Walworth County Executive Committee - 400 p.m

Document Sample
Walworth County Executive Committee - 400 p.m Powered By Docstoc
					                            Tuesday, November 21, 2006
                   Walworth County Executive Committee – 4:00 p.m.
                      Committee Room 111 – Government Center
                       100 W. Walworth – Elkhorn, Wisconsin

Chairman Weber called the meeting to order at 4:05 p.m.

Committee members in attendance included Chairperson Weber, Vice Chairperson Grant
and Supervisors Kupsik, Lein and Parker. A quorum was declared.

Others in attendance included Supervisors Ingersoll, Downing, Wagie-Troemel, Arnold,
Stacey, Burwell, Russell, Lohrmann, Ketchpaw and Kilkenny; Dave Graves, Sheriff;
Dave Shaw and Brian Rutkowski of Alpine Valley Music Theatre/Live Nation; Jean
Matheson, independent news writer; Bret Strong, Citizens for Responsible Government;
Bill Jacques, citizen; Jim Simons, Spring Prairie Town Chairman; Luke Lauderback, staff
writer for the Elkhorn Independent; Mike Heine, reporter for the Janesville Gazette;
Shane Crawford, Deputy Administrator - Public Works/Intergovernmental Relations;
Andrea Lazzeroni, Human Resources Manager; David Bretl, County
Administrator/Corporation Counsel; Michael Cotter, Deputy Corporation
Counsel/Director of LURM; Kurt Picknell, Undersheriff; Tracy Moate, Lakeland School
Director of Special Education.

Agenda withdrawals/agenda approval. The agenda was approved with no withdrawals on
motion and second by Supervisors Lein and Parker; the motion carried 5 – 0.

Approval of minutes. Supervisors Kupsik and Parker moved and seconded approval of
the Executive Committee minutes of October 2, 2006 and October 18, 2006 and the
minutes of the November 1, 2006 joint executive and finance committee meeting. The
motion carried 5 – 0.

Public comment period. Jim Simons stated his name and address, N6292 Paradise Dr.,
Spring Prairie. He indicated he would address the committee as both an elected official
and a private citizen. Change is coming, Simons said. How each of the members reacts
to the change that is coming, he said, will determine their future success or failure. He
said in April 2007, there is going to be a referendum concerning county board size, and
he indicated that 80% of citizens who were asked to sign a recent petition concerning
downsizing did sign. Based on the collection of signatures, he firmly believes the
referendum will pass. Simons said some citizens who are county employees were afraid
to sign the downsizing petition for fear of retribution by management. In his opinion,
that is a poor reflection on the leadership skills of the county board and its managers. He
said the board recently undercut the ability of the county administrator by its actions in
passing the 2007 county budget. He said the board needs to begin to work on re-
establishing its authority, credibility and leadership. He stressed citizens’ rights to
exercise freedom of speech, to demonstrate and to petition their government. He
cautioned the board members they should not attempt to restrict these rights by the
Walworth County Executive Committee
November 21, 2006 – 4:00 p.m.

                                                                                 Page 2 of 8

authority of their position as elected officials. He urged them to avoid being drawn into
confrontations that diminish the board’s ability to work together and which divide the
board and fragment the community the board is supposed to govern. He said the actions
of the executive committee will be watched carefully for the next several months by the
media, Citizens for Responsible Government, other elected officials and the citizens of
the county. He cautioned them to resist the temptation to slip into petty arguments.

      Lakeland Health Care Center Board of Trustees. Supervisors Guido and
      Hawkins’ elected terms are scheduled to end on January 1, 2007. The LHCC
      Board recommended reappointment of both supervisors. Vice Chairman Grant
      asked whether Supervisor Guido was in attendance and said it was his
      understanding that Guido had missed two or three meetings since his election to
      the LHCC Board in May 2006. Vice Chairman Grant said he wanted to put
      Guido’s re-appointment “on hold” until the committee got answers as to what the
      reasons for his absences were. Chairman Weber asked Administrator Bretl what
      effect holding the appointment would have. Bretl said Supervisor Guido would
      continue as a member of the LHCC Board until a successor is appointed.

           o Grant moved holding Guido’s reappointment and he recommended
             reappointment of Supervisor Hawkins. Supervisor Kupsik seconded
             the motion, which carried 5 – 0.

