Madison Landmarks Commission: Looking Into the Future

When I posted Edgewater Vote Troubling for Democracy on December 16, 2009, Nick posted some testy questions regarding the role of the Madison Common Council in reviewing decisions of the Landmarks Commission. 

Before looking at those questions, we need an overview of the role of the Common Council.

The Common Council is the ultimate policy making body for the city of Madison. While administrative authority rests with the mayor, any matter that is legislative, and that means all matters that are subject to regulation, ought to be subject to the one elected body that serves the entire city.

Virtually all decisions made by that body, other than some of the procedural matters determined by the universally adopted Robert's Rules of Order, require a simple majority.

There are some exception to that majority vote requirement and virtually all of them are determined by state statue. Those include super majorities needed to override a veto, a re-zoning opposed by a verified petition, the process for handling zoning board appeals, and property assessments determined by the Board of Review.

Appeals on conditional uses and landmarks, out of literally thousands of matters, remain the exceptions.

When the landmarks process was adopted close to forty years ago, the appeal was from the Landmarks Commission to the courts. My recollection was that it was modeled after landmarks ordinances adopted in other jurisdictions. As a member of the Madison Common Council, while I was already concerned about democratic issues involving special districts, I did not give much thought to the issue of thwarting the legislative body.

The matter of by-passing the legislative body, the Common Council, on landmarks issues, was troubling. That is why, in 1994, we amended the appeal process so that instead of going to the courts, it went to the Common Council. I preferred a simple majority.

That is why we have the requirement of a two-thirds super majority.

Nick noted:

There are numerous unelected city boards and commissions that wield considerable decision making power in this city. Are you proposing that the City Council take on all of their workload? Or that they simply invite every aggrieved applicant to appeal by lowering the bar for a Council override?

Nick is wrong.

The are very few unelected city boards and commissions that wield considerable decision making power in this city, since almost all are subject to Common Council oversight. I have noted them above.

There are probably 80 different commissions and boards. The Common Council is in a position to review, amend, reject or adopt the thousands of recommendations they make every year. The Council obviously uses its judgment. At times the Council will adopt reports from boards with close to 100 items, with little or no debate. Sometimes many items are pulled out for separate discussion.

When Nick asks,

Are you proposing that the City Council take on all of their workload? Or that they simply invite every aggrieved applicant to appeal by lowering the bar for a Council override?

he fails to realize that by law and opportunity the Common Council can take on the workload of all of them.  If Nick followed the Council meeting and the public appearances he would know that from liquor licenses to special assessments, every aggrieved applicant does have an opportunity to present their case.

When Nick suggests that this process, "lower(s) the bar for a Council override" it saddens me that he has so little respect for the democratic process and the Madison Common Council. If Nick was to protest the inordinate time spent by the Common Council on liquor licenses, he might have some sympathy in this corner, but certainly the once-a-decade landmarks appeal merits deliberation by the legislative body.

Nick asks why this was not a problem when I was mayor, but is today and questions, "Does it have anything to do with the fact that you are now employed by developers instead of the citizenry?"

Nick, it was a problem then and it is a greater problem now. It saddens me that someone of your intellect and character has to restore to such trash and that when it serves your interests you prefer to deprive the democratically elected legislative body of the right to review a decision made by appointees.

Comments

[Nick Schroeder]

Paul, thanks for addressing this.

There are many decisions that I think are better handled by appointed, rather than elected officials. I believe this is true whether those decisions serve my interests or not. From the federal courts, to the EPA, to with Wisconsin PSC, to the future Dane County RTA, to the Madison Landmarks Commission, subject experts who are immune from political winds, monied interests, and the pressure of the next election cycle make the choices that have some of the biggest impact on our lives. Those decisions are typically not appealable to a legislative body for good reasons. For instance, should Congress be able to overule FDA drug approvals? Most people think that system works pretty well. Of course, reasonable people can still disagree.

My guess (correct me if I'm wrong) is that most cities viewed landmarks ordinances as being related to zoning, and that's why they could only be appealed through the courts. When you charge an elected body of 20 alders rule to on the application of a zoning overlay ordinance you are not going to get decisions that are based on the legal merits of the case, no matter which side they are on. You are going to get mostly votes that have been based on ideology and political influence. And in the end, the question will probably end up in court anyway.

As for the capacity of the common council, you would know better than me. But I believe that meetings already run too long, and the prospect of more frequent meetings would put a strain all these people that already have day jobs. Besides, would you as mayor want to sit through bickering testimony about neighbor disputes over roof pitch and shingle color? It would happen a lot more than once a decade.

Finally, I didn't mean to insinuate that your change of heart in these matters had been caused by your new job. Obviously, your consulting for developers is a symptom of your views, not a cause. But it is frustrating that you only mentioned it in the first of your many posts about this subject. Maybe your involvement is not significant enough to merit a disclaimer?

Btw, now that Cieslewicz has alienated his base, are you going to take a run again? As long as we're going to have a cranky fare raising anti-preservationist mayor, we might as well have one that's a good administrator. More Chicago dogs and less Chicago politics.

[Alderman Steve]

"Obviously, your consulting for developers is a symptom of your views, not a cause."

Symptom? You make it sound like a disease rather than a difference of opinion...

[Thomas J. Mertz]

Paul wrote: "but certainly the once-a-decade landmarks appeal merits deliberation by the legislative body."

But if changed to a simple majority is well become a regular thing. One reason there are so few is the super majority requirement.

[Craptacular]

Nick, no decisions made by governmental appointees should ever be final. I know Madison has a disproportionate number of people who prefer to be governed by people they can't vote for or against, but in reality, most people actually want to be able to select their "leaders".

You also need to understand the differences between agencies like the FDA and EPA with ones like the new Dane County RTA. The FDA and EPA are part of the executive branch, whose leaders can be fired in an instant by the elected President. Their budgets and certain policies are determined by elected members of Congress and the President. If we don't like what they are doing, we can remove our elected officials and they can make quick changes. Members of the RTA and PSC cannot be removed by either voters or the people who appointed them until their terms expire. If we don't like what they are doing, we have to vote in new appointers, and then wait for the appointees' terms to expire, until a new majority can be appointed. This might take years after the elections. Guess what, if the RTA "experts" decide on something you and I don't like, we can't choose replacements for them. By the way, very few of RTA appointees are anywhere near transit or transportation experts. Opitz is an urban planner who used to work at the DOT and Esposito is a land developer with a Civil Engineering background, but you also have a utility lawyer, a budget analyst and politician, a voter registration agency director, etc. Many of them have been on political committees on transit issues, but that does not make them "experts who are immune from political winds" ... they were on those committees for political reasons, just like appointees on most other committees.

I ask this question a lot, and never get answers. If you are an Obama supporter, would you like it if every federal agency, such as the EPA and FDA, was still controlled by Bush appointees until, say, the summer of 2011? This would happen if the agencies were run by something like the Wisconsin Natural Resources Board, where board members have staggered six-year appointments.