An interview we conducted with Chris Abele a few weeks back revealed sides to the young Executive not previously known to the general public.  For instance, did you know that Abele is quite the policy wonk?  Yes, to our surprise, he has an unusual fondness for data, analyses, and everything else that make a bar full of accountants a fascinating company to keep.

Yet, Abele's saving grace from this dingy underworld of numbers, symbols, and metadata is his encyclopedic knowledge of, well, everything else.  Some people are talkers; some are storytellers; but Abele is a skilled conversationalist.  He genuinely enjoys the company of others.

Voter ID

Considering Abele's non-partisan M.O., we thought it would be interesting to get his take on issues like Voter ID and School Choice.  Abele said that any good Voter ID law will protect against fraud while also providing access to the ballot box.  Sounds simple, right?  The trick, however, is adding adequate voter safeguards without losing voter access.  Traditionally, this has been a rather tough balance to achieve.

Abele cited a 2004 gubernatorial election statistic in Washington showing that the instances of voter fraud are more infrequent than people may think - somewhere in the neighborhood of .0009%.  Abele said that examples of voter fraud cited by proponents of Voter ID laws are often non-existent or overblown.  We agree.  However, in a race as close as, say, Wisconsin's recent Supreme Court election, 1,676 votes (the amount of illegal ballots cast in Washington's gubernatorial election) could have swung our Supreme Court in a radically different direction.

Abele was careful not to accuse Wisconsin Republicans for a law that deliberately repressed minority voters, but added that it would be an insult to their intelligence to suggest these authors were completely unaware of the impact it would have on minority voters.  At the very least, Abele said, that Wisconsin's Voter ID law wasn't a proactive measure meant to ensure more access for eligible minority voters.

School Choice

Since it's school choice week, we asked Abele if parents should have more freedom to send their kids to the schools of their choosing, or if bureaucracies - such as school districts, should reserve such rights.  Although he didn't answer our questions with the specificity that we had hoped, he laid out some important steps he thought, if followed, would make choice schools more marketable.

To Abele, school choice is one-third of a good idea.  There are several steps that need to take place before "education value is to be consistently improved."  First, Abele says there needs to be significant market incentive for schools to be started.  Typically, companies succeed in a free market system when they find ways to convert market demand into profit, which is necessary before choice schools can be truly successful.

Second, Abele said that parents must be able to make informed and accurate decisions about the effectiveness of competing schools.  In an ideal marketplace, consumers learn about products through advertisements, word of mouth, and personal experience.  Many times, however, consumers are duped before they discover quality products.  Advertisements come from biased sources, and testimonials are highly subjective.  There needs to be a system in place to help inform parents about the schools that best fit their children.

And third, Abele said a solution ought to be found that ensures schools continue to improve despite having a "captive market" or families that live in such areas where their range of options are substantially reduced.  Abele had intimated that these steps may not be fully realized as long as education reform becomes an issue of which team wins or whose ideological views are validated.

Interestingly, Abele pointed out that he's a board member of "Schools that Can," a Milwaukee non-profit organization dedicated to expanding access for low-income families to high-performing inner-city schools.  The reason Abele is working with Schools that Can - despite its intrinsic value of increasing the public good - is because they are more interested in sharing best academic practices than worrying about who wins.  It's a slight change of pace from the dog-eat-dog world of capitalism.

Unfortunately, there is a reality that we cannot circumvent.  Republicans predominately support choice schools, and Democrats largely oppose them.  The lines drawn in the sand are less about the proficiency of choice schools and more about whether they are unionized.  Republicans will say that choice schools produce the same or better academic results as public schools, but do so for a fraction of the cost to taxpayers.  Democrats argue that choice schools are untested and unaccountable.  These are talking points, not an honest discussion between different groups.

Abele, not taking either tactic, says that if incontrovertible evidence were shown that the strategies implemented by choice schools worked, he will be the first in line to kick down the doors in support of the cause.  His concern, however, is that free markets are good at improving the lot of things, but aren't good at fixing everything.  Abele sees school choice as a mixed bag - at least for now - having parts that show promise and parts that show vulnerability.

Conclusion

In the year that Chris Abele has been the Milwaukee County Executive, he's done an excellent job steering away from issues that have strong partisan overtones.  And this is not to say that he's unwilling to discuss issues that interest voters.  Abele is a unique brand of politician because he refuses to get caught in the political fray, which we believe the vast majority of constituents find quite refreshing.

