Jefferson Banner - Opinion
John Foust - JDC and CIA

"First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win." - Gandhi

"First they tell you you're wrong and they can prove it;
then they tell you you're right but it isn't important;
then they tell you it's important but they knew it all along."
-
Charles Kettering, former head of General Motors

 

Investigating and Restructuring Jefferson's Economic Development 

by

Introduction: Small town values 

Perceptions of small-town government come in two varieties.

On one hand, there's the notion that small towns were at the heart of the style of democratic representation forged in the American Revolution.  Small town governance meant nearly direct representation and the possibility of a personal relationship with local officials and the chance that you'll bump into them on Main Street, like Mayberry's Sheriff Andy Taylor.

On the other hand, there's the horror-movie staples like corrupt police, judges, old boy's networks or city officials who bend the rules as they see fit, making life hell for those who step out of line.

If I told you that the City of Jefferson was laundering tax dollars through secret organizations to promote private interests and to hide spending from the public eye, you'd ask for evidence.

You'd expect that small-town management would closely watch all expenditures, insuring that pioneer-style frugality ruled over big-city excess and graft.  You'd expect watchful and regular accounting of what was spent, on what, and by who.

Your perception would shift from the positive small-town image to the negative one if you learned that local government and those on its payroll worked hard to deliberately obscure what they were doing, why they were doing it, and rudely questioned your very right to ask "Why?".

To adapt an aphorism from Henry Kissinger, "Small-town politics are vicious precisely because the stakes are so small."

This is my story of how and why I tried to open up Jefferson's economic and business development efforts.  It is a blend of personal opinion and my own objective reporting of the sequence of events.  If there is something inaccurate here, I will correct it.  This is the unique sort of presentation suited to the Web.  If you wish, you can click on the underlined links and read each and every supporting document.

This long story concludes with a summary of what I see as the flaws in the City's present economic development structure, followed by my vision for its replacement.

Opening the JDC and CIA

In mid-April, I met with Jefferson's City Administrator, David Schornack, to learn more about the structure of Jefferson government and related organizations, in order to develop the Jefferson city page here on goJefferson.com. 

I was surprised when he said the Jefferson Development Corporation (JDC), the group that oversees the city industrial parks, was a private corporation and that he didn't need to tell me any details of it.

A private JDC didn't make sense to me.  The JDC is overseeing City property, staffed by someone paid by City funds, is housed on City property in the Carnegie Building, and it's not open to the public?

I asked more questions.  How could the JDC not be open to the public?  City Administrator David Schornack explained that this question had been raised in the recent past, and that City Attorney Scott Scheibel had looked into the matter, and the JDC's attorney had researched it, and the conclusion was that it did not need to be open to the public.

I was baffled, and I left determined to research the question myself.

Similarly, the CIA receives all of its funding from the City, split three ways between the main City budget, the Sewer Utility, and the Water and Electric Commission.   In 1999, the CIA received $43,650, paying the Executive Director's salary of $32,400 plus benefits.

Shortly after I met with the City Administrator, I met with Executive Director David Olsen.   Olsen is the Executive Director of the JDC and the Executive Director of the Chamber of Commerce.

Olsen is hired by and reports to the Commerce and Industry Association (CIA), a seven-member board made up of City, JDC and Chamber officials.  The Executive Director position is a full-time position, overseeing the day-to-day operations of the JDC and Chamber.  The CIA was formed in early 1994.  The first Executive Director was Bob Coffman.  Olsen is the second.

Executive Director David Olsen gave me the by-laws of the CIA, JDC and Chamber of Commerce.  I spent several hours with him that afternoon, as he explained the inter-relationships of these various groups, their funding and administration, and their role in the community.

Regarding the question of whether the public could attend the JDC meetings or learn the details of its function and expenditure, Olsen repeated the same story I heard from Schornack: they'd already looked into this question, and the JDC was not open to public scrutiny.

By now I'd assembled the details of each organization.  Looking at the composition of each Board, I saw a great deal of cross-linking.  The same people were on several Boards. 

The by-laws of the CIA aren't very descriptive.  It's clear they weren't composed by a lawyer.  It's hard to understand exactly how the CIA is related to the City of Jefferson.

Joining the JDC

In the first paragraph of the by-laws of the JDC (as of the spring of 1999), it clearly states "Any individual residing in the Jefferson area may become a member upon payment of annual dues in an amount established by resolution adopted by the board of directors.  Any firm conducting a business or profession in the Jefferson area may become a member upon payment of dues in like amount."

I asked Executive Director David Olsen about the dues.  As it turns out, the JDC has never collected dues, so it appeared that to join the JDC, all I had to do was ask.

On April 20, 1999, I spoke with JDC President Gaylin Morgan by phone, asking to join the JDC.  He seemed genuinely tickled that someone would ask to join the JDC, and couldn't recall that this had ever happened before. 

Gaylin Morgan said when the JDC was created, the intention was to have "broad citizen input".  He explained the JDC has trouble with attendance, noting that at least several times a year at its monthly meetings, it can't reach quorum.  I asked if this meant that I was a member, and it is my recollection he said "yes."

Olsen changes "yes" to "no"

The JDC by-laws also state "The books of this corporation containing the membership and accounts and the records of this corporation shall at all reasonable times be opened to the inspection of the members."  To learn more about what the JDC did, I wanted to see the records.

