Out Of All the Damage Sykes Does . . .

by bert
. . . on a daily basis, his sloppy use today of what turned out to be a false rumor doesn't move the outrage meter much. Charlie Sykes, both on his WTMJ talk show and on his blog, spread an emailed rumor that gubernatorial candidate Barrett attended a secret fundraiser with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi while she was in Milwaukee attending the national American Legion convention. The state GOP leadership, just about as professional, ran with it.

The Republican party released its attack on Barrett -- which including a drawing of Pelosi handing a bag of cash to Barrett -- based on statements by WTMJ-AM (620) Charlie Sykes and questions from reporters, said Andrew Welhouse, a spokesman for the Republican party.

"At this point it appears that the media report that I based it on was unreliable, so I will pull it back," Welhouse said of the release.

Of course, a lot of us don't see much to raise the eyebrows about a Pelosi-led fundraiser for Tom Barrett even if it were true. Also, the sorry episode also doesn't tell us anything we didn't already know about the integrity of the ex-reporter Sykes.

Who's going to challenge Tom Barrett from the left?

or, maybe Soglin should file papers after all

by folkbum

As noted here previously, Tom Barrett has spent much of the last few months--and any number of Democrats have on his behalf--dumping on Milwaukee by slandering and demanding control of the Milwaukee Public Schools.

No candidate from Milwaukee can be elected governor, you see, without making certain that they are not viewed as being of Milwaukee. At least, that's as reasonable an explanation as one can draw from Wisconsin's history of not having elected candidates from Milwaukee to statewide office since forever. (Someone who has lived here longer than I have--I started college here in 1992 and stuck around--can probably tell me the last time that happened. But if the Wikipedia can be believed, Lee Dreyfus was the last Milwaukeean elected governor, though he hadn't lived in Milwaukee for years at the time.)

So here's what we're going to end up with: three major-party candidates (Barrett plus Republicans Scott Walker and Mark Nuemann), none of whom will stick up for the state's major urban center, none of whom will advocate for the state's minority population, none of whom will argue that unless we reignite the fires of Milwaukee's economic engine, its idling could drag this state's recovery out for years. (Wisconsin's second major urban area, Madison, has an economy that just keeps racing along, it seems.) Walker will not run a pro-Milwaukee campaign, because he, too, is from here. And Neumann won't because it will not earn him a single vote in a Republican primary.

Sp who's going to challenge Barrett from the left? Who's going to run a progressive, pro-Milwaukee, pro-public education, pro-urban renewal campaign that will force Barrett (and, I would hope, by extension the Republican candidates) to pay attention to progressive issues and stay honest about the needs of Milwaukee's largest city and most desperate economic disaster-in-waiting?

If there is any lesson to be learned from the election two weeks ago in Virginia, it's that running away from the people and the issues that mobilized and energized Barack Obama's voters is a losing proposition. Creigh Deeds was the least progressive candidate from Virginia's Dem primary and he ran hard away from Obama's signature issues like health care reform. Obama voters stayed home, and Deeds lost miserably.

Barrett needs a serious opponent in this primary who can make sure that doesn't happen. Barb Lawton could have been that candidate (though she also had a reasonable chance to beat Barrett--I doubt any other candidate now does). Kevin Conroy is not that person. Kathleen Falk maybe is, but she might not have another statewide run in her. Tammy Baldwin is saving up to replace Herb Kohl in 2012. So that leaves ... who? Paul, are you listening?

Updated to add, from Thomas J. Mertz in the comments, this:
I think there is a larger issue here about who among the Democratic Party of Wisconsin's state elected officials is willing to act on "progressive, pro-Milwaukee, pro-public education, pro-urban renewal..." principles. You could add tax reform and many other things to this list. [. . .] We are at the point where the far right is defining the GOP agenda, the GOP agenda is defining the moderate Democratic agenda and the moderate Democratic agenda is being pushed or defended by "Progressive" elected officials. This isn't good.

What he said.