       Community Partner Advisory Group (CPAG). There are eight appointments to be
       made. Mary Kay Merwyn was the only person to apply. Supervisors Kupsik
       and Parker moved to nominate Merwyn; the motion carried 5 – 0.

       Veterans Service Commission. Veterans Services Officer Chris Jordan had
       provided a recommendation for reappointment of Raymond Mullein, the sole
       applicant. Grant and Kupsik moved nominating Mellien for reappointment.
       The motion carried 5 – 0.

       County Zoning Agency Committee. Greg Holden currently serves on the CZA
       and offered to serve for an additional two years. Supervisor Russell said Holden
       had initially wanted to give someone else an opportunity to serve. The Zoning
       Agency feels that Holden has done a very good job on the CZA committee. There
       has not been agreement on the board concerning appointment of other candidates.
       Supervisors Kupsik and Grant moved reappointing Holden for an additional
       two-year term; the motion carried 5 – 0.

Consent items. A reimbursement request submitted by Supervisor Lohrmann in the
amount of $337.52 was approved by 5 – 0 on motion and second by Supervisors Grant
and Kupsik.
Walworth County Executive Committee
November 21, 2006 – 4:00 p.m.

                                                                                    Page 3 of 8

Ordinance Amending Section 30-156 of the County Code Regarding Donations and
Naming Rights. Grant expressed concern regarding item (i) 1., specifying a period of
time not to exceed twenty years. He indicated he would want the name to remain as long
as the original intended use of the facility remained the same. Lein disagreed, stating he
did not think that was very realistic. The language was suggested: “…for a period of
time not to exceed the life of the facility or length of the purpose for which the facility
was built and dedicated.” Supervisor Downing said she would like the ordinance to
include language such as, “the county reserves the right to reverse the original decision
without cause” so the county can ensure consistency of purpose with the naming right.
Supervisor Kupsik asked Administrator Bretl whether there was anything that would
legally bind the county to a specific limit. Bretl indicated it was a good point to discuss,
to make it clear before accepting a donation what the expectation is. It was suggested the
following language could be substituted in subsection (4): “The duration of the naming
right be addressed in an agreement” or “Any agreement shall specify the period of
time…” Any agreement could also specify any particular circumstances under which the
county may reverse the naming right. Bretl also suggested a change in subsection (3),
something to the effect of, “It is not the intent of this ordinance to use county property for
commercial advertising purposes. The purpose of a plaque or any other recognition of a
donor shall be subject to approval of the county board.”

       Supervisors Grant and Lein moved and seconded having Administrator
       Bretl incorporate the changes discussed and renumbering the section so the
       committee can re-review the draft ordinance at the December 20 executive
       meeting. The motion carried 5 – 0.

Ordinance pertaining to a code of ethics for county board supervisors. Chairman Weber
clarified that the intent of the code was that the Executive Committee be the investigatory
body for any alleged ethical infractions, with the exception that if an executive committee
member was alleged to have violated a code, that person would be excused from the
investigation. Vice Chairman Grant indicated that the second point of his ethics code
draft, financial disclosure statements from board members, is not necessary to include.
Under item 3, conflict of interest, it was noted that this is already requested of supervisors
by the county. Under item 11 on page 3, Grant said it has been suggested an outside
counsel opinion be obtained concerning conducting investigatory hearing in executive
(closed) session. Bretl said an outside opinion could be obtained if desired. Throughout
the document, “Ethics Code Administrator” would be changed to “Executive

       Supervisor Grant moved adoption of the code of ethics ordinance with the
       changes discussed and inclusion of a legal opinion concerning item number
       11. Supervisor Lein seconded the motion. There was further discussion.
Walworth County Executive Committee
November 21, 2006 – 4:00 p.m.