After I told Executive Director David Olsen that Morgan had said I was a JDC member, I asked to see the records and books.   Olsen then began to dispute my JDC membership.  He called Morgan and asked that the question of my membership be discussed at the next JDC meeting.

From Executive Director David Olsen's language and demeanor, it was clear that he was going to do everything he could to stop me from becoming a JDC member or from seeing its records. 

He suggested that the by-laws would need to be changed to prevent just anyone from joining.  I asked "Why?" and his answer was "I don't know."  He also suggested that the JDC would need to begin to raise dues.  Again I asked "Why?" and his answer was "I don't know."

I didn't like being stonewalled like this.   On April 20, I wrote this letter to the Board asking to join the JDC.  I hand-delivered it to several Board members.

I'm not the first?

Shortly after this, I learned I wasn't the first person to raise these questions. 

The former City Clerk of Jefferson, Faith Elford, attended a conference in the summer of 1998 and came back with a mission to confirm that all City organizations were complying with Wisconsin open meetings and open records law.

Before the creation of the CIA in early 1994, JDC meetings were announced to the public in the same fashion as any other public meeting.   Similarly, JDC records such as the agendas, minutes and financial reports were kept in a binder at City Hall.  To this day, you can go to City Hall and ask for the JDC records and the clerk will give you a binder of records that ends in March 1994.

Elford was puzzled.  According to what she'd learned at this conference, the JDC should be considered a governmental organization and subject to Wisconsin's open meetings and open records laws.  Similarly, the CIA should be open, too.

After the CIA was formed, the first Executive Director, Bob Coffman, kept all CIA and JDC records at the Carnegie Building.  City Hall was no longer given a copy of the records.

To be fair, at the time, City Administrator Karl Frantz was serving as the JDC's secretary, so it is possible that the JDC records were at City Hall because Frantz was keeping the notes.  Frantz's departure and the creation of the CIA and the Executive Director position all occurred in early 1994.

I spoke with Elford.  We agreed these groups should be subject to the open meetings law.  I was stymied, though, by my discussions with Schornack and Olsen.  I asked Elford what I could do next, and she recommended contacting the District Attorney.

Help me, D.A., you're my only hope...

In this April 23, 1999 letter to Jefferson County District Attorney David Wambach, I ask him to investigate whether the CIA and JDC should be subject to Wisconsin's open meetings law.

"Play nice."

In an April 29 fax, District Attorney Wambach also found it necessary to warn the City Attorney about the behavior of City, JDC and CIA officials:

"Dear Scott, Here is a copy of the letter you requested.  I am confident that you will remind Mr. Schornack, Mr. Olsen and anyone else affiliated with the JDC or CIA that anything less than professional and courteous treatment of Mr. Foust would reflect poorly on those organizations and complicate any open meeting decisions I may be called upon to make in the future.  [Signed] David Wambach 
P.S. I look forward to your thoughts, opinions and conclusions regarding the applicability of the open meetings laws to the CIA."

D.A. uncovers previous investigation

Not long after this, District Attorney Wambach uncovered an interesting pair of letters. Because of City Clerk Faith Elford's questions in the summer of 1998, City Administrator David Schornack asked City Attorney Scott Scheibel to research whether the JDC should be subject to the open meetings law.

Attorney Scott Scheibel's letter from August 27, 1998 is short and clear.  Yes, the JDC is in legal terms a "quasi-governmental corporation" and subject to Wisconsin's open meetings requirements.

Apparently Executive Director David Olsen didn't like the conclusion of Scheibel's letter, so he contacted the Wisconsin Attorney General's office on his own.  Executive Director David Olsen spoke with Assistant Attorney General Bruce Olsen in a phone call, and  came away with the impression the JDC could remain closed and not subject to open meetings law.   He called Scheibel and attempted to tell him he was wrong.

Scheibel responded in a letter to Schornack, cc'd to Executive Director Olsen.  Attorney Scheibel's letter from September 10, 1998 is much longer, and includes several pages of quotes from State Attorney General opinions.

Scheibel spoke with Assistant Attorney General Bruce Olsen and confirmed the source of the discrepancy.  Executive Director Olsen hadn't supplied all the facts.  He hadn't mentioned Scheibel's original letter of August 27, nor did he describe the covenants between the City and the JDC, filed at the Register of Deeds office.  In these covenants, one of the few written descriptions of the role of the relationship between the City and the JDC, the JDC is given City-like governmental powers to administer the industrial park.

If you see it in the Sun, it must be so

You might be wondering why you never heard about this story in the local newspaper, the Daily Jefferson County Union.  I wonder, too.  I believe that principals of the JDC and its Executive Director were taking steps to insure the story wouldn't be published until absolutely necessary.

Thankfully, Jim Schroeder of WFAW radio covered the story several times during this period, as well as the statewide Wisconsin State Journal newspaper.

It's not that the Union didn't know about the story.  In early May, I spent more than an hour giving details to Ryan Olson, the reporter on the Jefferson beat.  For the next few weeks, Ryan said he couldn't get a quote from JDC President Gaylin Morgan.  His editor, Chris Spangler, deemed Morgan's response as critical to the publication of the story.