At this point, Abele's only goal is steering Milwaukee County away from it's historic downward fiscal trajectory.  His first budget has largely been viewed by the public as a succes - despite veto overrides by the County Board.  With gladness, we give him high scores for balancing a tough budget, staying above the political fray, and striving to reform our county government.

Surveys recently done by Resurgent Republic - a right of center polling firm - show overwhelming support in Florida, Colorado, and New Mexico in the Hispanic community for Voter ID laws.  These surveys raise an interesting political question.  If the Latino community supports Voter ID laws by substantial margins, why is a pro-immigrant outfit like Voces de la Frontera challenging Wisconsin's Voter ID law on behalf of the Hispanic community?

Voces claims that Wisconsin's new Voter ID legislation is "a repressive law aimed at deterring Latino voters from coming to the polls."  It's an interesting assessment actually, but it appears that the majority of Latinos in the only three states polled feel different.  In Florida, 88% of Latinos surveyed said they support Voter ID laws while 73% in New Mexico and 71% in Colorado support Voter ID laws as well.

As stated before, Voces claims that the Voter ID law was intended to repress Latino voters.  But unless they recently developed an uncanny ability to read minds, there is no authenticatable way Voces can know that the law's intent is for anything other than protecting the integrity of the ballot.  So again, if the Hispanic community is supportive of Voter ID laws, then presumably they are not supportive of lawsuits contrary to establishing them.  If Voces' lawsuit is not on behalf of Latinos, then on whose behalf are they suing?

The likely answer is that they are suing on behalf of Wisconsin's Democrat Party.  Let us explain.

Voces is an exceedingly partisan organization known for doing the bidding of Democrats in the past.  For instance, during the Madison protests, leaders of Voces de la Frontera were forcibly removed from a Legislative Budget Hearing by state troopers in an attempt to stop or retard the expansion of school choice.  Ironically, their act of civil disobedience was in protest of an educational reform concept - voucher or scholarship schools - also supported by a large majority of the Hispanic community.

Again, if Voces is opposing the expansion of school choice, then on whose behalf are they doing it?  The Hispanic community is largely supportive of voucher and charter schools, so shouldn't Voces de la Frontera - the voice of Milwaukee's Latino community - consult with us?  Nay, they consult with the Democrat Party, which explains their opposition to Voter ID, School Choice, collective bargaining reform, and state redistricting that had created a second majority voting age district.

A study conducted by the University of Missouri showed that Indiana's voter turnout had increased by 2% after passing their Voter ID law.  The Heritage Foundation did a similar study and found no voter deterrence as a result of Voter ID laws.  A study done by the University of Delaware and the University of Nebraska's showed that Voter ID laws have virtually no effect on voter turnout, and therefore did not depress minority voters.  Increased voter turnouts in Georgia and Alabama after Voter ID laws were implemented have also shown that safeguards against fraud do not necessarily turn away voters - especially Latino voters.

Conclusion

Voces de la Frontera is not fighting for Wisconsin Latinos.  We sincerely appreciate some of the work they have done in uniting the Hispanic community, but their liberal agenda is having a polarizing effect on our community.  Voces' recent lawsuits are highly partisan, radically divisive, and conveniently self-serving.  We ask for them to be honest with Latinos.  We ask for them to concede that these lawsuits are not on behalf of Latinos, but meant to advance a Democrat agenda.

First Impressions

Milwaukee County Executive Chris Abele agreed to meet with El Conquistador last week to talk about his county budget and local issues that impact the Hispanic community.  Right out the gate, we'll say that Abele is a different breed of politician.  As cynical as the American public is, we expect our political leaders to be split-tongued narcissists more concerned about lining their pockets than serving their constituents.  Of course, not all politicians are like that.  We hope - at least locally - that Abele can help re-brand the face of local politics.

Three words come to mind that best describe Chris Abele: intellectual, passionate, and nonpartisan.

We prefer the descriptor nonpartisan because we're confident that, despite his campaign donations, Abele is not a party subscriber.  During our interview, Abele expressed at length his conviction that our two party political system - which he described as "simplistic" and "reductive" - tends to divide Americans more than anything else.  He believes that a third party would shake things up and perhaps improve party relations.  His critique of American politics has led us to believe that Abele doesn't see himself as a party loyalist.  To us, he seems like one of those post-modern politicians that enjoy operating above party controls.

