The 14th District Forum - My Thoughts, Perspective and Review

Introduction… I went to my first ever live political debate last night. And although CNN didn’t broadcast it across the country, no Wolf Blitzer asking questions, no SNL re-treads are expected this weekend… I will say I found the process, the questions and the responses to add up to a very unique and enjoyable experience. As always I may “pepper” this blog with the “seasoning of humor” – but at no time mean any disrespect to the democratic process or either candidate personally.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am a volunteer with the Pierce campaign, and fully expect to vote for him on April 3^rd. This review of the proceedings is intended to be objective, but hey, I’m only human, and not an unbiased journalist.

March 28 – Candidate Forum / Debate

Aldermanic District 14 (wouldn’t the PC name be “Alberpersonic District 14?”)

Bay View Methodist Church

7pm start time

Sponsored by the League of Women Voters and the Bay View Compass

T. Anthony Zielinski (Inc) and Jan Pierce (Not the Inc)

First impressions. They both wore suits. That was literally the first thought I had when they both walked up to the “stage” in the church auditorium. I’m not sure if that was their natural instinct or a deliberate decision.  Either way, it gave them both a serious and professional look. This being toward the tail end of the campaign, there was definitely going to be heated exchanges… the members of the audience talked about it, there was online buzz about it, even some of the campaign literature on both sides insinuated that things could get fun… 

More on that later.

After cursory greetings and introductions from the moderator, the questions then begun. The format I will try to follow below is: Question restated, first answer, second answer, rebuttal from candidate, and then my personal thought on the answers. Now, I said “try” because if there’s anything consistent about my writing style. It’s inconsistent. With the exception of my “No Comic Sans Font” rule. I’m very consistent about that.

Question number one. It seems so simple. Why are you running for Alderman? Ald. Zielinski got this question first. In the two minutes allotted, he listed pretty much all of his prior accomplishments. So I guess I need to infer from this that Ald. Zielinski is running for Alderman because of his past successes.

Jan’s reply, in summary, was because he has a vision for broad community involvement in the definition and development of the 14^th and its drive toward its potential.

Ok, so Ald. Zielinski did something called “seeding” the audience. It’s a tactic (a valid tactic) to ensure that the listeners hear the key components of his message over and over. His accomplishments - his record - is what he’s running on. I get that. No one will say that the 14^th is WORSE than it was prior to his first term (within his control or sphere of influence). I wonder though if that truly answered the question. He’s been alderman for a while now, he’s run for at least one other public office (Lt. Governor), and he is well connected in the political world with what appears to be aspirations for bigger and better things. This question was an opportunity for him to explain to us constituents why despite those signs, he still has his heart in the 14^th for another term.  Let’s see where the next few questions go, shall we…?

Question Number Two – What is the biggest difference residents will see if you are elected? Jan had first crack at this question. Simply stated, Jan’s biggest change will be in the engagement methodology between alderman and constituent. He describes openness and transparency in processes involving government and constituent, he describes a bottom-up approach to development of definition of the area. Essentially, the biggest changes Jan discusses are his platform which he’s been campaigning on. Ald. Zielinski’s answer was curious. He essentially stated in similar words how his time as Alderman was as open and transparent / consistent as Jan is describing in his platform.  He never really moved on to discussion about changes in the 14^th. Again, without directly answering the question, I can only assume that there will be no major changes if he is re-elected, and that the status quo is satisfactory to both him and the 14^th.

My thoughts… Ald. Zielinski will have votes go his way because some people LIKE the way things are. Other people will vote for him because of name recognition. No one can say they’ll vote for him because of his progressive forward thinking platform or message. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, in fact it is a specific element that differentiates the campaigns. In some ways a record can be a huge boost to a campaign, but in other ways it can become a crutch to lean on when the plan is to keep on keeping-on instead of progressing. My overall view is that Ald. Zielinski thinks things are just fine the way they are, and that the momentum he’s built in his time as Alderman will continue – without the need to explicitly name his next-term initiatives. Jan on the other hand, will get two sets of votes, primarily. First, the disgruntled constituent will likely vote for Jan. Typically, a disgruntled constituent will vote because they’re upset, and they’ll vote against the incumbent… again, because they are upset. In the case of the 14^th there are some who are upset with the Alderman (indeed, Ald. Zielinski admitted that no project is 100% successful without dissent, complications or bumps in the road), and some who are just upset with the sitting establishment, aka, any incumbent. The other major block of voter, and the one that Jan seems to be focusing his message toward, is the forward-thinking progressive “action-takers” within the community, offering more and earlier access to government in the earliest stages of community development.