Later the excuse changed.  For the next few months after that, the reporter and editor said the story would be delayed until the District Attorney wrote his opinion in response to my April request.  Reporter Ryan Olson assured me he'd already written most of the story, so it was ready to go at a moment's notice.

The story would not see print until September 8.   All this was very frustrating.  Without coverage in the local paper, I only had word-of-mouth to explain what was happening.

Mind you, the Union is a typical hometown paper, full of "local color" stories of new collections of antique spoons exhibited at small-town museums, long descriptions of inspirational speakers and singers at local churches, letters to the editor of unlimited length, and the customary per-town social columnists writing of out-of-town visitors and who had dinner at who's house.  There is a shortage of hard news with a local angle.  It carries plenty of two-day-old wire service stories.

CIA meeting disappears, kicked out of JDC meeting

I'd been told the next meeting of the CIA was scheduled for May 11, 1999.  On May 10, I sent this letter to Executive Director David Olsen and City Administrator David Schornack, asking to attend the CIA meeting.  

Strangely, although that meeting had been scheduled for May 11 at the January meeting, the meeting was never held because the Executive Director never sent an announcement to the CIA Board. 

The morning of May 18, I tried to attend the meeting of the JDC.  They allowed me to sit, then speak for a few minutes, but after that I was asked to leave.

The evening of May 18, the CIA requested and received its next allocation of funds from the City Council without debate.

JDC and City Council meet, but no meat

In late May, the JDC publicly posted an announcement of a June 22 dinner meeting with the City Council for its "Annual Gathering of the JDC".  As the agenda described, I called to RSVP.  Executive Director David Olsen questioned whether the public was allowed to attend, especially because the meeting was described as a dinner taking place at Meadow Springs Country Club.  There was some debate about whether I'd need to pay for my own dinner, or not.

A few days before the Annual Gathering, on June 15, I addressed the City Council in the public participation section of the meeting.   In this speech I warned the City Council that a quorum of the Council would be present at the Annual Gathering, so it was subject to open meetings law.  I also encouraged them to hold the meeting in a more public place, add a public participation section to the agenda, and skip the dinner at taxpayer expense.

Shortly after that, I also wrote a letter-to-the-editor for the Daily Union.  Here's the text.

Here is a transcript of the June 22 "Annual Gathering."  If you're hoping to learn about what the JDC has been doing in the past year, you won't find it here.  If you're wondering about the dinner, it was buffet-style sandwiches and potato salad.)

In the transcript, you will find dry humor like JDC President Gaylin Morgan's statement:

"So after fifteen years of all these secret closed meetings held at 6:45 in the morning so that nobody can attend and know what we're doing, and after fifteen years of this high living at taxpayer's expense, what have we really accomplished? Some people would have us fold our tents and disappear. But I can't really believe that anybody with a shred of memory or half a brain would be that shortsighted."

Not only are the meetings at 6:45 a.m., but they're on the third floor of the Morgan & Myers office building. 

I couldn't recall anyone suggesting that the JDC disband.  I certainly never did.  I thought it was obvious that my message of "Let the public in" acknowledged that the JDC was playing a key role in our community.  I only wanted to read about it in the paper, or hear it on the radio, or even attend a meeting.

Come to think of it, back in May through the grapevine of JDC-related people, the oblique threat came down that Morgan himself suggested the JDC would disband if forced to hold public meetings.  He and others thought that the JDC couldn't do its job if it was subject to open meetings law, and would need to be shut down if it was.

I'm not sure why he thinks that.  Open meetings law has a raft of perfectly legal exemptions that allow a group to go into closed session, including negotiations for purchase or sale of property.  I have no complaint with that process, it's part and parcel to the law I hope the JDC will obey.  If the JDC is actually involved in a sensitive negotiation, let it be private.

Most of the time, the JDC is not negotiating a deal, and the public should be a part of that process.   With all that spare time and a full-time staff member, you'd think they would have a master plan for populating the industrial parks, or a rigorous schedule for cold-calling prospective investors, or a policy statement that explains what kind of business they are trying to bring to Jefferson and why, or a spreadsheet showing the cost/benefit analysis that shows the industrial parks are good for the City, or a plan to revitalize the empty storefronts and dismal environment downtown.  As far as I can tell, they don't.

More illegal meetings, inadequate minutes

On August 3, the CIA held an emergency "special meeting".  This meeting wasn't announced to the public.  This was a violation of the open meetings law.  Even though I'd written a letter in May to Executive Director David Olsen and City Administrator David Schornack asking to attend the next CIA meeting, I was not informed of the meeting.  At the time of the meeting, I was sitting in my office directly across the street from the building where the meeting was held.  They could've yelled out their window and I might've heard it through my window.

After I learned of the meeting, I asked Executive Director David Olsen for a copy of the minutes.  The minutes of the August 3 meeting are here.  In them, it states "Discussed the open meetings/open records requirements and how they pertain to the Commerce and Industry Association and the Jefferson Development Corporation. The district attorney is conducting an analysis regarding the JDC and the CIA relating to open meetings. The JDC is awaiting the district attorney's response. The CIA is subject to open meetings and open records."

That's it!  Without a vote, and with this bare-bones description of what must have been a heated discussion, the CIA concludes it is subject to open meetings and open records law.  Half of my April request to the District Attorney was now moot.  All that was left was the question of the JDC's status.

