Hello, and welcome back to the Donahue Group, Sheboygan County's most prestigious talk show. Can I say that? At least among the four of us, we're so inclined. Here today with John Hill, and we'll talk and introduce John in a little more detail in just a minute. My name is Mary Lynn Donahue. I'm the host of this delightful group. To my right, Ken Risto, across the way with his Republican tie that I just love. Can't stop mentioning it. Much further to your right. Much further to my right. There you go again. There you go again, Tom Pineski. And on your left. And on my left, but I'm not sure how much further, Cal Potter. So we're delighted that you can join us and we'll just some snappy conversation here today talking a little bit more about the state of the city. And with respect to that, our guest today is John Hill. And John, welcome. This is an informal group if you haven't already figured that out. Poor John is here in his capacity as a defeated candidate. But John was one of the five individuals who had put his name in the ring for the second district, Aldermanic seat, vacated by Juan Perez when he ran for mayor. John did not win. Don, interestingly enough, Don Van Akron won with eight votes. Jack Westfall with five, as I remember. You had two and the other two candidates had none. So you're kind of in the middle of the pack there. Yeah, I used to write all these editorials when I was at the Chevrogan Press lamenting the lack of candidates. And so I decided to run and there's five candidates. But it's kind of be careful. They were reading your editorial. Yeah, be careful of what you wish for. So all of us here, except for Ken, have been candidates for and served in public office. And we are all for having a lot of people running except when we're running. And then it's very nice to be unimposed. But we think it's a great thing that you did indicate interest. And you came to the council and I thought the five speeches that I listened to were generally pretty articulate. What's your sense of the result on Van Akron won with a bare majority? Yeah, I thought the speeches were good. I thought the results were probably a little bit predetermined. I think there'd been quite a bit of lobbying beforehand. And I think that the word result that Don had the votes probably had the vote. So I wasn't surprised by the result. If you had won, what do you think? Well, let me just rephrase that. What did you think the issues were? What propelled you to even want to put yourself forward into a political body that I think all of us can agree? Well, if there was a honeymoon for Mayor Perez, it didn't last too long and is... It was about an equal to Britney Spears. Yeah, very good, very good. What compelled you to take some interest? Well, it's partly because I had been wanting to be in politics and you can't do that to be a newspaper man. And you're retired now. I retired in October. The first thing I did was work on the Cary campaign. I hadn't worked on one since Eugene McCarthy in 1968. Part of it is just the timing and part of it is I'm getting married this month and so I just moved into the second district. So it just happened. But the issues, I'm very interested in Sheridan Park and I don't think it's a good place to build a police station. And I think the message should have been clear from the election that the majority of people don't want the station built there. And I mean, that's one good reason in itself. We had a petition last fall with 3,000 signatures on it. And then we had what four incumbents turned lost in the last election who supported Sheridan Park. So to me, the people are speaking and they don't want the police station there. But there are other good reasons. I think this study that's been done that says it would be more expensive to put it there is another good reason. I think the chances for sharing services with the county are better. And I think the negotiations, excuse me, that went on between the county and the city were important and the county would be solving one of its problems in the deal that was apparently that the county at least thought had been arranged, which would be parking in the area of the courthouse. So those are very good reasons why I don't think it should have been Bill to Sheridan Park, but those weren't the only reasons that I was running. But that's the major issue at this point. All right. What was your, this is a little slightly different, what was your experience?  What kinds have you thought about it? Well, it was a little daunting. And I think that's the biggest crowd I've ever seen there in the city hall. So it was a little daunting. And I had to go, I had to speak first. So it was a little bit daunting. And it's been a while since I've been in Toastmasters. I was in Toastmasters for quite a while, but I haven't been in it for a while. And I suppose you haven't worn a tie for some period of time, Republican or otherwise. So, well, you look good, John. I watched it on tape. And what other kind of Sheridan Park will likely be an up or down vote next week? What other issues were of interest to you in pursuing the position? Just the whole issue of city finances. And I like the idea that the mayor has to prioritize services. And I think the real key now is, if we want quality services, we've got to find ways to share and collaborate and coordinate with other branches of government. And so I think that's a major issue right now in many areas. And so I wanted to work for that. Those are the major issues I had in mind. One of the things I emphasized last night was listening to constituents. And I think that maybe the council isn't doing as good a job as it might be able to listen to constituents and the fact that, well, if they do go ahead with Sheridan Park, I don't think they're listening very well. And one idea I had is to hold listening sessions at parks in the summertime. And it's not something new. We used to do that at the Sheboygan Press in the summertime. And it was a lot of fun. And I felt we were more a part of the community at that time when we were doing that. Just for everyone around our pretty table here. I know the Sheboygan Falls School District Board of Education filled a vacancy on its board with a candidate who had lost by far