                                                                                   Page 4 of 8

Chairman Weber called on Supervisor Russell, who stated she had some changes to
suggest. Under the “Code of Behavior” section, in the fourth paragraph, the word
officers should be changed to officials, she said. In paragraph six of that section, Russell
suggested including at the end of the sentence, “except as it involves discussion and
decision on committee/board agenda items.” She suggested that paragraph seven of the
section read, “…labor contract settlements as long as the issue remains confidential or
privileged. In the first paragraph of page 2 of the draft code, Russell suggested the
following: “Board members shall not make false statements concerning county board
issues or make individual public statements which may put the county board at risk for
litigation. This does not include protected activity.”

       At this point, Supervisor Grant withdrew his motion for adoption of the
       ordinance stating that it was apparent additional discussion about the
       proposed code was desirable.

In the second paragraph on page 2, Supervisor Russell suggested, “…shall not exercise
authority over staff or promote staff positions…” She explained that her intent is that
board members should not act as proponents of staff promotions or pay increases. Under
definitions, immediate family means “any individual related to or living with an official
or employee…for federal income tax purposes.” Supervisor Grant explained that he had
taken the definition from the statutes. Under item 4, the language would read,
“Privileged information…public record information particularly that which is designated
by the statute, court decision…” On page 3, it was suggested by Russell to add the
following phrase to the end of item 7: “except as subpoenaed by law.” She suggested
renumbering items A, B, C and D under number 11 as well as all subsequently numbered
items in the draft. In the last paragraph on page 4, Russell stated that she strongly
disagrees with the language “may be incarcerated.” She thinks jail is a very extreme
consequence for not paying a forfeiture ordered by the court. Bretl explained that jail
time is standard for failure to pay a forfeiture; however, a person cannot be imprisoned
for indigency. Bretl suggested the section could be modified to read, “…upon default in
the payment of such forfeiture and cost, may be incarcerated in the county jail until such
forfeiture and costs are paid, except in the case of indigency as determined by the court,
but in no event…” Supervisor Ingersoll asked whether there wasn’t already a code of
ethics the board was subject to. Bretl explained that ethical behavior for elected officials
is prescribed in the Wisconsin Statutes. Weber said Grant’s draft code provides more
specificity. Grant said he drew from the ethics codes of four other counties. State law
always “trumps” county law as a rule, according to Bretl.

       Supervisors Kupsik and Lein moved and seconded the county administrator
       including the above-noted changes discussed by the committee. The motion
       carried 5 – 0.
Walworth County Executive Committee
November 21, 2006 – 4:00 p.m.

                                                                                    Page 5 of 8

Alpine Valley annual review for 2007 concert license. Administrator Bretl explained that
this is the annual review for the upcoming concert season. The review process has been
tightened in recent years following potential litigation relative to the Terrapin Station
concert in 2002. Dave Shaw, General Manager and Brian Rutkowski of Alpine Valley
were in attendance to answer any questions. The license application was legally
advertised and appropriately posted with the media and local municipalities to provide
opportunity for any members of the public who might wish to make statements for or
against Alpine or renewal of the concert license. The license application was circulated
among county staff for review, and all of the changes suggested by the Sheriff’s office,
Health and Human Services and Land Use and Resource Management have been
incorporated into the operations plan and license application. The applicant has a
property right to conduct the concerts and operate the venue. The committee has the
authority to regulate the operation and ability to withhold or deny the license if it is found
that any parameters have been violated or are not in compliance with county ordinances.
The additional measures Alpine will take to control fireworks use are addressed in sub-
section 10-47 Fireworks on page 8. Asked by Chairman Weber if they were satisfied
with the plan and license application, both Sheriff Graves and Undersheriff Picknell
expressed satisfaction with the operations plan and application. Dave Shaw expressed his
feeling that any issues from the 2006 concert season were satisfactorily resolved with
neighboring property owners. Chairman Weber asked is there was any comment from
the public concerning the Alpine license. There was none.

       Supervisors Grant and Parker moved and seconded approval of the 2007
       license; the motion carried 5 – 0.