Mr. Abele Goes to Washington

Last year, Abele balanced a county budget in part by requiring public sector employees to pay more for the rising costs of health care coverage.  It wasn't a liberal or conservative thing to do, it was necessitated by major cuts in state funding ($29 million) and having to contend with a growing structural deficit of $55 million.  Making an even bigger splash, Abele also reduced the Sheriff's Department budget by $14 million, a budget that has grown by 62% since 2001.

As expected, the more liberal element of the County Board wasn't exactly pleased.  They overrode eighteen of Abele's twenty-four vetoes restoring $1.6 million to the Sheriff's Department and $3 million for the health care coverage of county employees.  All in all, Abele's budget was a big success proving to his critics (us included) that he can do the job as well as, or even better than his predecessor.

From an inside vantage point, Abele attests to the dire fiscal state of Milwaukee County.  Walker didn't exaggerate when he said the county's finances were on an unsustainable path.  This explains why Abele had vetoed a $50,000 artistic bus shelter proposed by Supervisor Marina Dimitrijevic.

Abele told Supervisor Dimitrijevic that he didn't oppose her designer bus shelter per say, but objected to the county using $50,000 of bonded money - borrowed money with interest - when $120,000 was accessible as a federal transportation grant.

County Legislative Affairs Director Tia Torhorst sent Marina Dimitrijevic an email locating Federal Transportation Enhancement funds for her bus shelter hoping to deter Dimitrijevic from using bonded money.  In the email, Torhorst reinstated the Abele's desire to use all available public art funds for the county's deferred maintenance and pointed out that the federal grant would give Dimitrijevic more than three times the funding made available through the county.

Dimitrijevic fired off an email - forwarding it to all the County Supervisors and their staff - reminding the County Executive's Office of the vast support she dredged for her Bay View bus shelter.  She then thanked Torhorst for finding the federal grant and would consider using it after overriding Abele's veto.  In other words, she would gladly take the $120,000 in federal grant money while also taking the $50,000 in bonded money in the county's public art fund.

During our interview, Abele was clear on how he viewed the county's money.  "Every dime belongs to the public, it is not money for government officials," Abele said.  Viewing county finances in this light should guide Abele in finding the best and most efficient use of public money.  It doesn't matter if it's $50,000 or $1,000.  Ultimately, the money belongs to county taxpayers.

Redistricting and Transparency

Last spring's redistricting mess is yet another example of how officials act to advance their partisan interests.  During our interview, Abele said there didn't seem to be a genuinely good faith effort by the Board to get input from their constituents.  We think that's a rather polite way of putting it.  Last year's county redistricting was a type of ramrodding that lacked nearly all prudential controls - specifically as it relates to giving minority communities a voice in their own government.

When asked to elaborate, Abele noted that the County Board reduced its number of supervisors from nineteen to eighteen.  "It's redistricting 101," he teased. "You want to end up with an odd number."  Ending with an odd number is the right play, but not if you're trying to oust a particular County Supervisor from his district.  The County Board, led by Board Chairman Lee Holloway, redrew Supervisor Joe Rice's district altering the conservative base of his constituency.  This was a move that many believed was retaliation for Rice's staunch advocacy to reduce the Board's size.  But, there are ways to keep redistricting politically kosher.

Abele said, "If you want objective decision making, then you should separate the Board from the process."  By this, Abele is referring to a type of independent commission, one appointed by surrounding communities striving to cut partisan self-interest from the equation.  "Have a third party do it lest people accuse you of doing things to benefit yourself," Abele concluded.

Domestic Partner Benefits

Abele's passion for the community moves beyond county budgeting and to the equal treatment of our fellow man.  Abele championed domestic partner benefits at the county level and ultimately signed it into law.

Not only was Abele instrumental in establishing health care coverage for the domestic partners of county workers, but he did so at a rate far less than they anticipated.  Abele said only 19 of more than 4,500 county employees had signed up for the new benefits.  The county government, Abele said, saved money because "they budgeted nearly a million more than it would have cost."  That should satisfy those critics who saw the entitlement as a costly endeavor.

Conclusion

After interviewing the County Executive, one of our bigger concerns is that Abele's non-partisan philosophy will eventually pit him against both political parties.  Wisconsin's politics today are the most polarized and partisan in recent memory.  Party leaders will want him to choose sides, which so far he's been unwilling to do.  We need more leaders in local government not beholden to a party's talking points, leaders willing to bring both sides together to get things done.