What would it take?

by folkbum

I think I have made it pretty clear that I oppose the current effort--if you can call it an effort, as it seems, so far, all talk and no action--to place control of the Milwaukee Public Schools in the hands of the mayor. I think I have pretty well laid out my reasons: the public voted down a similar plan in the spring election for State Superintendent; the mayor hasn't managed to fix in the city the same problems he's gunning for in the schools; there is a real and dangerous divide already forming along racial lines over the issue that could tear this city apart; claims of success in other districts under municipal control tend to be inflated or illusory; the primary impetus for the move seems to be the erroneous assumption that we have to do it to get the "race to the top" funds the feds have promised.

But I'm not an unreasonable man, and I'd like to believe that if a solid case for a governance change came my way I could be convinced. I haven't seen that case yet, and I don't have such an aggrandized sense of self that I wait daily for the phone to ring with Mayor Barrett on the other line asking me what it would take. However, I feel that, since I have in my head been developing a list of, as it were, demands, it seems like I ought to share them.

And, since later today I go tape the 4th Street Forum episode on MPS reform, I'm running out of time to put this forward. So. What would it take?

First and foremost, as I alluded to earlier, Tom Barrett can't run for governor. Bruce Murphy, a pro-takeover guy, makes the case that it would actually be a great campaign point for Barrett for a variety of reasons. I disagree. In my earlier post, I make it clear that at least this Milwaukeean (and MPS teacher) sees this as part of a crap-on-Milwaukee strategy. Think of it as Barrett's Sista Souldja moment; out-state voters won't vote for a Milaukeean unless that Milwaukeean can blame Milwaukee as much as they do.

More importantly, Barrett's asking for a great deal of not just authority but responsibility to be placed in his office. If he's serious about exercising that authority and living up to that responsibility, he needs to make a commitment to see the process through. If he can't do that, I'm not sure how we can take him seriously.

Second, something needs to be in it for us. In places where municipal control hasn't been such a disaster that the voters haven't taken it back--I'm looking at you, Detroit!--the city has offered its resources to help. In the most complete written list of ideas the mayor has offered to date (at least, that I know of; I'm happy to see something else if it's out there) there is nothing from his side of the bargain on the table.

I would be happy to see anything, here, whether it's the city picking up the tab for stationing MPD resource officers in schools or a promise to put a public health nurse in every building. Something like partnering a city social worker with every school social worker would literally double the manpower in one of the most difficult--but most important--positions in MPS. Barrett could offer to bring city and school unions together to increase bargaining power for health care and pensions, or to supplement and expand the district's recreation division. Something. But we've gotten nothing from Barrett on that front, at all, in theory or in his recent budget proposal.

A simple and perhaps effective approach would be to pair the city's and the district's resources on combatting the kinds of problems highlighted in this report (.pdf) by researchers at UW-Milwaukee, which is all about neighborhood and community factors that affect children and their ability to succeed later in school--things like unemployment, early child care issues, child safety, crime rates, and housing challenges. These are things far outside of the control of the schools, but that have a tremendous impact on how hard it is for schools to do their jobs well. These are, however, things the city could be working on; a commitment from the mayor, accompanied by some real action on his part, would be a positive sign. (For more on the report, see the UWM page; BloggingMPS also has three posts up, with links to a video presentation: 1 2 3.)

Third, Barrett would have to do something to pre-empt the inevitable racial schism his proposal seems to be creating. He needs the African American and Latino communities to be partners with him if he wants schools to succeed, but lines are being drawn that call the idea of unity into serious question. The NACCP, MICAH, and other groups have been squarely against the takeover; even Pedro Colon, fan of reform, is unwilling to cede full control to the mayor. Barrett needs to bring them back if he wants to be successful here. Barrett can do this in a number of ways; one easy one would be to call together a council of advisors from the community. If he plans to appoint a nine-member school board, ask this council to give him five or six names, as he appoints the other three or four. Give this council a say in selecting the superintendent, too.

In the end, I don't see all or, really, any of this happening. I'm actually quite surprised that Tom Barrett hasn't announced his gubernatorial run by now. But this is what it would take to get me on board. Until then, I remain opposed.

59 Milwaukee County residents support a mayoral takeover of MPS

by folkbum

You read that right--not 59 percent of, just 59 Milwaukee County residents support handing over the Milwaukee Public Schools to the mayor of Milwaukee.

