revenue Task Force” from either the parks director or county executive. At the July 18, 2017, meeting of the Parks, Energy and Environment Committee, then-Milwaukee County Parks Director John Dargle double-spoke that the Earned Revenue Task Force was “not technically a task force created by the executive’s office.” Dargle maintained that it was instead “some business associates [of the executive] that have come together” to discuss the parks budget and offer ideas about how to generate more revenue in parks “through fees, charges, memberships” and other sources.
In lieu of a written report, Dargle said that ideas developed by the task force would be included in Abele’s proposed 2018 budget (which did call for a 25% increase in parks revenues, including from parking fees). Abele’s super-secret committee indeed influenced parks policy and budgeting, despite being downplayed as “nothing formal.”
Responding to a Shepherd Express public records request, Abele aide Carly Wilson confirmed on Nov. 14, 2017, that “The Earned Revenue Task force did not produce any minutes or public notices, and a listing of the task force membership is included in the attached report from Teig Whaley-Smith,” the latter Milwaukee County’s director of administrative services. Whaley-Smith, known by insiders as Abele’s “enforcer,” issued the report to the board five months after it was requested.
Whaley-Smith’s memo was the first specific revelation of Earned Revenue Task Force appointees, who met for about five months. He said they were enlisted to provide “high-level recommendations” to increase income from “products and services” in county parks. In addition to county staff (including from the executive’s office), the committee included Tom Devine, head of business development for Potawatomi Casino; Nathan Harris, owner of Ugly’s Pub (and featured in a TV ad for Abele’s 2016 campaign); Joe Kirgues, cofounder of Gener8tor; Alex Lasry, Milwaukee Bucks vice president; Jeff Sherman, publisher of OnMilwaukee.com; and Gary Witt, president of PTG Live Events.
In fact, government officials may informally seek input from anyone without having to follow the OML. However, formally creating committees, appointing members and then secretly convening them contradicts any claim that such advisory committees constitute either transparent government or “public engagement.” Secrecy taints any recommendations attributed to advisory committees.
Abele’s Super-Secret Domes Committee
After the Mitchell Park Conservatory Domes were closed in early 2016 for preventive repairs, Abele said he intended to conduct a “transparent and open” planning process for their future, led by an advisory committee that he would convene. In late March 2016, Abele told the Cultural Landscape Foundation, a Washington, D.C.-based organization, “Earlier this month, I launched a steering committee comprised of stakeholders from the business community, non-profit community, neighborhood groups and more, which has already begun meeting.” Despite that boast, Abele’s office refused to provide any details about this committee, which apparently met multiple times.
Bridge Committee Leaders Foggy About Transparency
Another committee charged with recommending policy also convened privately. In response to a request about Ravine Road Bridge Work Group meetings, county engineer Karl Stave wrote on Tuesday, April 3, 2018: “As to your request for records related to [p]ublic notices for each of the work group’s meetings… there are no responsive records. These meetings were not considered public meetings, although they were open to the public, and various members of the public did attend.” Concerned citizens had learned of the meetings through word of mouth and online, not through county-issued notices.
At the first couple of bridge meetings, county administrators seemed confused about whether the public should be allowed to observe. At one, several observers were about to be ousted until committee member and attorney William Lynch arrived and said that the meeting indeed must be open, based on OML requirements. County officials still tried to argue that its “openness” was due to being in a public space, and that citizens could be excluded if the committee instead met in a private location. Lynch also refuted that assertion.
A representative of GRAEF, a private county-retained engineering firm, conducted the bridge meetings. GRAEF posted minutes and other information through a File Transfer Protocol (FTP) account, which is not included on the county’s public information portal. Milwaukee County Parks’ Planning and Development webpage includes GRAEF’s bridge study, but not the peer reviews of that report. A recent county press release cited the work group in support of a grant application to raze and replace the National Register-listed bridge.
A Pervasive ‘Culture of Secrecy’
Civic-minded residents are being asked to serve on advisory committees without being informed about the Open Meetings Law; it is also unclear whether county administrators fully comprehend OML requirements, based on their responses to requested facts. Nonetheless, any member of a governmental body who “knowingly” violates OML is subject to fines up to $300 for each infraction (see sidebar).
Not all citizens serving on county advisory committees are kept in the dark about OML. For example, the corporation counsel’s office made a detailed presentation about OML compliance to the board-created Mitchell Park Conservatory Task Force. That training slideshow presumably is available for other committees and staff.
Abele and Whaley-Smith are setting the tone regarding transparency through their attitudes and practices. One county employee, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said, “A culture of secrecy pervades the Abele administration. Disregarding [the] Open Meetings Law seems acceptable, since no one has been held accountable for noncompliance during Abele’s seven-year tenure.” Might Whaley-Smith, a lawyer, be endeavoring to evade open meetings requirements in how advisory committees are created and their business is conducted?
Regardless of whether OML applies, David Pritchard, UW-Milwaukee professor of journalism and expert in laws about access to government information, says the bigger question is, “Why don’t you want the public there?”
If a “culture of secrecy” indeed exists, what is, or should be, the corporation counsel’s role? Responding 30 days after an inquiry about OML (twice as long as the State of Wisconsin’s recommended response time), Corporation Counsel Daun wrote in an email, “My office advises our clients with great regularity related to their obligations under the law, but my office cannot legally enforce the Open Meetings Law as it applies to Milwaukee County.” When publicly questioned by board chair Lipscomb, Daun said she could not speak to OML compliance for meetings for which her office had “no role in scheduling.” Might that be true for most county meetings? In any case, why are so many county administrators either unaware of or cavalier about open meetings compliance? Are employees pressured to fall in line about secrecy rather than adhering to OML?
The corporation counsel reports to both the county executive and the county board. Proposed legislation pushed by Abele (SB777), currently on hold in Madison, includes a provision that the county executive would exclusively supervise the corporation counsel, without county board review. If passed, how might that affect the board’s access to the corporation counsel and the impartiality of legal advice provided about issues affecting the public?
Pritchard told the Shepherd Express that even meetings not technically subject to OML, including those regarding parks issues, “could be far more open than they are. The county should be putting out press releases and other publicity that far exceeds the minimum requirements of OML,” so that any interested citizen at least has the option of attending meetings. Ultimately, Pritchard believes the county executive would do well to take a leadership role to urge that county staff “go far beyond mere OML compliance. With all the serious budget issues and other challenges the county is facing, if Abele wants support from the people about possible solutions, he needs to encourage openness and transparency,” Pritchard said.
Information for this article was acquired through public records requests, attendance at meetings and accessing archives through the county’s Legistar website, as well as the Wisconsin Open Meetings Law Compliance Guide and via interviews conducted with county employees and experts on open access to government.