Supervisor Russell expressed appreciation for Alpine staff addressing the fireworks issue
that had been a problem during the 2006 concert season.

Price County Resolution 49-06 Repealing 2005 Wisconsin Act 100. Deputy
Administrator Crawford addressed the committee. The resolution concerns liability
associated with not offering equal representation due to redistricting. Act 100 requires
that existing boards within municipalities be utilized to create new supervisory districts,
potentially causing over or under representation. An opposing group can force a
referendum every election with no recourse. With any downsizing and redistricting, there
is the possibility for unequal representation, thus creating the potential for a lawsuit being
filed. Crawford’s research revealed that only a handful of counties have passed a
resolution like this. He indicated it is really a state Department of Administration matter
where it concerns redistricting and equal representation in supervisory districts. Given
that our county has much bigger issues to focus on, he recommended placing the
resolution on file.

       Supervisors Lein and Kupsik recommended placing the Price County
       resolution on file; the motion carried 5 – 0.
Walworth County Executive Committee
November 21, 2006 – 4:00 p.m.

                                                                                 Page 6 of 8

La Crosse County resolution 51-10-06 in Support of Increasing the Medicaid
reimbursement rate for dental care. Access to dental care is a huge problem in
Wisconsin. The resolution states that a La Crosse advocacy coalition formed in
November 2005 to advocate solutions to the dental care access issue found that increased
Medicaid reimbursement rates would be the most effective method of doing so. The
resolution, however, does not state the specific increase hoped for. In Crawford’s
research, he found that a recent poll was conducted in the public sector to determine
spending priorities. The two items with the highest support were health care at 75% and
education at 70%. He questioned where the state would get the money to increase
Medicaid reimbursement for dental care. There is no money for this cause and more, no
political will at present to implement such a change, according to Crawford. La Crosse
County stated the problem but did not offer any substantive, viable solutions in its
resolution. It was recommended the resolution be placed on file.

       Supervisors Lein and Parker moved and seconded placing La Crosse County
       resolution 51-10/06 on file; the motion carried 5 – 0.

Wisconsin Department of Administration final Population estimate for January 2006.
Administrator Bretl said individual municipalities within counties might, on occasion,
take issue with it the DOA’s report. He recommended placing the information on file.

       Supervisors Grant and Lein moved and seconded placing the final
       population estimate on file; the motion carried 5 – 0.

Kenosha News article concerning volunteer program in Kenosha County utilizing
volunteer services in police departments. Andrea Lazzeroni contacted the Kenosha
Sheriff’s department and Appleton Police department to gather information about their
volunteer program. Walworth County has a sheriff’s citizens academy. The sheriff’s
department conducts complete background investigations on volunteers, who sign
waivers. Most do clerical duties and have assisted with DARE and bicycle safety
programs. Sheriff Graves ensures that volunteers are not exposed to confidential
information. The VIPS volunteer program in Appleton has gained momentum
nationwide. County Mutual, which assists the county with risk managements issues and
insures the county for liability issues in the workplace, indicated to Lazzeroni if
volunteers were injured on the job, the county would be liable. There are some
volunteers at Health and Human Services; Lazzeroni does not know what their specific
duties are. Chairman Weber asked Undersheriff Kurt Picknell about the citizens
academy volunteer program. There is no DARE program any longer. There are no
building tours offered. There is a small bicycle safety program. Graves said the sheriff’s
student worker could always use assistance with his/her duties. There are boxes of
scanning material that have not been done yet. There are volunteers in land conservation
and at Lakeland School. Tracy Moate indicated they shelve books in the school library.
Walworth County Executive Committee
November 21, 2006 – 4:00 p.m.

                                                                                Page 7 of 8

Bretl suggested forwarding this matter to the HR committee for review to ensure that
current county ordinances support this type of program and to review any labor relations
issues. Supervisor Lohrmann questioned the liability issue and what additional staff time
might be needed to utilize volunteer assistance. Graves and Picknell said they did not
anticipate any issues related to staff time or volunteers working in their department.