more than Don Van Akron. And I understand the situation out there is related as I understand it to some politics and feelings are running pretty high out there. What are your thoughts about Don being back on the council defeated certainly not by a huge margin. In fact, I think right Ken, he won his own ward. Ward four lost Ward three and overall had fewer votes. What kind of message do you think it's sending the city that the council has voted now eight to seven essentially to put Don back in? Well, I first thought it would have been, I would have first thought he would have gone out and said I served and done well and I got beat. So I'll step down and let somebody else put their name in and serve the community. I was fortunate to serve the community for 18 years. So I'm not quite sure why he put his name in again, but he did. And at first I was disappointed that he won, but he won. I mean, there's enough, he has enough support on council and he still has to run for reelection again in one year. And so maybe John or maybe the other candidate, Jack will decide to run against him and then they'll get the citizen vote again. So I think the council picked and you just work with who's there. Don't elections matter. I mean, I just, when I was struck by that, actually I did run for, not a public office once, but I did run for a union position or association position within the district teachers union and got defeated by two or three votes after a pretty rankers mudslinging kind of thing that I didn't really respond to. And as it turned out, the person who defeated me couldn't do the job. And so then they looked at me and said, do you want the position? And I said, the people have spoken, you know. Yeah, there you go. Like go back. Like go back. Yeah, there's a stop. You know, I mean they just spoke and you may disagree with their decision. They may not have responded to things that were probably not true in my particular case, whatever it might be. And I'd like to think I had the good sense to say that the people who spoke and find somebody else and I just was amazed that that same message didn't evidently take root over on the north side of town. I just don't think that the council gets it. I mean, I'm more blunt probably than John is. I don't think they get it yet. I think he's absolutely right. We talked about this on a previous show. Four incumbents got ousted, you know. Juan Perez got more votes in those four districts than the aldermen who replaced the aldermen and persons. And stunningly, the council just continues to go on its merry way thinking, I guess that they know better. I think the lines have been drawn very distinctly as to who supported the park and who didn't. And I think those folks are holding pretty tight. And I think they knew Mr. Van Akron and they knew his views, of course. And I think that that solidity of that group is still there. But you guys have been in power. They haven't even served a term yet. Marge and Bonnie and Kittleson and now William Steffens, has he served a term yet? Well, Steffen has been on for a while. He's been on for a while. He lost three hours there. Van Der Wheely, is he? How long has he been around? He's been around for a while. Eldenburg is new. They got a lot of new people in for some reason. They're just hanging on to their first, you know, some other, they haven't really experienced some issues and maybe haven't been baptized by fire yet this in serving on the council. Well, but just let me ask you this. You two in particular, having served in public office, what does it take, if you've taken a position and you sense that your constituency is really moving in the other direction, what does it take for you to change your mind? I mean, I think that's what Ken is saying is that the writing is fairly clear on the wall, but people for whatever reasons aren't changing their mind. I guess I'm interested in what those reasons would be. Well, I think politicians, if they have a marginal district where there's a division between parties in the political arena, then they listen. But there are people who are in districts where there's so many of their own party, for example, that if a dog ran against them, you know, as a member of that party, that dog would win. That's how much they have confidence in the position and holding the position. And I think some politicians, if it isn't because of the competitive nature, just are in office long enough that they do get a little big head, I think, out of it. And they think that they can do what they do on well, please, and they get full of themselves. And so I think there are people who listen to the people because they feel that's their job, but there are other people who do it because fear of defeat. And then if you're in a position, like I said, being solidified by the fact that you're almost invincible, those folks sometimes are loose cannons, do what they wanna do. We saw that in the legislature. There are people who are, we call them safe districts. And they took bizarre positions, personal positions, their own personal agendas, and didn't much care about the constituencies that they were elected from. But in this election, there was, in the mayors, there wasn't a safe district, except for Shram's whole neighborhood where possibly, possibly the police department might be located. One was a tie, and the other one was really close. But we say don't get it. Yeah, that's what I'm saying, is looking at the same numbers that are published in the press as I am, and I'm saying this is a mayor who's coming in with a clear mandate.  