At least, that's according to a new poll by the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute (done by the "public option" UW polling center):

According to the poll results, slightly more than half of the 112 Milwaukee County residents surveyed , or 53%, said they supported the proposal for a mayoral takeover of MPS, a plan proposed by Gov. Jim Doyle and Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett in August.

When you do that math, that adds up to 59 people.

Now, I'm no statistician, but I do like to play one on the internet sometimes. I appreciate a well-constructed sample, and I have no doubt that the people at the UW aren't playing fast and loose with the data. But a sample size of 112 for a county of more than 900,000 people seems a bit of a stretch. Doing the math (using ARG's calculator), it turns out that this subsample has a margin of error of more than ±9%--not something to write home about.

Mostly, I'm suspicious because, in fact, the mayoral takeover has been put to voters, and it lost. It didn't come up in the last election of either Gov. Doyle or Mayor Barrett, but it was certainly on the table in the State Superintendent election this past spring between Tony Evers and Rose Fernandez. Both candidates put forward Milwaukee plans in the election, and Fernandez's plan was, while not a mayoral takeover, a similar concept. She proposed eliminating the current, elected school board and replacing it with a "turnaround team" made up of members appointed by herself, the mayor, and the county executive.

Fernandez lost by 14 points statewide. It was closer to 20 points in the City of Milwaukee.

What might have changed in six months to turn sentiment around? Nothing that I know of. In fact, in every public forum so far (like the one last week, and--I anticipate--the one tomorrow night) the public opinion has been strongly against the idea. The loudest support has been from the daily newspaper's editorial board and the business community, neither of which truly represents the parents and families in the cities.

Given the way community organizations are lining up against this--and the real risk of an unmendable divide in the community if it happens--it seems like 59 people don't make for a good reason to go ahead.

Who's running the better crap-on-Milwaukee Guv campaign, Walker or Barrett?

by folkbum

I've been working on a post--in my head, mostly, but I've been working on it--which is sort of a "what would it take for me to support Mayor Tom Barrett's plan to take over the Milwaukee Public Schools?" post. I figured, you know, I oppose the idea, and see nothing but bad things ahead if it goes through, but I'm a reasonable man and I am seldom completely unpersuadable. So I have started imagining what else the Mayor could say or do or offer to make a takeover palatable.

At the top of the list, literally, number one on my list, is "Don't run for governor." If you're going to do this, I was planning to write, make a real, full, and absolute commitment to the voters of this city that you will see this transition through.

And yet with news today that US Rep Ron Kind is not running for governor, it seems much more likely that Tom Barrett is. In the first days after Jim Doyle announced he was not running, the word was that Kind and Barrett, former colleagues in the House, would not run against each other. Kinds non-entrance makes Barrett's entrance that much more certain.

And, as we all know, you can't get elected Governor of Wisconsin if you're from Milwaukee. However, much like last year's presidential election bucked the "you can't get elected while a sitting senator" rule by pitting two sitting senators against each other, the 2010 governor's race may well pit two Milwaukeeans against each other. And both--Barrett and Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker--are hard at work on building their anti-Milwaukee cred, Barrett through this takeover nonsense and Walker through, well, being Walker.

This makes me much less likely to get around to finishing that "what would it take" post. The takeover talk suddenly seems a lot more like Barrett and Doyle (who us no great fan of Lt. Gov. Barb Lawton, the only announced Democrat so far) setting the stage for a state-wide campaign.

Please don't. Not any more.

by folkbum

I've been going back and forth on how much or what to say about the proposed mayoral takeover of the Milwaukee Public Schools--I'm agin' it--or even whether to bother, as if my opinion counts for squat anymore.

A lot of what I wanted to say, Jennifer Morales did in her op-ed Sunday; her second half--about all the things that Mayor Tom "Fightin' Tom" Barrett could if he really wanted to help the children of Milwaukee--is almost word-for-word what I would have written if I had gotten around to it. You should really read it all.

There was one point when I'd started drafting and collected a bunch of tabs full of reasons why a mayoral takeover is a bad idea and won't work (historically it doesn't help, at least not without massive sustained increases in per-student spending as in New York, and even mentioning it is driving a wedge between Barrett and the best possible allies he could want, Michael Bonds and the AAEC) and my browser crashed so, hey, decision made.