Amnesia strikes

As you might imagine, I was very curious about the discussion that took place.  I asked Executive Director Olsen for a more detailed description of the conversation.  He claimed to remember nothing more than what was written in the minutes.  He repeated it verbatim and could supply no additional details.

He claimed that he'd forgotten what happened because it occurred ten days ago.   Over and over, he attempted to knock me into unconsciousness with a weapon composed of fifteen seconds of silence chained to a puzzled "I don't know."

Knowing that he always carries a tape recorder, and create the minutes based on the recordings, I asked to listen to the tape.  This is allowed by open meetings law.  In particular, when recordings are used to create the minutes of meetings, the tapes can't be erased until the written minutes are approved at the next meeting.

Executive Director Olsen claimed to have erased the recording.  He thought he'd re-used that tape to record the JDC meeting.  Later he denied that.  Last year, Olsen was paid to attend a seminar to learn how to take minutes in compliance with State law.

Success!

On September 7, Jefferson County District Attorney David Wambach wrote his opinion in response to my original April 23 letter.  Success!  In his opinion, the JDC was subject to open meetings law.

The next morning, September 8, I revived my open record request for the JDC.  In it, I reiterated my request for the missing JDC minutes from 1994 until the present.  I also asked for the tape of the August JDC meeting.  Around this time, in person, Executive Director Olsen claimed to have erased the tape of that JDC meeting, too, but it later surfaced.

It never stops

Here is Olsen's September 8 response to my August 20 request for the CIA tape.  In it, he finally confirms that the CIA tape has been erased.

Here's my September 10 response to Olsen, which explains my recollection of his reasons for erasing the tape of the CIA meeting, and showing that he should have had a reasonable expectation that this tape shouldn't be erased.

Here's the September 15 response from the CIA to my open records request.  This was originally provided to me in draft form.  Later, Olsen refused to submit a final version, but finally sent it on October 14.

Illegal closed session

On September 3, the CIA scheduled a meeting.   On the agenda was an entrance into closed session as allowed under Wis. Stat. sec. 19.85(1)(g), which means they were supposed to be discussing the written or oral opinions of the attorney for the CIA.  The CIA doesn't have an attorney, and they weren't discussing any pending legal involvements.

Here's my September 2 warning to van Lieshout that the CIA is about to violate the law, followed by similar letters to City Attorney Scott Scheibel and the District Attorney.

Here's the September 2 statement I made to the CIA Board, warning them they're about to illegally enter closed session.

Of course, they entered closed session and spent 90% of the hour-long meeting in closed session.  Here's my September 3 letter to van Lieshout asking for an explanation of why they went into closed session.  Here's van Lieshout's September 17 response to my request.

After all this, I decided to file a formal complaint.  Here's my verified complaint of October 4, given to the District Attorney.  I realize this was a drastic step.  The CIA Board members could be fined by the District Attorney.  I know they didn't sign up for this volunteer civic duty, but they confirmed at their previous meeting that they were subject to open meetings law.

More CIA shenanigans

Here's Olsen's September 27 response to my August 26 letter. In this, he explains that City Administrator Schornack spoke with League of Municipalities attorney Curt Witynski.  Their new interpretation is that because the CIA acknowledged its open meeting status on its own, it can pick and choose which records will be released.  In other words, they're claiming the CIA was private before this.  On what basis, it has not been explained.  The CIA was created by action of the City Council and has been 100% funded by the City.   It should've been open all along.

I contacted Witynski on my own.  Here is City Administrator Dave Schronack's original memo, my letter to Witynski, and Witynski's response, all packed in this October 1 e-mail.  Guess what - he admits his opinion has no basis in State statutes or opinions of the State Attorney General.  In other words, this was a guess and his personal opinion.  Why the CIA didn't ask the District Attorney across the street, we'll never know.

JDC minutes and agendas

Here's my October 4 response to Olsen, in which I suggest a test by which sensitive records can be protected, and the rest released.  I get no response to this suggestion.

Here's Olsen's October 5 response to my October 4 letter.  Ridiculous!  In this letter, Olsen claims he doesn't understand who should respond to my letter.  He suggests that I be more careful to address letters specifically to the JDC or CIA.  However, he doesn't follow his own advice, and neglects to state which agency he's speaking for in this letter.

Here's my quick October 5 response to Olsen, in which I remind him that he is indeed the proper person to respond to requests of the CIA and JDC, and that if he wants to respond to each of my letters with two separate letters, that's OK with me.

Here's Olsen's October 6 response to my October 5 letter, on behalf of the JDC.  In this, he refuses to add a discussion of my open records request to the agenda of the next JDC meeting, scheduled for October 19.

Here's my October 6 response to Olsen of the JDC, in which I ask that this open records matter be discussed at the next JDC meeting, that it's a violation of law to ask me to explain a purpose for requesting the records, and that the JDC has suggested no explanation for withholding records.

Olsen's October 12 response to my October 5 letter, on behalf of the JDC.  It consists of seven repetitions of the phrase "No response needed", one "CIA issue", and the sentence "I think this adequately addresses your October 5, 1999 letter concerning the JDC."

Olsen's October 13 response to my October 5 and October 12 letters, on behalf of the CIA.  In this, among other things, he directly contradicts his September 15th claim that the CIA has no physical assets, although this will be discussed at the next CIA meeting in December.