Next question – Other than coffee shops, restaurants, hat shops, bars, what types of business do you envision coming to the district? Ald. Zielinski took the first shot at this question by focusing on the success of brining in Sweet Water Organics (despite opposition from the city). He then talked about food production and the need for these types of businesses in the next few decades being vital to our economy and humanity. So, food production companies, apparently. Jan talked about the professional services industry, accountants, lawyers, programmers, etc. He mentioned that public WiFi running up and down KK is the type of community enhancement that would draw these services-based jobs as opposed to the current security cameras Ald. Zielinski worked to provide. Ald. Zielinski commented on the security cameras, in rebuttal, stating that security on the main thoroughfare is an attraction to businesses by discouraging criminal activity.

I don’t have a lot of comment on this one save this – Ald. Zielinski said that if a business is a victim of burglary and the security cameras were to catch the burglar, that would create a disincentive to future burglars from attempting the same.  I guess if you put it that way, you technically need to have someone get burgled for this deterrent to work. I wonder which business on KK will raise its hand and volunteer to be burgled so that others subsequently won’t …

The next question was very specifically worded, but the candidates both answered a bit more broadly to best state their position. Do you support the Sweet Water Organics employees voting to unionize? Both Ald. Zielinski and Jan answered that they both supported laborers to exercise their right of assembly and association within the work context. Or… yes. I am not 100% sure what specific about S.W.O. the asker had in mind, but the answer was straightforward and not as specific as the question. A more interesting question (given our current state and federal political climate) would be to ask about the public versus private unionization of labor and if the candidates had any specific comments on that. It wasn’t asked. Oh well!

The next question was posed first to Ald. Zielinski. Some context: the 14^th Aldermanic district is a bit “split” into two areas; the former Village of Bay View, and the “Western” portion commonly thought of as “anything not Bay View, but within the district.” The question itself was to have the candidates name a single major issue that the Western portion needs to address, and specifically what they would do to address it.

Ald. Zielinski’s answer focused on the 13^th St. shopping district as the economic center of the western area, and the need to re-vitalize it. Jan’s answer was access to the Alderman’s office and visibility. Ald. Zielinski rebutted with how he has been historically visible to that half of the district based solely on the number of signs in people’s yards, and in response to Jan’s promise to have bi-lingual representation during west-side office hours, Al. Zielinski said, in Spanish, “I speak a little Spanish. My name is Anthony Zielinski. I am the alderman of the 14^th District.” To which I would like to demonstrate my ability to connect with French speakers and say “Touché.”

I feel so multi-cultural now. Being a student of several foreign languages, I know that the ability to say the first four lines in the “101” level course doesn’t mean you come close to understanding intent or nuance of a language. That’s why representatives would be smart to employ a fluent translator. The Alderman’s response makes for great political theatre, and I’m sure his supporters will see that moment as a ‘win’ in the forum. I don’t.

Question six was a question about the “Dwell” project on, KK just south of Lincoln, but was worded  as a ‘situational’ question – specifically, does the candidate support out-of-neighborhood development of single lots. Jan answered first and discussed the process, not the project, was the issue he would like to address, and that the Dwell project’s visibility was late in the development cycle.  Alderman Zielinski said that discretion in revealing to the public details of a development in the earliest stages is part of the development process. He said once the project was publically proposed, it was supported by the attendees of the public meeting. Jan made a note about his idea to have a citizens based Architectural Board that would be part of the conceptual process, brining in the role of neighborhood identity to the developers early to make sure their projects fit the resident’s vision for the district.