But then I read this yesterday:

Barrett and Doyle indicated they will push on to make mayoral control happen, despite opposition from local groups and Doyle's decision to not seek re-election.

The two biggest issues at stake, Doyle said, include securing a new superintendent for Milwaukee Public Schools, which should be chosen by the mayor and answer to the mayor to create a "clear line of accountability," and submitting a competitive state application for a piece of the $4.5 billion in Race to the Top federal school stimulus funding before the end of this year.

Got that? This is about chasing money, running down a short-term prize without giving a damn about the long-term consequences of the decision. This is something about which MPS teachers can speak with experience.

This careening about in search of the New Hotness that gets Grant Funding is horrible, horrible policy. Case in point: You know North Division High School? It spent the better part of the last decade as the vanguard in MPS's small high school multiplex redesign program*, primarily because the Gates Foundation and other groups were doling out the fundage for small schools. North was generally awful before the change, and remained generally awful no matter what small program was wedged into the multiplex. It is now in the process of being rebiggified as a single school instead of a multiplex.

Marshall High School, which got the same treatment, saw failed small school after failed small school parade through and is now just going to be turned over to Morse Middle School to house a 6-12 program there. Washington's multiplex has been more stable, but the small schools have never lived up to the success that a Gates grant seemed to promise, scoring below district averages in nearly every measure.**

When the multiplex money dried up, First Things First was the next New Hotness that had Grant Funding, and the first to go in the pursuit of those funds were Bradley Tech and Pulaski. Tech you undoubtedly have an opinion of, but it's also clear that Pulaski's not living up to the promise, either, with no changes in retention rates, suspensions rates, truancy rates, or reading and math scores. My previous school, Milwaukee Madison, was forced to give up its International Baccalaureate program in favor of First Things First, driving away talented students and staff (most of whom, your humble correspondent not included, found their way to Reagan); its metrics are also in the tank.

All of these top-down decisions have crushed staff morale over the past few years, sent many a good teacher to early retirement or the suburbs, and thoroughly upheaved programs that in many cases have not recovered. The modest district-wide gains in test scores at the high school level hold little to no connection to these changes and the schools in question all continue to fail on their No Child Left Behind benchmarks, all while students, staff, and principals fight their way through conflicting visions of reform and enthusiasm-killing, soul-crushing program-churn.

And that's just what the pursuit of the elusive Grant Funding has done to the high schools, the circle in which I operate; the drive to create K-8 charters is choking the traditional middle schools, for example; I'm sure there's more if I had the time to dig just a little bit.

To be clear: I do not want to sound like I blame teachers for the failings of the schools listed above. Every one of these schools has hard-working, dedicated, talented teachers and staff who are doing the best they can under damned difficult circumstances. It's just that the pursuit of reform for the sake of $$$$$$$$$ adds layers of more Sisyphean challenge. It is Bad Policy.

And now comes Arne Duncan***, strutting past shaking his Race to the Top**** funds like a three-dollar whore, and the drool starts puddling around the feet of people who sure ought to be smarter than that. If the recent history of education in Milwaukee has shown anything--from the Bradley Foundation's funding of a middling voucher program that doesn't live up to the hype to the way the current superintendent slavishly trolled for Gates money--it's that chasing down a dollar is horrible pedagogy and worthless to the bottom line--helping kids learn.

Don't you think it's time to give it a rest?

*I did a whole series on small high schools back in 2005; it sounds prescient, now.
**All notes about school performance based on the 2007-2008 report cards. Go here, click on the names of the schools you want to see, and scroll down to access pdfs of the report cards.
***Here's a report (.pdf) suggesting that former Chicago Public Schools CEO Duncan was no miracle worker, and that mayoral control in Chicago has been ineffective.
****See also retired school administrator Mike Schutz on Race to the Top.

Blackberry Mightier Than the Barretta

By Keith R. Schmitz

Best wishes to Mayor Tom Barrett and a speedy recovery after suffering injuries from doing the right thing after leaving the State Fair last night. Milwaukee metro is lucky to have such a caring individual in charge of city government and no doubt he will be back on the job soon.