Here's my October 18 letter to the District Attorney, asking if the meeting he'll be having with the CIA Board is open to the public.  I also refute the arguments presented by the CIA in the Daily Union story to explain why they went into closed session.  He called back to assure me that "pre-charging conferences" are not open to the public, and said that the newspaper story's claim that he'll wrap up his decision by October 22 "didn't come from my office".

Here's my October 18 response to Olsen of the JDC, in which I repeat my request to discuss my open records request in public, not private.  I ask that JDC meetings be held at a more reasonable hour, not 6:45 AM.  I request more records - the JDC financial details.  I ask for the JDC phone records, just to insure that they'll refuse to give them to me, claiming that they don't exist.

Olsen's October 18 response to my October 6 letter, on behalf of the JDC.  He continues to demand a private meeting for me to explain "what it is that you really want to see", supposedly at the advice of the Attorney General himself.  Well, not quite.   Doyle said that, but it's hard to know the context.

Here's my October 20 letter to Olsen of the JDC.  In order to avoid more opportunities for obfuscatory stonewalling, I ask for the meeting to discuss my six-week-old request for the JDC minutes.

On the morning of October 21, Olsen called me to say that the JDC Board had decided on a ten cent per page copying charge, and that he'd be glad to go ahead and copy the documents I'd requested and extend credit and present me with a bill.  I got the impression that he was about to copy an indefinite number of documents.  He wouldn't clarify, and he eventually hung up on me.  I fired off a quick response in this October 21 letter.

Minutes later, Olsen's October 21 response to my October 21 letter, on behalf of the JDC.  It sounds like he's ready to refuse to provide any records prior to September 8, 1999, doesn't it?

I ask for a clarification of this in yet another October 21 letter.  I remind him that he hung up on me.  

Later he called back and claimed that when he calls someone with a single question, his rule is that the conversation is over when the question has been answered.

On October 22, the District Attorney declined to prosecute my open meetings complaint against the CIA.  They might've broken the law, but it didn't seem serious enough to prosecute.

Also on October 22, Olsen dropped off a disk containing the redacted minutes of 1998 and 1999 JDC meetings.  They're now available online.  He seemed almost chastised.  By whom, I don't know.

Olsen's October 25 response to my October 18 letter.  It contains the strange assertion that the JDC did not discuss my open records request at the October 19 JDC meeting, but you can plainly see from the minutes that they did.  He also denies that any JDC long-distance records exist because the Chamber pays the phone bill.

Olsen's October 26 response to my October 20 letter.  Olsen says that State Attorney General Jim Doyle told him that he must respond to open records requests, even if the person is "not polite, not nice, and don't treat you with respect."  But would it be considered professional, polite, nice and respectable to tell the requester that you felt this way?  I guess so.  He's still redacting records.

Olsen's October 27 response to my October 26 letter.  Suddenly, after providing redacted minutes five days before, now Olsen says that non-redacted, original minutes are waiting for me in his office.  He asks "The JDC is appealing to your sense as a civic-minded businessperson working for the betterment of the community and hope that you will honor these redactions."  How the JDC decided this, I don't know.   They last met on October 19, and won't meet again until November 16.

Olsen's October 28 response to my October 21 letter.  Not much here.

I didn't know it until I asked for all correspondence from the JDC to the Attorney General and received this letter on October 28, but Olsen had a conversation with Alan Lee of the Wisconsin Attorney General's office on October 21 and wrote this October 22 letter summarizing the questions he asked, and the answers as he interpreted them.

On November 19, I sent this letter to Mayor Arnold Brawders.  The JDC had announced it would revise its by-laws to eliminate the general membership provision, and I asked him and the Council to appoint new members like any other City commission or committee.  It also planned to self-appoint the four seats (Dempsey, Hamann, Olsen and Schornack) that were to become open in January 2000.

Soon afterwards, in person the Mayor assured me that he agreed with my letter and that he'd discussed it with JDC President Gaylin Morgan, and that they'd change the policy so that the Mayor appointed the candidates and the Council would approve them.  

However, at its December 21 meeting, the JDC decided to take no action in this regard unless forced by the City Council.  They self-appointed the four candidates who asked to retain their seats.

On December 13, 1999, I sent this letter to Olsen, asking him to explain why he's not a public employee and why the CIA writes him a personal check for his health care expense, as opposed to paying it directly to his provider.

On December 22, I received this copy of a December 6 response from Alan Lee, which states that his office is not authorized to give any opinion regarding whether Olsen is a public employee or not.

On December 21, the CIA met and the agenda included a discussion of whether Olsen was a public employee and which assets were owned by the CIA.

The board decided that Olsen was not a public employee, although they completely dodged my question that I thought was centrally relevant to the issue, which was the simple question of "Exactly what sort of legal entity is the CIA?"  I did not receive a clear answer.  No one wants to define exactly how the CIA is associated with the City.  If they allowed that the CIA was an arm of the City, it would make more sense to consider the Executive Director position a City employee.

Olsen's December 22 response contains ten "no response needed".  The letter repeats the decisions made at the CIA meeting, that the CIA owns no assets, and that all previous purchases of office equipment are the property of the Chamber of Commerce.  This amounts to a transfer of City assets and funds to the Chamber, a private group, without Council discussion.