Because I just don't think they are, I think they're energized. I always talk to some of those folks, and some of them still are talking about, well, that's a vocal minority. They're still fooling themselves that the 3,000 people that signed this position were ones that, that's all there are out there. They got everyone. And as a result, they don't have to listen, that they can still be very firm in their previous position. Isn't 53% considered a landslide? So if Perez got 54%, he had basically a landslide in this election. Well, as we say in Shuei, he didn't quite schvets the mayor, but it wasn't quite a schvetsing, but it was a substantial victory. There's no doubt about it. And the change, the defeat of the aldermen who were defeated was pretty stunning. Surprised, I think a lot of us observers who just quite frankly didn't think that was gonna happen, the momentum for Perez appeared certainly to be building as the campaign went on, but he had a pretty good campaign, but for Vicki Meyer to take down Mike Warner, I was pretty stunned. So any thoughts on whether, it was interesting, the Vicki Meyer piece coming out that she had been previously convicted of marijuana possession. Any opinions as to whether that disqualifies her for serving on public protection and safety? I don't think so. I don't think so either. Not at all. Not at all. In a small town, you shouldn't be throwing stones. And that's the reality is when I look at the members, some of the members that are on that commission and some of the public statements they made about people's personal lives, I'd be real careful. I mean, because in a small town, everybody knows everybody's business and I just think that that's, I think there was a lot of hypocrisy about some of that. And I think what was interesting was clearly the vote was a no to the police department and to a certain degree to the current police chief. And then to have followed up this whole article about someone having a police chief having a conversation in the mayor's office about, well, if you don't withdraw an appointment, this bad news is gonna come out. It's got a lot of people in Sheboygan really asking about the police department in this community. They'll support the police and they love their police department and they're glad that the work that they do. But when you see this kind of heavy handed politics, we don't think of ourselves here in Sheboygan as playing hard ball like that and it's got folks really talking. And it's gonna be hooked up with the whole siting of the police department eventually too. And then on top of that, you've got the third story wandering around which is the complaint of excessive force. I think most people in Sheboygan as they're talking are waiting to see what the investigation is gonna reveal. They got an open mind about that issue. But all of this is starting to really churn average folks in Piggly Wiggly saying, what's really happening over there? And let me tell you that I served on the police and fire commission for five years and in my five year tenure, I don't remember any kind of citizen complaint being validated and actually proceeding through the commission. And I know some of the members that are currently on the commission, Bob LaTriege and Pregates have actually, those are the two who have been there really a substantial period of time but I'm not sure the police and fire commission has a whole lot of experience with dealing with what I think is a pretty complex issue. And here it is. And I must say just with no comment whatsoever on any of the merits of the case, that was the most interesting picture that I had seen on the front page of the Sheboygan press ever of the young men with the tear rolling down his cheek and I don't know if it was staged or whatever but it had some real, it was a pretty powerful photograph from my perspective so it'll be real interesting to see how the police and fire commission really does handle that because I think it's gonna be new for them and it's kind of new for Sheboygan to be dealing with something like this. They don't, well, the photographers don't stage it. I mean, maybe the guy staged it but. No, no, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to impugn the, actually it's a new photographer for the press. He seems very good, Sandy Castro I think. Yes, just got him from West Bend. Yeah, interesting, photo. What do you think of what the mayor did with the public protection and safety committee by making the change? I think it was a good move. I think it's good to get some experience on there and I think Silas Van Der Wiel is a good man and I think that's been, I think it was a mistake not to have some experience on there and he could have, I mean, I'm sure he wanted a committee that would vote the way his position but I think he could have done that and still had at least one experienced person on there. So I think it's a good change. Has that committee changed since the time you were on the council in terms of what it does? No, public protection and safety. It handles all those major issues. I mean, all the issues associated with the police department and the fire department. But not the siting of a station. I mean, that's why the police chief would have input into the design, maybe into his site but I don't know that they necessarily are responsible for the planning and the location. They'll provide input. Probably some other committee should be doing that. Let me just start a little bit because it's such an unusual parliamentary process. The three man hold. Did you folks? Okay, rest of it. Yeah, it really does. And of course, in politically correct times, of course, it should be the three person hold but did you folks did that? We use it when I was on rarely but if somebody's absent, sometimes you use it. If there's really, the person's vote is really needed and the person's absent or two people are absent and you know it's gonna be close and you've counted your votes, sometimes you use it but rarely use it rarely. And then the matter has to come before the council at the next meeting. That's the advantage, in other words.  