Back at State Fair this morning, wasn't more than a couple of hours working the Democratic Party booth when a guy with, gasp an actual skin head, breezed by and threw out one of those cheap shot lines you get (sure the other side gets them too), "hey this wouldn't have happen if we had conceal and carry."

Don't know if I want my metro mayor carrying around a piece. Kind of sends a negative message don't you think?

Reminds me of a similar situation a few months back that happened on Farwell Ave. just up from the gas station off Knapp Street.

Godless socialist that I am, I was ready to cross the street to make a meeting at the Milwaukee Interfaith Conference office when I heard someone shouting for help.

A white guy in roughly his mid-thirties had just pounded an old black man to the ground and kicked him into the street in front of an on-coming car, whose driver was sharp enough to stop in time.

My man side told me to do something about this, but my rational side intervened and quickly calculated the odds of this working out for me, which weren't good.

So I shouted, "hey jackass, check this out, I'm calling the cops" as I slowly and visibly withdrew my Blackberry from a shirt pocket.

The guy looked up, stood erect and headed right for me but then went wide and ran north. The cops did arrive, got my statement and what ever happened next, I don't know.

A conservative Christian relative of mine said too bad I didn't have a gun, because in beating up the other guy he gave up his right of me not shooting him.

So what if I did? There was that one second as he approached me during which if I had a gun and plugged him, later to find him unarmed, a feeling of total crap would have descended on me and would have stayed glued the rest of my life. The knowledge of course in a time like that is imperfect to be sure, but the potential to injure my psyche very significant.

As it is, I feel damn clever about what I did and I'll buy that.

So ponder the ridiculous idea of the Mayor having a gun. Chances are very likely that the 20 year old guy, or the Mayor or his kids could have been shot or killed. A bad situation would have been much worse.

The bullets don't go back into the barrel and those who get off on the empowerment a gun gives them fail to recognize yet another set of actions that have consequences.

Hats off to Mayor Barrett, and let us hope he recovers quickly

by folkbum

So no sooner had I chastised Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett for wanting to take over MPS--I maintain it is a bad idea--and crawled into my own bed for the first time in 10 days, than Barrett dials 911 to help someone and takes a beating for her.

I've always liked Barrett--voted for him in the 2002 primary for governer, as well as for mayor--and generally think he hasn't done bad by Milwaukee. It sounds like his condition is not serious and he should recover fully. I hope so; he's got a city (not a school system) to run and we need him.

Developments show McKinsey & Co. audit of MPS not a dragonslayer

by folkbum

I was asked last night about whether there really seemed to be a lot of "consternation" about the McKinsey & Co. audit completed last month of the finances of the Milwaukee Public Schools, and I suggested that no, in fact, there wasn't. There were some documentable errors in the report, for example, and the report seemed to be a bit out if date, in that some of the things it suggested MPS do are things MPS is already working on--like selling unused properties, implementing "performance-based" budgeting and re-centralizing of purchasing functions.

And it may well be that I don't really have my finger on the pulse of community or institutional sentiment about the report, and so I'm missing a flurry of something somewhere; or it may be that the swine flu hysteria has overshadowed hysteria over the audit.

But the MPS Board of Directors' Strategic Planning and Budget Committee meeting last night suggests that I'm right:

A financial audit of Milwaukee Public Schools released last month that pointed to waste in the system and calls for reform from state and city leaders failed to produce the same kind of urgency Tuesday night at a School Board committee meeting.

An overview of the report was the topic of the meeting, but missing from the discussion were Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, Gov. Jim Doyle and state Superintendent of Public Instruction Elizabeth Burmaster, all of whom Terry Falk, the chair of the Committee on Strategic Planning and Budget, had invited to talk to committee members. [. . .]

According to David Guran, one of the few residents who showed up to testify about the audit, the mayor's office said Tuesday that no meeting had yet been set for the MPS Innovation and Improvement Advisory Council that was supposed to form last month.

Not that I necessarily expect the governor himself to show up to an MPS board meeting, but the meeting was called specifically to discuss the audit (here's the agenda in .pdf form, including Terry Falk's letter to Doyle et al.) and you'd think that the people who demanded the audit would at least send a contingent to make their views and recommendations known to the board. But the fact that no one was there, and the fact that the big committee that is supposed to act in a non-binding oversight capacity on the MPS budget to ensure compliance with the audit's recommendations hasn't formed or met yet, just reinforces my belief that the audit was not the dragonslayer Doyle and Barrett hoped it would be.