Also on December 21, the JDC met.  After some discussion, they decided not to change the method by which they fill vacancies on the Board.  The four positions that were up for renewal in January 2000 were filled by the present holders of those seats.  No alternatives were considered or sought.

On December 22 I received the minutes of the closed session of the September 2 meeting of the CIA.  This is the meeting composed of the closed session to discuss my open records request.  This computer file was prepared by David Olsen on December 17.  The entire description of the closed session is "Discussed retaining an attorney to respond to an open records request," a contradiction of several previous explanations of what happened during that meeting, and was clearly intended to convey no actual information about what occurred.

JCEDC, not JDC; and intimidation attempts

At the December 21 JDC meeting, in the course of discussing the proposed changes to the JDC by-laws, David Olsen held up the by-laws and articles of incorporation of the Jefferson County Economic Development Corporation (JCEDC).  I believed this made them fair game for an open records request.  This was a coup.  Previous direct attempts to get these documents had failed.  Earlier in the summer of 1999, I'd asked the JCEDC's Executive Director Marilyn Haroldson for their by-laws and minutes, and she refused, claiming that in 1995 the JCEDC was specifically created as a private corporation that contracts with the County and its municipalities in order to avoid Wisconsin's open meeting and open records laws.

In a follow-up letter, I explain how Olsen attempted to insult and intimidate me on December 22.  His intent was clear: try social pressure as a means of stopping my open records requests.  On January 3, I received this response from the CIA.

Amazingly, the intimidation attempts continued.  On January 19, Olsen came to my office to confirm he'd received my request for the most recent JDC meeting minutes, and to deny that he hadn't sent me notice of the meeting.  Then he acted in a most childish, bizarre fashion in order to try to provoke an incident that he could use to discredit me.  Fortunately, I think it backfired, as you can see by the police report, which recommends that I shouldn't be caught alone with Olsen again without a witness, lest he attempts to provoke another invented incident.  Olsen filed a complaint with the police. By the time they'd arrived, I'd already written my account of the incident as part of a letter to the CIA.  

I also submitted another open records request on January 26, asking for a more rapid response to my records requests.  Olsen's complaints about wasted time seemed a bit hypocritical, given his unsolicited in-person confirmations of receiving records requests, and his inability to deliver the records quickly. I also ask if the JDC paid for a Chamber membership in 1999 and 2000. 

I received a two-part response from the JDC on January 31 and February 1.  In these, Olsen refused to answer my general questions in the future, claiming he would only respond to official records requests.  All other questions will be ignored, he says.

In the January 31 letter, Olsen claims the JDC wasn't a Chamber member in 1999, but they're listed on the 1999 membership list along with the CIA, the City of Jefferson, and the Jefferson Water And Electric Department. 

Time records of the Executive Director must be kept

Early in February I received an anonymous telephone call from someone who'd read this web page. Since my investigations began, I've received many calls of support from people in the Jefferson area, thanking me for shining lights in dark places.  I've struck a nerve among a group of people who've grown disappointed with the machinations of City politics.

This caller pointed out that according to Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development (DWD) law, all employers must keep accurate records of each employee's working hours.  My first impression was that this didn't apply to salaried employees, but in two separate confirmations with the DWD, they assured me it applied to every employee. On February 18 I sent a letter to the CIA, JDC and Chamber, pointing out this requirement. You might think it should be a matter of common sense and financial prudence for the CIA to define the hours, vacation time or benefits of the Executive Director position, but they don't.

On February 26 Olsen sent a response.  He complains that I'm requesting records more than once and I'm wasting his time.  He says he gave me the January JDC minutes on January 21.  In response to my protestations that certain records should be available, or that he's intentionally delaying my access to records, or that he's harassing and intimidating me, he says three times "... Please don't take it up with me. Instead follow the legal avenues available to you as defined in the state statutes."  

On March 1 I responded.  I point out that the enclosed floppy disk was unformatted and did not contain the records Olsen claimed.  I show that the disk he gave me on January 21 did not contain the minutes he claims.

In his March 1 response, Olsen blames me for supplying a faulty disk.  One may wonder why he didn't notice this when he was copying files to it.

On February 29, JDC President Steve Lewis visited me to address the concerns in my February 18 letter.  He said Olsen was drafting a response that he would sign.  In a March 1 response from Lewis, he confirmed the JDC was a paying Chamber member in 1996 and 1997, which doesn't explain why they were still on the membership list in 1999.

In a March 1 response from CIA President James van Lieshout, he acknowledges there are no "terms and conditions of employment" established for the Executive Director, and says that this and other issues raised in my letter will be addressed at the next CIA meeting.  The next scheduled meeting is several months away.

Conclusions about the CIA and Executive Director position

The City of Jefferson needs to reconsider its approach to economic and community development.  The creation of the CIA in 1995 was originally considered an experiment to address the needs of the City for its industrial parks and the sustenance of the Chamber of Commerce.  The CIA needs to be reevaluated on its own merits.  Flaws need to be addressed and corrected.  Jefferson deserves better than what it has now.

