This post was contributed by a community member. The views expressed here are the author's own.

Politics & Government

Should Waukesha County Board Get Even Smaller?

After reducing board's size from 35 to 25 in 2008, some supervisors to push for more of a reduction this week.

How many supervisors does it take to do the work of the Waukesha County Board? How many does it take to have effective oversight of the county?

How many districts should Waukesha County split into for representation on the board?

Twenty-five would be the answer to all those questions, if a resolution to be considered Tuesday by the board is approved.

Find out what's happening in Waukeshawith free, real-time updates from Patch.

In preparation for required redistricting based on population changes reflected in the 2010 census, the executive committee of the County Board has recommended the size of the board remain at 25 supervisors.

In 2008, the size was reduced from 35 to 25.

Find out what's happening in Waukeshawith free, real-time updates from Patch.

However, Supervisor Peter Wolff of Waukesha plans to push to get that number cut again.

Wolff is considering two options for decreasing the size of the board: either having the board take the action or do it through a referendum on the issue, if there is enough time to get it on the ballot.

Decreasing the board to 25 supervisors had a positive impact, he said, which can be improved upon with another reduction.

“Since we decreased from 35, we’ve become more efficient,” Wolff said. "We’re handling the same amount of business with less."

Although exact numbers are still up for consideration, Wolff said that 17 may be a good number for the board.

“I don’t think we would do more work in downsizing to 17,” he said.

Regarding the workload, he acknowledged supervisors do spend a “significant amount” of time on County Board work, but that they also spend time on other boards and organizations as well. If they cut down on those activities, they could have time to handle the extra work that could result from a smaller board.

He wonders how necessary those other commitments are.  For example, as supervisor, he is a member of the county’s Library Board.

“It depends on what the people of Waukesha want,” he said, noting that he’s had only positive comments from people about downsizing.

Wolff also said that a smaller board would make supervisors more accountable.  Additionally, if there were fewer districts, there would be more competition for seats on the board, he said.

For Supervisor Pat Haukohl of Brookfield the question is whether downsizing is necessary.

“I always ask, ‘What is the problem you’re trying to fix?’” she said, noting that the board, as it is currently structured, is efficient.

“And we get the job done well,” Haukohl said. “Changing us from 25 will not save us much money and it certainly will not make us more effective.”

County Board Chairman Jim Dwyer of Menomonee Falls echoed Haukohl’s sentiments.

Of all the counties in the United States, he said, that Waukesha is one of only a few with a Aaa bond rating; and statewide, Waukesha County has one of the lowest tax levies and lowest number of employees per capita.

Plus, Waukesha is one of the only counties that has not implemented a sales tax, as most other counties have, he said.

“For the all the services we deliver - parks, health and human services, the sheriff’s department - I think we have a pretty good balance. We’re the oversight for everyone, the eyes of the people,” Dwyer said. “I think we do a pretty good job.”

Dwyer said when supervisors reduced the size of the board in 2008 – “right-sized,” he said – they considered what would be an effective board. They determined that 25 would work best, allowing for seven standing committees with seven supervisors on each committee and each supervisor serving on two committees.

The last time the board considered what would be an appropriate size, Dwyer felt some of the suggestions were somewhat arbitrary, not taking into consideration the committee structure of the board and the amount of people necessary to do board work. Much of the work is done at the committee level.

With smaller committees, it can be difficult to get a quorum and have a thorough discussion of issues, Dwyer said.

About the workload, Haukohl said, as chairwoman of the Finance Committee, she is very involved and her board work requires a lot of time, something that may not be the case for other supervisors.

She said her workload includes much that isn’t seen – preparation for meetings, reading reports and stacks of requests for proposal to be voted on. She sits in on the county executive’s budget meetings, plus there are other commissions and board meetings to attend.

“I just wonder how much of this other work they know about,” she said.

Another consideration is the area each supervisor represents. Currently, each supervisory district has roughly 15,000 residents and is drawn trying to take into account municipal boundaries, Dwyer said. She noted that different parts of the district can have conflicting views on issues, such as in issue that pits a town against a city.

“Sometimes we end up with mixed representation,” he said, something they try to avoid.

Haukohl is concerned that with a smaller board, supervisors will have to represent people from different communities and that would erode the sense of community representation the board currently has.

“I feel I represent Brookfield,” she said.

Another concern for Haukohl is the oversight factor the board provides to the executive branch of county government, the system of checks and balances for the county government.

The board makes sure the policies and people are in place to provide that oversight, she said.

“They don’t have enough of that in Milwaukee County,” she said. “We ask tough questions of the county exec.”

Her final concern is that fewer people would be involved in the process of county government.

Supervisor Robert Hutton of Sussex said when supervisors looked at the board size in 2008, he felt that it should have been reduced even further. He said he will not support a board size of 25.

“A government body works more effectively with a smaller size,” he said.

About the workload of the board, he said that there is some duplication of work among the committees and that the board structure and work distribution can be reconsidered at the same time.

With a smaller board size, he believes supervisors can still represent the interests of all their constituents.

“The constituency can still be well-represented,” he said.

Supervisor Kathy Chiaverotti of Muskego is undecided on the issue, saying she would like to hear both viewpoints before forming an opinion, although she does have some concern about downsizing.

She said that Waukesha County is operating very efficiently under the current size of the board, and it's only been two-and-a-half years since that change was made. She also was concerned about where to draw the line between part- and full-time supervisors.

“I don’t know when you get to the point that your board becomes full time,” she said. She would like to board to remain a part-time board.

Haukohl said that some supervisors have expressed concern about political pressure in voting to approve a board of 25 supervisors, but hopes they can make their decision regardless.

“The board functions very well at 25. I hope people vote their conscience,” Haukohl said.

Setting the size of the board is the first step in the redistricting process. The next steps will be to map the district boundaries and send the new boundaries to municipalities for consideration. The final adoption of the new county supervisory districts are expected to be completed by the end of August so that maps are ready for next year’s County Board election.

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here

The views expressed in this post are the author's own. Want to post on Patch?

More from Waukesha