       Vice Chairman Grant moved forwarding this matter to the HR committee
       with a favorable recommendation. Supervisor Lein seconded the motion,
       however, expressed the desire that staff investigate volunteer options
       thoroughly to ensure appropriate waivers are signed by volunteers. Bretl
       indicated there would always be potential liability issues associated with
       utilizing volunteer services. The motion carried 5 – 0.

Correspondence from Supervisor Kilkenny regarding media reports of County
Chairperson Lohrmann’s activities at East Troy polling place on November 7, 2006.
Chairman Weber asked whether facts as represented in the Janesville Gazette were
correct. Supervisor Lohrmann addressed Kilkenny as to why he was asking questions of
her concerning her activities on that day. He said the purpose was not to request any
specific action of the executive committee but to clarify confusion concerning her
activities on November 7th. A Janesville Gazette news article, he said, raised more
questions about her activities than it answered. Kilkenny had submitted a list of
suggested questions for the Executive Committee to ask Lohrmann. Weber asked her
whether she was refusing to answer the questions. Lohrmann indicated that she only had
to answer to the county taxpayers and requested the list of questions. She said she would
consult with her attorney and provide answers within thirty days. Kupsik questioned
whether the executive committee was the appropriate body to be addressing Kilkenny’s
inquiry. Traditionally, the Executive Committee has looked into the activities of board
members when there was any question or concern. Kilkenny stated that he did not
suggest any particular action such as forwarding the questions or a recommendation to
the board for any action. If the committee is comfortable with Lohrmann’s indication she
would provide a response to the list of questions in thirty days, without speculating what
the committee wants to do, it would be appropriate for the committee to conduct a
follow-up. Lohrmann was asked whether she could have her response to the questions by
December 20, the executive committee’s next regular meeting. She reiterated she would
have her response within thirty days. Jim Simons, who had spoken earlier during the
public comment period, asked Kilkenny for a copy of his letter concerning the suggested
questions of Lohrmann. Simons said he had requested them earlier from Kilkenny, but
Kilkenny had denied the request.

Chairman Weber had no reports or announcements.

The next meeting date was confirmed for Wednesday, December 20, 2006 at 4:00 p.m.
Walworth County Executive Committee
November 21, 2006 – 4:00 p.m.

                                                                                  Page 8 of 8

Claims. On motion and seconded by Supervisors Lein and Grant and a vote of “aye” by
all members, the committee convened in closed session at 4:20 p.m. pursuant to § 19.85
(1) (g) Wis. Stats., for the purpose of conferring with legal counsel for the governmental
body who is rendering oral or written advice concerning strategy to be adopted by the
body with respect to litigation in which it is or is likely to become involved, relative to
the following:
           Dan Zibble – Property Damage Due to Road Work
           Disability Rights Wisconsin, Inc., Plaintiff vs. Walworth County Board of
           Supervisors, Defendant

       The committee reconvened in open session at approximately 5:40 p.m. on motion
       and second by Supervisors Kupsik and Grant.

       Supervisors Kupsik and Parker moved to hold the Zibble claim. The motion
       carried 5 – 0.

       There was no motion with respect to the Disability Rights matter.

At approximately 5:50 p.m., on motion and second by Supervisors Parker and Lein and a
vote of “aye” by all members, the committee convened in closed session pursuant to the
exemption contained in Wis. Stats. Sec. 19.85 (1) (c) for the purpose of considering
employment, promotion, compensation or performance evaluation data of any public
employee over which the governmental body has jurisdiction or exercises responsibility,
relative to the following:
             Update regarding County Administrator’s 2006 goals and annual performance

       The committee reconvened in open session and took the following action relative
       to the closed session item: Supervisors Kupsik and Grant moved and seconded
       directing Supervisors Lohrmann and Weber to meet with County Administrator
       David Bretl to review the committee’s performance appraisal of Bretl.

On motion and second, Chairman Weber adjourned the meeting at approximately 7:00

Respectfully submitted by Suzanne Harrington, assistant to the county administrator.
These minutes were approved unanimously (5 – 0) by the committee on 12/20/06.