First, the audit's findings were not so bad that Doyle and Barrett had reason to immediately call for a takeover of the district (see my earlier post here). The audit was able to cobble together $100 million a year in potential savings. That sounds like a lot of money--and it is!--but it is less than 10% of the overall MPS budget and a significant part of that savings came from foisting MPS workers onto the state dole for health care, which is not exactly the kind of thing that will save the state any money. If the audit had identified a larger number, or if it had identified $100m in pure waste as opposed to family-supporting wages and beniefits, then the report might well have given Doyle and Barrett impetus to act more forcefully and more quickly.

Second, perhaps more importantly, the audit is incredibly sympathetic toward MPS. The authors of the report make it clear that MPS faces tremendous budget pressures from many different directions--rapidly declining enrollment, a screwed-up state funding formula, an expensive health-care market in Southeast Wisconsin, and more--and that even if the audit's full recommendations are followed, MPS will still face significant budget crunches not very far down the road. While the audit does suggest that MPS needs an attitude adjustment when it comes to finances and reform, it also is pretty clear that reality will overtake the district whether administration gets ruthless (in some cases, heartless) in budgeting and collective bargaining or not.

In other words, even if Doyle or Barrett or the Milwaukee Common Council or some other institution takes over MPS, there still have to be significant changes external to MPS to make the district's finances viable long-term. Whoever is running MPS in two years will find themselves making the same arguments and facing the same difficult choices that the current board does now. I imagine that it's that reality that is keeping Doyle and Barrett far away, at least in public, from putting their own names on the line over MPS finances.

(NOTE: Thursday night, May 7, is the regular MPS Strategic Planning and Budget Committee meeting. The committee will consider the superintendent's proposed budget for the 2009-2010 school year. See the SPB agenda here (.pdf); find the budget documents here. If you have comments you want to make, this is your big chance.)

He Saw The Writing On The Wall

by capper

JSOnline is reporting that Sheriff David Clarke is not going to run against Mayor Tom Barrett. Their political blog has this quote from Clarke (emphasis mine):

I want to be smart about this and not make a decision based on emotion, but one based on reality. I weighed a number of things ... There's been no outcry from residents for change. It's hard to beat an incumbent unless there is a huge outcry for change. I was hoping some legitimate candidate would step up.

Gee, could the reality be that he lost the only plank in his platform, being tough on crime, when Barrett got the Fire and Police Commission to hire Edward Flynn? After that, even his best mouth piece, Charlie Sykes stopped mentioning Clarke.

It could also be that he is a pathetic flop as Sheriff. Clarke has managed to reinstate the park patrols after he eliminated them, misused public funds for grandstanding (GRIP), alienated the rank and file, and earned at least a half a dozen federal lawsuits filed against him. Not to mention that he is losing these lawsuits faster than the Miami Dolphins are losing football games.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Ken Mobile has more on Clarke's less-than-stellar record. For those of you that have some extra time, Pundit Nation has enough material to write a book on Clarke's absenteeism, lack of leadership, and overall whininess.

But for all his faults, at least Clarke knew how to read the writing on the wall and realized he didn't stand a chance in a race against Barrett.

Where's The Right When We Have A Real Crisis?

by capper

I waited for two days to see if anyone would post about the article about the Milwaukee County Behavioral Health Division (commonly known as the Mental Health Complex), but was disappointed that not one person had anything to say about it. The article reported about an increase in assaults by the mentally ill patients at the mental health complex, both on staff and on other patients.

I thought that at least the commentators on the right side of the blogosphere would have something to say. Maybe the headline wasn't startling enough, or maybe they read only the first few paragraphs and thought, "Mmph, serves those money-grubbing, overpaid, lazy county workers right!" Or it could be that the article doesn't deliver the full impact of the situation.