I guess what I’m hearing is that Jan wants the residents of the district involved before agreements are made and contracts are signed, and Ald. Zielinski is suggesting that some secrecy is part of the game of development, and breeching that could risk attracting future development. Or maybe another way to put it is – it’s easier to sell something that’s already in progress than in the conceptual stages, because if you involve people in the conceptual stages, they might have “opinions” and “ideas” that could go against the flow of the Alderman’s view of progress.

Question seven was in regards to outdoor seating at the Blackbird Bar. Simply asked, do the candidates support it? Alderman Zielinski answered first, stating that the closest neighbors to the bar did not support it, so quite simply, he did not support it. He also conceded that he has no preference, personally, one way or the other, and was simply expressing the will of the locality. Jan fired back at the process by which this support was gathered, how it was not consistent with other methods of soliciting neighborhood input. He said that businesses need to know the rules to play by, and Ald. Zielinski seems to make them up as he goes. In rebuttal, Ald. Zielinski said “uh-uh, I’m consistent, so there” (paraphrased), and then asked the moderator why Jan hadn’t actually answered the question directly put to him. At that point, as an audience member, I thought – well gosh, should we all still be waiting for your direct answers to the first two questions of the evening Alderman? Here, in all fairness, I’m gonna ding Jan’s answer. He stated that he didn’t have all the evidence, and as he may be the future Alderman, he was going to hold his answer until he had all the evidence for the licensing committee. Look, with a little disclaimer, this question could have been answered, and Jan could have come out of it looking like a strong leader. Simply put, the answer of “Based on the information I have right now, which admittedly as a private citizen may be less than someone currently holding office, I do/do not support outdoor seating at the Blackbird Bar. However, once I am Alderman for the 14^th District, I assure you that I will take the time to fairly analyze the input of the residents, look at all the evidence, work with the owners on the concerns that may come up, and together we will all make the best decision possible in terms of presenting to the licensing committee. And I will ensure that this process is published and known for any business or resident to see so they know exactly what to expect when questions like this come up.” 

That’s a rock star answer right there that can’t be rebutted. In all fairness, coming up with that impromptu is tough, and it took me like, three minutes to word it properly for this column.

Question eight: What can we do to help the homeless in Bay View? Jan had the first answer. He talked about the existing organizations (churches, etc) and how we as a district can bring forth efforts to support the charitable work they already do. Ald. Zielinski essentially had the same answer, and then pointed to the HOPE House as an example of something he had done already as Alderman (and that despite the fact it isn’t perfect, it’s a step in the right direction).

Question number nine had to do with a City Housing Authority project on Lincoln and Logan and whether or not the candidates support it. It took a while before the two candidates figured out EXACTLY which project was being asked about, but once it was settled on, the way the candidates answered became extremely interesting. Ald. Zielinski stuck to the message of if the people are for it, he’s for it, if the people are against it, he’s against it. Jan spoke in direct language about Aldermanic duty to educate the constituents on the issue and options available, and as a strong leader, to work with the residents to sometimes build a consensus that works against initial thought or opinion. 

My thoughts - this question and this project touches on the NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) mindset. Subsidized low income housing  has a place in Milwaukee, and in Bay View. The people that would qualify and live there are OUR NEIGHBORS. They are “of us”, not “them”. The hope would be that the community would rally around a project like this as a “half-way house” (no negative connotation intended) between unsustainably low income and living income. It’s not perfect, and in some ways addressing poverty, the poverty cycle, and dependence on subsidized living is not and cannot be wholly or fully addressed by the local district or Alderman. 

When it comes to leadership styles, although I fully hear and respect where Ald. Zielinski is coming from, I think that Jan’s message (though direct and not nuanced in his answer) is a more accurate answer for what I personally would look for in a leader. Sometimes the majority population thinks ‘x’, but for reasons that they aren’t aware of, ‘y’ is actually better for the district. It is in fact the Alderperson’s responsibility to get all those reasons and details into the public forum to help “lead” the mindsets of the residents toward a solution of either ‘y’, or some hybrid or compromise.