And they're having a special meeting on May 9th out of the usual course of things, I think to dissolve a TIF district if I'm not mistaken where there's some timelines involved. Do you think that will give the opponents and the proponents of the station some time to organize up? Well, they could have a full council for the first time since last year. So I think the vote is gonna be a full one that you'll see where everybody stands and whether anybody's changed their mind or not. And if indeed Sheridan Park is reaffirmed, that's gonna be interesting to see whether somebody starts talking about recalls because as Ken mentioned, there's a feeling out there. They're going to be recalls from what I'm hearing in the community. There are people who are watching that vote carefully and if people don't change their mind, there's going to be recalls. Well, that was my question. Does the Sheridan Park group, which I think is fairly broad based, you all have heard about my mother-in-law who is a firm member of the group and somewhat unexpectedly, not unexpectedly, but just shows you the breadth and depth of it. Are people getting tired of it though? Is there still the energy to keep fighting that fight? I guess that's my question. I think it's taken on a new dimension because as we mentioned before, the changes in the council and the mayorship. If that doesn't do it, if that wasn't the message that was listened to and then there's a reaffirming of what occurred before that election, people are going to say, well, what was this all about? I mean, didn't anybody, as we said, get it? I've talked to some people and certainly, I don't know if they're representative of the entire group, if there was an entire group, but they're getting angrier. They're getting angrier. And if the council thinks that this is going to go away, it simply isn't going to go away. And of course, the beauty or the danger of a recall in an Aldermanic district is that's a little more doable.  And it's my understanding, at least, and I'm not sure about Aldermanic positions, but a person who has been elected within his first year is not recallable. And I don't know if that applies to Aldermanic districts as well as... I think it's statutory, that you're protected for that year. All right, so the brand new people who... Yeah, they wouldn't be affected. Right. And in fact, Don Van Akron would not be, and one would presume he was certainly one of the staunchest supporters of the park, that he, of the park side, he would not change his vote, so he won't be recallable, and none of the people who were sworn in a couple of weeks ago. But those Aldermanic districts, I mean, they're big enough, but they're not... It's a doable thing. I just wonder... The number of signatures necessary isn't very many at all. Right, and... Yeah, but who's eligible for a recall? Bonnie Serda's not, if she's the first term... No, she's on her second term. First term? No, first year. It's the first year. Oh, you can't be recalled first year. Oh, your second year, you can be... Right. Oh, I'm sorry, I thought it was the first term. Your fair game after one year. Do you remember when they tried to recall Dan Anderson after the Mooth decision on that... Oh, that... That nuisance suit? Yeah. And they actually had enough signatures to start the recall, but it was the first year. Of his term. Of his term. Now, those are six-year terms, and that was my question, whether it's a year, no matter how long your term is, whether it's two years or six or 10. So, eight older people would certainly fit into the recallable category, depending on... Yeah, I'm just wondering, do people just get tired after a while? And we've fought this battle for a long time, and we just don't wanna fight it anymore.  Well, Ken as a group, because then they'd say, that's an open meeting. Yeah, you gotta be careful about the open meetings, yeah. But you know, Juan... Forget any groups of four. One on one, one on one, and just say, you know, I ran on not building a Sheridan Park, and I am planning not to build a Sheridan Park, and I just need you to let us move forward in some direction, but don't push Sheridan Park, because I'll veto it. Wouldn't it be wise if he did that? Wouldn't it be wise if he did that? Just each one, and just say, I need your support, I need your help. Come on in, one on one. Yeah, but the problem, you can't veto the, I mean, just from a procedural standpoint, without getting too technical. The vote, the motion, as I understand it, will be to rescind a prior action. So if the motion to rescind fails, there's nothing to really veto. Subsequent spending bills have to come through, and they have to come through finance committee, and finance committee may not put those spending bills out, and other approvals might have to come through, and along the way, I think you could just say, I'm not gonna approve. So in essence, you can approve building it, but you're not gonna have the money to do it. That's right. I think you can do that, yeah. Sort of like authorization appropriation bills. Of course, the problem with that is the longer you put off the building, of course, the more expensive it is. A year ago, that's what he argued, he said, I wanna build it, but it isn't gonna be Sheridan Park, so the more you fight me, you're just costing the taxpayer more money. And this may or so far is awfully good at framing issues, and if any future police department or whatever is held more expensive because the council's delaying, you can bet it's gonna be put on their doorstep. Yeah, that's a good issue. Just a couple minutes left, and just to segue a little bit, I was interested in Mike Warner's comments in the public forum last night. He talked, he made a pitch for the municipal court, and I was surprised because that has been passed, has it not? And it's ready to go if I'm not mistaken. And I know Mayor Perez has concerns because of the duplicate, what he views as a duplication of services. I think he was one of the people who voted against it back when. But good idea, bad idea, is it a duplication? I think it's a good idea. And part of it is because I got a speeding ticket, and it cost me $180 for going 41 miles an hour on Calumet Drive, which I thought, I mean, I'm guilty, but I thought that that was excessive, and if it had been a municipal court, it would have been something like $90 or 70. And so I think just from a standpoint of the fines involved. Yeah, but besides that, more money goes to the city and the courts are crowded. So I mean, there's three good reasons to have a municipal court. And really at one time, that's the way it was. What we've done is we've just added all these fees. Your $181 forfeiture, and I only know because I'm a traffic prosecutor, and I have all those memorized, is a $50 forfeiture. Everything else is a built on cost, and the municipal court does reduce that. So can we shrink the size of the circuit court system? Great talking to you, John. You've got a bright political future ahead of you. I have no doubt. Thanks to all of you for participating. Thank you.