For the uninitiated, providing mental health care is expensive, running several hundreds of dollars per day. In the 1990s, the insurance companies were allowed to change how they handles mental health costs, making it more like the medical model. Say that a person is diagnosed with depression, they might be allowed five days of care, a schizophrenic might get a whole week. This is barely enough time to make a preliminary assessment and diagnosis, and start a treatment plan. It is not enough time to ensure the plan would work, or get the person stable enough to be discharged safely. These two factors caused a lot of psychiatric hospitals to close and regular hospitals to end or greatly diminish their commitment to mental health patients.

The overflow from these lost beds went by default to the mental health complex. But instead of increasing funding and preparing for this, the budget was slashed annually, entire wards were closed, and mental health professionals were laid off.

Now we are seeing the results of the budget slashing. There was a series of articles literally spanning months, discussing how the mentally ill in Milwaukee County are being placed in squalid, filthy conditions and sometimes left to die. This finally led the City and the County of Milwaukee to start looking at providing decent housing and services for these people.

In the article about the complex, it points out that patients are more seriously ill and staying for shorter lengths of time. That means that unstable, potentially violent people are being forced out of the complex to make room for even more unstable and violent people. These unstable, potentially people are going back into the community until they create a disturbance, hurt themselves, and/or hurt someone else. This makes everyone unsafe.

But instead of hearing cries about a crisis and demanding action from those responsible, there is nothing. When there was a perceived crisis in the spring, regarding crime, especially murder, there was plenty of hullabaloo about the mayor and the police chief, demands for action, and ridicule of anyone who would disagree. Now, with a real crisis, nothing.

I guess, in some people's eyes, it's only a crisis if you can blame a democrat.

The Leader and the Leaker

by capper

Despite what one may think of his plan, Milwaukee mayor Tom Barrett is at least trying to make progress in regards to mass transit and the $91 million that has been sitting stagnant for the past eight years. On the other hand, County Executive Scott Walker has been pouting about wanting the money to bail out the Transit System that he has been systematically destroying over the past several years. Now, Barrett is basically telling Walker to either grow up or get out of the way. This is being a leader.

In contrast, Walker, the would-be governor, is still putting on blinders to anything but a tax freeze. Every budget year, Walker demands cuts from all county departments, so that he may have a single-planked platform to run on, if he can ever put together a successful campaign. This year is no different. The first department to announce the proposed cuts is the Parks and Public Works. Walker has done this before, with less than stellar results. But when it came to the time to admit it was a bad decision, he foisted the blame onto others. This is being a leaker.

Walker seems to keep forgetting that he was elected to manage Milwaukee County, and not to be a perpetual gubernatorial candidate. The duties he is supposed to be doing include balancing fiscal responsibility with maintaining a quality of life, not offering soundbites on local talk radio. If he can claim to have a $7 million surplus from last year, and is able to bail out the privately-operated Public Museum, surely he would be able to maintain the appropriate quality of life services that the County is supposed to be providing.

Support a Remedy to Violence in MPS

by krshorewood

All of us on the left and right are concerned about the violence MPS students and teachers have to deal with on a regular basis.

One organization has a solution to the problem that has a better affect on kids' lives than handcuffs.

For the past few years the Peace Learning Center has been working with MPS students to teach them a positive, non-violent approach to their interpersonal relationships. Through their programs they have reached over 2,000 students, equipping them to navigate there way through school to a more productive adult life.

On Wednesday, May 23rd there will be a fundraiser dinner for the Peace Learning Center at the Northshore Presbyterian Church in Shorewood.

Join Mayor Tom Barrett to recognize and support this positive force in our city.

Tickets are $25 and available by contacting the church office at 414-332-8130 during business hours to reserve your ticket, or contact Keith Schmitz (kschmitz@grassrootsnorthshore.org / 414.963.0847).

This is your chance to show the community's solidarity behind programs such as these which are achieving real progress.

Along with Chinese diner provided by Royal Garden in Glendale, look in on a demonstration of the techniques the PLC use to help MPS students interact successfully.

The dinner is at 6:00pm and doors open at 5:30pm.

NSPC is located at 4048 N. Bartlett Ave, one block west of Oakland Ave. and one block north of Capitol Dr.