Among the problems with the present CIA, JDC and Executive Director position:

  • There is little to no accountability.  The CIA Board is supposed to oversee the Executive Director position.  They meet too infrequently.  For the first few years, they only met three or four times a year.  In late 1999 because of the necessity of response to my scrutiny, they met once a month.  They returned to a quarterly schedule in early 2000. 
  • The present CIA structure is too weak to truly oversee the Executive Director position to the same level of accountability of any public or private employee.  The majority of the CIA Board members have absolutely no incentive to endanger the good thing they've got, which is a full-time employee at taxpayer expense.  The JDC and Chamber of Commerce hold a majority on the CIA Board.  As long as the Executive Director is around to answer their calls and carry out what they ask, there is no questioning of what happens on a day-to-day basis.  In return, they get the services of a full-time employee at no cost to their organizations.
  • The present Executive Director has never kept any records of his time.  There are no records of his numerous, week-long paid vacations.  There is no amount of vacation time defined for the position.  There is no record to determine what percentage of his time is devoted to JDC versus Chamber work.  There is no record of time spent on industrial park recruitment.  How can this position be properly evaluated by anyone?
  • Incredibly, the present Executive Director operates a funeral home at the same time as this supposedly full-time CIA position.  There is no record kept of the many mornings and afternoons where the Executive Director was working as director at his funeral home as opposed to working for the JDC and Chamber.  The Executive Director's defense of this free-wheeling flex-time is that his position entails attending many City-related meetings in the evenings.  However, no other full-time City employees are allowed the same excuse to operate a full-time business at the same time as their full-time City job.  They attend these meetings because they are a requirement of their job, and can't arrive at lunchtime because there was long meeting the night before.
  • The result of this lack of daily oversight is that the Executive Director can engage in a great deal of meddling in matters entirely unrelated to the central purposes of the JDC and Chamber.  The typical sequence of events starts when the Executive Director decides to act on something based on his own personal inclinations or on his desire to please someone he regards as powerful.  The Executive Director presents the idea to either the JDC or Chamber Board officially in a public meeting or with Board members  casually in a private meeting.  After this, the Executive Director claims that he was ordered to act by his Board and that he's just following their orders and not his own personal agenda.
  • The City's taxpayers shouldn't be paying for someone to carry out the whims of the directors of the JDC or Chamber.  A Chamber director should be dedicated to promoting local business and the needs of Chamber members.  The industrial park director should be dedicated to improving the City's parks.  Far too often, the present Executive Director is involved in broad civic activities that aren't directly related to the Chamber or industrial parks.
  • The CIA's annual evaluation of the Executive Director is a largely multiple-choice form, created by the Executive Director himself. The CIA refuses to release these evaluations to the public because they claim than the Executive Director position is not a public employee.  There's no method for the public to judge the effectiveness of the CIA or the Executive Director.
  • There has been no proper analysis of the actual return on investment of the city's industrial parks.  You'd think the JDC Executive Director would have a big chart on the wall behind his desk that shows exactly how much the City has invested in industrial park property, in the funding of the JDC and CIA Executive Director position to maintain it, all balanced against the direct tax value collected from these businesses and an estimate of the value to the community in terms of jobs or other economic benefit.  No such analysis exists.  Why is the City spending all this money without any facts to justify it?
  • The CIA health insurance check has been written out directly to David Olsen, not a health care provider.  Any normal business would write the checks directly to a health care provider.  Why is $5,376 a year dispensed in this unorthodox fashion?
  • The CIA, Chamber and JDC's accounts have never been audited.  The Executive Director position oversees more than $45,000 in JDC bank accounts, more than $40,000 in the City's annual funding of his own CIA position (meaning he writes his own paychecks) and more than $80,000 a year that flows through the Chamber of Commerce.  I'm not suggesting I have any evidence of wrongdoing.  I am suggesting that any reasonable business conducts periodic audits in order to catch and correct sources of human error.  This hasn't been done in anyone's recent memory.
  • A great deal of office equipment - computers, phones, copiers, faxes - has been purchased and maintained over the years with JDC and CIA funds.  The ownership of this equipment was recently turned over to the Chamber of Commerce.  In this way, the Chamber has received additional City taxpayer funds without public Council discussion or approval.
  • We must not forget that the Chamber does not represent all businesses in town.  At its peak in 1999, the Chamber had nearly 200 members, but the Chamber's mailing list of businesses in the area has about 425 names.  To be fair, it's clear there is some padding in both numbers.  Some individuals join the Chamber to purchase cheap health insurance, some out-of-town businesses are hit up for memberships, and some non-businesses (such as churches and civic groups) are included in the business list, but some non-businesses are Chamber members.  Given these numbers, perhaps 20 to 40 percent of local businesses belong to the Chamber.  Even among the businesses that belong to the Chamber, only the dozen or so members of its Board exert any influence its daily direction.  In 1999, less than sixty Chamber members bothered to vote in the Chamber Board elections.  It should be clear that the Chamber represents a minority of businesses in Jefferson.
  • It is clear the JDC intends to remain as unfriendly to the public as possible unless challenged by the City Council: they continue to hold their meetings at inconvenient times, they intend to have a self-appointing membership, they intend to function completely differently than other City agencies such as the Parks and Recreation Committee, the Planning Commission, etc.  Why should the JDC function differently?  They wield City ordinance enforcement powers over tenants in the City's industrial parks.  They are in charge of recruiting new businesses to come to Jefferson.  Why shouldn't the public control this Board in the same fashion as other City entities?  How is the public supposed to participate in this process?
  • Both the CIA and JDC stopped making audio recordings of their meetings after their meetings were opened to the public.  Before this, the Executive Director made audio recordings in order to prepare the minutes.  This is another example of how these organizations purposefully hide their actions from the public.  As shown in the difference between the August 19, 1999, JDC meeting minutes and a transcript, the minutes are not an accurate reflection of the conversations and decisions that took place.  I've heard the excuse that the statutes would require them to make a printed transcript available, although Wis. Stat. 19.35(1)(c) does not actually say this.
  • The funding of the CIA is intentionally fractured in order to obscure its fund sources as well as to make it more difficult for the funding to be challenged.  Its funding is supposedly split into three parts: City, Sewer Utility, and Water and Electric Utility.  In reality, the City Administrator actually controls the first two, as demonstrated in 1999 when the Sewer Utility budget dropped the CIA funding when they felt the City wasn't receiving sufficient value and the City Administrator who reinserted it.
  • The organization of the City's economic development efforts needs to be as open to the public as possible.  Even after my successes in opening the CIA and JDC meetings and records, several obstacles remain because of the convoluted, money-laundering, accountability-denying scheme of the City's funding and subsidy of the CIA, JDC and Chamber.

