Jefferson County board retains 30-member size

Jefferson County has been divided into 30 supervisory districts since 1981, when its headcount was reduced from 38 members.

At the board’s Jan. 8 meeting, Chairperson Jim Schroeder brought forward a proposal to reduce the size of the board from 30 to 25 and combine the existing committees from 11 to seven. The board voted 24-1 to direct the Executive Committee to create an ad hoc committee to research the impact of Schroeder’s proposals.

Three resolutions with options for reducing or maintaining the size of the board were forwarded to the board by the Executive Committee. Also, the board supported the panel’s recommendation to not form an ad hoc committee to review the size-reduction concept.

Options the board members considered included dropping to 15 members, going to 25 members or remaining at 30 members. Any one of the three resolutions would have taken effect following the 2022 spring election.

Ultimately, the board supported remaining at 30 members with 19 “yes” votes and eight “no” votes. Schroeder was joined by Supervisors James Braughler, Dwayne Morris, Dick Schultz, Blaine Poulson, George Jaeckel, Roger Lindl and Matthew Foelker in opposing remaining at 30.

“I would like to see a small group take a look at all the issues,” Schultz said prior to the vote. “I don’t think we have taken a very close look at it.”

Under state law, outside of federal redistricting requirements after a census, a county can reduce its board size once under its own initiative between regular 10-year redistricting. It also allows electors to reduce their board sizes by petition and the referendum process.

Jefferson is one of 10 counties in the state that have 30 or more supervisors. Marinette County also has 30; Green, Oconto and Sauk counties have 31; Dodge County has 33; Outagamie and Winnebago counties have 36; Dane County has 37; and Marathon County has 38.

Some counties have downsized. In 2007, Walworth County reduced its size from 25 to 11 members. Likewise, Polk County went from 23 to 15, Monroe County dropped from 24 to 16, and Washington County went from 30 to 26 supervisors.

A review of the county board size was part of the county’s strategic plan adopted in 2017 as a method of consolidation and streamlining county government.

On Tuesday night, prior to any votes being taken, two residents spoke in favor of retaining 30 members.

“This helps reduce the risk of lobbyists, special-interest groups and even corporations owned by individuals outside of the United States from using financial pressure to influence what happens here in Jefferson County,” Anita Martin of Lake Mills said.

Also, Frankie Fuller of Fort Atkinson favored leaving the board size at 30.

“I think it is important for (people) to be in touch with their government,” she said. “Every time that you folks go to a local breakfast or a community meeting, people have an opportunity to communicate with you about things and if there are fewer people to do that, people know less about what our government does.”

Fuller feels that residents appreciate those opportunities to spend time with and engage with their local elected officials.

The initial proposal to reduce the board to 15 members was defeated with 23 votes against the reduction and four in favor. Schroeder was joined in supporting the concept by Supervisors Blane Poulson, Brandon White and George Jaeckel.

“I don’t think there is a whole lot of need for further posturing,” Poulson said. “I think we should just put it to a vote.”

At the January meeting, Supervisor Walt Christensen had voiced some concerns about the concept of reducing the board size. On Tuesday, he added another reason.

“Presently, the districts, as we know, contain about 2,750 residents,” he said. “This is a size and number of residents in a district for neighbor to neighbor level campaigning that most anyone can manage.”

However, Christensen suggested that were the districts redrawn with more people to contact, at some point, going door-to-door would not be enough to pose an effective campaign. He cited the need for more formal campaign methods such as more professional-looking handouts, newspaper advertising and other items.

“All these things would take more money than the present campaigning would need,” he said. “Candidates would have to decide whether to dig into their own pockets or if they want to ask for contributions from their neighbors.”

From past experience personally and talking with other supervisors and prospective members, Christensen noted, it is evident campaigning is not their favorite activity.

“The idea of having to solicit campaign funds is really distasteful to people,” he said. “I think we are going to exclude a lot of good prospective supervisors who won’t bother to run because that is not something they want to engage in.”

For those who do run, Christensen said, it will be a matter of who is most qualified for the job of supervisor or the best campaigner.

“If we start heading in the direction of having our board populated with people who are very good at campaigning, but maybe not as good or as qualified, it will be to the diminishment of the board and its work,” he said, adding that the cross-section of residents that run for supervisor should not be based on being more economically advantaged. 

Also, Supervisor Schultz questioned the order of the resolutions. The board considered the three options on board size before considering whether to form a committee to study the concept.

“We are putting the cart ahead of the horse,” he said.

Similarly, the reduction to 25 members also was rejected with a 20 to 7 vote. Supervisors Michael Wineke, Roger Lindl and Matthew Foelker joined in casting votes in favor of the reduction with the four who supported the reduction to 15.

There was no discussion on that resolution and then the final vote on the remaining at 30 was taken.

After agreeing to remain at 30 members, the board unanimously voted in favor of not creating a study committee to review the issue.

“This is just one action item in implementing our strategic plan,” Schroeder said. “I would argue that it is has not gone well based on the discussion last month. It is really important that we implement the strategic plan. Many people spent many hours and the county spent a good amount of money to develop the strategic plan that was adopted by this board.”

Based on the vote Tuesday, he said he felt the board size had been established.

“I see no one reason to further create a committee to beat this issue to death,” the chairperson said. “Let’s move on in a positive manner to implement the strategic plan that this board has adopted.”

Supervisor Amy Rinard further clarified the Executive Committee’s position on not creating a committee.

“We really thought that creation of such a committee would not be a productive use of our resources,” she said.

Rinard said that the Executive Committee was acting as though it was a study committee based on the extensive discussion at the January board meeting.

“A study committee could take six months to study this and come back with the three resolutions we already voted on,” she said. “We thought we would send up those three resolutions on size and, as Supervisor Schroeder said, move on to accomplish other things in the strategic plan.”

Rinard pointed out that the strategic plan called for reviewing county board size and structure for potential consolidation.

“I believe, in our conversations this month and last month, we’ve had some review,” she said. “Now we’ve voted on the numbers and I think it is time to move on.”