Question ten – how to the candidates feel about PAC’s run by in-office officials, such as the current Alderman’s? Jan answered first – he stated that he is against the concept of a campaign organization and a PAC being run by the same people, as it invites the appearance of impropriety and shady campaign finance reporting. Ald. Zielinski, who does manage a PAC supporting labor rights, suggests that they are completely separate entities and that any legal scrutiny would show via audit that everything is on the up and up. What followed next was an interesting back and forth about Paul Butera, a person that is identified by many if not all Labor Unions as one of the biggest union-busting anti-labor personalities in the country. In his earlier campaign literature, Ald. Zielinski appeared posing in a photo with Paul Butera with the Alderman citing the Piggly Wiggly project (one of Butera’s) as a “win” in his district. That image has since been struck from his campaign literature. Alderman Zielinski stated that just because he posed with someone in a picture doesn’t mean he knows and supports everything and anything that person is or is about.

My response – I have very specific opinions about campaign finance, and they are lock-step opposite of where this country is right now. More importantly to me is what came out of the back end of that question. If Alderman Zielinski didn’t know or support what Paul Butera is about in terms of union-busting, fine. But that means there’s a level of incompetence in his campaign’s staff by not revealing that information to him or researching who he is standing next to prior to citing the work he did as an example of a win. So he either needs to admit to being an opportunist (I’ll take a picture with anyone, who cares what they stand for) or incompetent in the way he handled the “Butera situation.” Maybe coming out and stating / admitting he “made a mistake” by supporting this guy and he won’t let it happen again may have been the better response… unless of course that’s a lie.

Question eleven – do you support public funds for a new business which directly competes with local pre-established businesses? This question is actually directly based on the Alterra project on KK and Lincoln. Alterra is building a café / bakery directly across the intersection from existing Stone Creek Coffee on one corner and Wild Flour Bakery on another. Ald. Zielinski answered first by stating that the specific bonds Alterra used to finance their project were publically available and not at the discretion of the Alderperson. In other words, it was out of his hands, and when the project was presented to the public, it was supported so he (say it with me) supported it. Jan stated that public funds aren’t supported by him unless there is a net benefit to the neighborhood, and in this case, he wasn’t sure this was the case. He also conceded that those funds are not at the discretion of the Alderman to approve or distribute. Tony made a closing argument that this project would generate foot traffic, and that those existing businesses would benefit.

My initial thought – if foot traffic is generated because of a café / bakery, and that foot traffic does it’s coffee and baked goods shopping at Alterra, how EXACTLY do other café’s and bakeries benefit? Here’s where the foot traffic will come from – people leaving Stone Creek and Wild Flour to walk to Alterra, who can artificially keep their prices low to undercut the local businesses because taxpayers are supplementing their liabilities on the balance sheet. In other words, the government has “backed a horse” in the competition game by giving an advantage to one business over their competition. Well, I guess I went and gave my opinion of public financing… with regards to Aldermanic responsibility, these are the types of conversations that residents DESERVE to have with their Alderman to truly understand what it is they “support” in a public meeting.

Question twelve – This question had to do with support for the Dover School HIVE project. Alderman Zielinski stated that he needs more public input prior to backing this project with public funds, and in fact, the City and MPS needs more information as well. Jan’s answer was essentially the same, although he stated that he wanted to do more research so that more could be presented to the public when there was a hearing to solicit input and support.

Reaction: Ok. Conceptually, they both thought the project was “neat” but too early in the development cycle to even prove viability much less sustainability. Nothing much new here, really. The candidates truly just stuck to their message on the process. Actually, this is taking a longer time to write than I thought, and my brain is nearly fried. I wanted to keep some freshness for the finale….

Question thirteen – Will you have leadership when the input (public opinion) is wrong for the district? Jan answered essentially in one word. Yes. Ald. Zielinski essentially stated that he will bend to the will of the public input.

React – IF something is detrimentally bad for the district, but REALLY POPULAR, would Alderman Zielinski shrug his shoulders after the disaster struck and say “well, it’s what they wanted”? I want an Alderman who can help the district with information to make the kinds of decisions that are ultimately good for the district. I want the kind of leadership Jan’s answer implies.