An alternative future - a Community Development Authority

Imagine that the City of Jefferson restructured the JDC, CIA and Executive Director position in the following fashion with a Community Development Authority.

The City Council could decide to dissolve the official relationship with the JDC as outlined in the industrial park covenants.  It could form a new Community Development Authority (CDA) as described in Wisconsin Stat. 66.4325, with members approved by the City Council like any other City committee.  This Authority would oversee the industrial park development, the tenants there, and other city-related economic development issues.

State statutes define seven commissioners for the CDA, all appointed with the approval of the City Council.  Two come from the City Council during their terms.  The first appointments of the five non-Council citizen members are two for one year and one each for two, three and four years.  Thereafter, the terms are four years.  This eliminates the padding found at the JDC where the City Administrator and Executive Director serve as Board members.  The JDC started with seven members, too.

The City Council could ask the JDC to return its $45,000 bank account to the City.  These taxpayer funds would be managed by the Community Development Authority.

With the link cut between the JDC and City, the JDC would be free to continue on its own as a private organization if it desired.  This does not require the JDC to disband or change its structure.  With the ordinance enforcement powers gone, it would no longer be judged as a quasi-governmental organization.

The City Council, Sewer Utility, and Water and Electric Commission could stop funding the CIA.  The issue could be forced by any of the three legs of this funding structure, in theory.  In reality, the Water and Electric Commission has the greatest power to carry this out.  This would eliminate the funding for the present Executive Director position.  It also eliminates the need for the CIA.

Community Development Director

The City Council could create a new full-time Community Development Director position.  This person would be approved by the City Council and report to the City Administrator and/or the CDA.  Ideally, this person should be a educated community development professional, not a "local".  The past Executive Directors have not had college-style community development training.  Jefferson would benefit from a regular infusion of new ideas.  The position should be renewed on a regular basis (every 12 or 18 months) in order to insure re-evaluation.  

This Community Development Director could continue to work closely with local civic groups in order to carry out improvements to the City's infrastructure.  This person would assume the previous duties of the JDC, serving as the City's recruiter and manager for the industrial parks.  Industrial park ordinance violations could be handled by the Community Development Authority.

Chamber funding preserved

With the loss of its "free" full-time Executive Director, the Chamber of Commerce would need to reconsider its situation.  It could ask the City Council for funding to pay for a new director.  The Chamber can decide if this is a part-time or full-time position, justified by facts about the needs of the organization and its potential for self-funding.  This issue could be considered on its own merits without entangling it with everyone's concern for industrial park development.

When the CIA was formed in 1995, the Chamber was having a hard time with funding.  That situation has improved, either through changes in economic climate or through the bootstrapping of the City's subsidy.  The Chamber already funds its own full-time secretary, so a daily Chamber presence would be maintained in this interval while the Chamber reorganized its means of daily management.

The Sewer Utility and Water and Electric Commission could continue to allocate funds for community development with the assurance that day-to-day oversight and funding administration would be carried out by the City administration with the approval of the City Council.

This scheme would untangle all the public-versus-private issues that have faced the CIA and JDC because of my open-records inquiries.  The City's goals of economic and community development will still be met.  This proposal doesn't cost much more than the present funding scheme.  It might cost more to hire a professional Community Development Director than it does to pay for the CIA's Executive Director.  I think the key word is "professional" and I'm sure someone can be found at the present level of CIA funding.

Advice for future Council funding

I've come to the conclusion that the City Council needs to be more thorough with its dispensing of funds to private organizations.  In general, it would be better for the City Council to avoid advance general (non-specific) funding of private organizations like the Chamber of Commerce, Friends of Seniors, and Gemuetlichkeit Days, unless more strings are attached to the money.

Instead, the Council should demand a detailed, advance plan for how funding requests will be spent, as well as demanding a post-mortem accounting of how the funds were actually spent.  Is this too much to ask of groups who wish to feed at the public trough?  Is this too much to ask of the City Council as they hand out public money to private organizations?

-