Question fourteen – what do the candidates believe Aldermanic input into the local public school should be? Ald. Zielinski answered first, in possibly the biggest chuckle of the evening, by stating Jan’s position as his own. Now, I will admit that I have never heard or known Alderman Zielinski’s position on the schools prior to this forum, so he may well hold the same beliefs. When the question went to Jan, he said “it appears you’ve been reading my blogs!” The moderator said, “well, in your own words then” at which time an audience member said “he just did!” Ah political humor. Anyways, they both concede that they have little control over the school / school district and school board, however, they can use their office as a bully pulpit to inform and advocate for the local schools in the 14^th. Ald. Zielinski followed up with a note detailing his involvement for some time.

My reaction – I want my Alderperson in the face of MPS every chance they get to bring the concerns, thoughts and desires of the district to them. Public schools are essential to the district and a key component of bringing people in. I want them to be working with the local police and parents to work on safety concerns, something an alderman DOES have access to. This issue needs to be developed upon by the winner of this coming election. Things aren’t going to get better if we leave it up to MPS.

Question fifteen referred to the candidates positions on holding absentee landlords accountable for their unmanaged or vacant properties. Both Ald. Zielinski and Jan supported the existing legal ordinances and citizen pathways to reporting, and educating the residents on how to best use them. Jan added a point about encouraging local ownership through development of a thriving community, while Ald. Zielinski highlighted some examples of how he had done so during his time in office.

React: Non-starter question with flat answers.  I didn’t hear (nor expect) much earth-shattering here. I think Jan simply kept to his message of if the 14^th is able to reach toward its potential, it will encourage localization within the 14^th.

The final question – why are you the best choice for the district? Jan answered first by discussion his love of his neighborhood, his desire to remain here for the rest of his life, his love of the diversity of thought, talent, idea , and the sense of “togetherness” he feels with the residents of the 14^th. He stated that his leadership style is the best one to bring people together into the process of helping the 14^th reach its mighty potential. Ald. Zielinski’s answer focused on the passion he had for problem-solving within the community. He does not see being an Alderperson as a job or a duty, but a privilege that allows him to help make the community better through the office.

The closing statements were the final pieces of the evening. Ald. Zielinski began by restating his dedication to consistent services and processes (likely in direct rebuttal to much of the criticism from Jan and his campaign), and stating he wished only to empower the residents to guide him as alderman. Jan’s closing statement focused on his message of actively engaging the community to develop the district into what they believed it could be to reach its potential.

Some final observations… I was interested to hear Ald. Zielinski present his case, as I’d not heard him in person before. However, throughout the night, Alderman Zielinski came off stern and strident. His speaking style put me off a bit, and his message was not well presented if it differs from what I describe above. His choice of words to describe the 14^th were “my district” over and over. As a resident, I suppose there’s nothing wrong with that choice of pronoun. However, as Alderman, I would think that he serves “our” district; the 14^th being where we, together, get things done and decide our path. I think Alderman Zielinski focuses his discussion on what he has done for the district. While many if not most of those things are positive and admirable, this election is about what comes next, not what came before. This country, this state, this city and this district needs to focus on what comes next as we attempt to accelerate out of this recession and build upon our amazing people and the ideas that we can generate. I will be supporting Jan Pierce for Alderman of the 14^th, and voting for him on April 3^rd, 2012. I believe in his message. Even if you don’t support Jan Pierce for Alderman, what’s most important is that you get out and vote. People for oh, a couple hundred years have fought and died for that right, and millions and millions of people on this planet do not have the privilege to elect their leaders and shape their government.

I believe both Jan Pierce and Tony Zielinski believe that their approach to the 14^th district is the best for the 14^th, and I encourage the winner, when all the revelry is finished, to remember that they represent not only the people that voted for them, but also the people that voted for the other guy, or not at all. I would also encourage the candidate who is not elected to continue to advocate as a voice for those in the district who wish to be heard. In conclusion, being observer of and party to the political process has been intriguing these past months, and all the people I have met (supporting either side) have been equally fascinating in their passions and eloquent in expressing them.

It’s great to be in the 14^th!