Guess who's coming to Drinking Liberally?

by folkbum

Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett:

The Mayor is scheduled to appear at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, February 28. Please show up early if you can. His office said the Mayor will discuss "the State of the City" with us. You can read his 2007 State of the City speech here, and please bring your questions for him as well.

Drinking Liberally is Milwaukee's social club for folks of the liberal persuasion. There's no cover charge or membership fee (although voluntary donations to help the national organization offset their costs are gratefully accepted!). People of all stripes come together at Drinking Liberally for a lively evening of socializing and social lubricant.

I may be late--I have a thing at 6:30--but I hope to see you all (and the mayor) tonight at Club G.

Crybaby

Hey, did you hear the one about the bill in the Senate that Hillary Clinton (or, as the stable among us call her, Shrillary) voted for, the one that would make it harder for big cities like New York to track criminals and criminal activity? Yeah, Michael Bloomberg, the Republican NYC mayor, was in utter disbelief that Hillary would vote to tie the hands of his police force like that. Did you hear what Hillary called him?

Crybaby! She called him a crybaby!

And of course the right is screaming bloody murder. How, they wonder, can reasonable Democrats anywhere possibly support such a moonbatty, shrill, vile, and immature excuse for a Senator? The demands for an apology--if not her resignation--have been relentless from talk radio, the newspapers, and, of course, FOXNews. My friends tell me it's been hard to be a Democrat in New York these last couple of days, with the embarrassing and childish crybaby hanging over you.

You haven't heard? Really? Oh, right--that's because I think I reversed a fact or two here.

We're not talking about a shrill Democratic member of Congress calling the Republican mayor of her state's largest city a crybaby. No, no, no, that really would have sent the Limbaughs and Hannities and Fred Barneses into screaming rages demanding that Democrat's head on a platter with a side of crow.

The players are actually F. Jim Sensenbrenner and Tom Barrett:

The mayor of Milwaukee and the congressman representing most of its suburbs engaged in a heated and somewhat personal long-distance exchange Wednesday over crime and its effect on the city.

The argument began with House Judiciary Committee passage of legislation that would prohibit the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives from releasing data used to trace guns used in crimes back to the dealers who sold them. Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, a Republican from Menomonee Falls, is chairman of the committee.

Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett [and former Democratic member of Congress] called the approval of the bill "appalling," saying that "the federal government is turning its back on our fight to get illegal guns off the street."

Sensenbrenner, who voted for the bill, called Barrett a "crybaby" who is "attempting to use legislation pending in Congress to cover up his sorry record of controlling crime."

The story goes on from there.

There has been some small outrage; some of us liberal Milwaukee bloggers have hit on the story. Xoff posts twice at Sensenbrenner Watch. Logan (profanity alert) notes that "Sensenbrenner should lose his seat for not having better stock insults."

And it's true that the daily paper today did both blast the bill and wagged its finger at F. Jim over his temper. There's been a small level of tsk-tsking from community leaders, and WAVE, the Wisconsin Anti-Violence Effort, issued a press release.

But there is no wide-spread embarrassment among Sensenbrenner's supporters (he was just "speaking bluntly") or overwhelming media demands for an apology or resignation. Sensenbrenner, as is his wont, is stuck in the mud and won't budge, either from his puerile behavior or his NRA-bought position on the bill. No one is gathering people to march on his offices or organizing email drives (hint, hint--especially constiuents) demanding he start acting like a grown-up and a committee chair.

Of course, since my example above was purely hypothetical, I have no way to know for sure that this is the kind of reaction the right would really have against a Democrat--although I lived through the Howard Dean primary campaign, so I saw all kinds of manufactured outrage over more minor flubs. I don't know if the current lack of a firestorm here is a result of this being a rather parochial battle--who in the national media cares about us in flyover land?--or a lack of liberal outrage infrastructure--talk radio, astroturf campaigns, and so on.

In either case, this incident is just a sad reminder that Sensenbrenner has gone native out in DC, and doesn't really give a rip anymore about what's good for the provinces. The NRA takes precedence over the law-enforcement needs of his dstrict. Yet the elements necessary to hold him accountable--from a tenacious media to competitive redistricting--are sorely lacking. I'm trying to get my hands on a copy of this poll, but if its results are accurate--that F. Jim's net approval rating is negative in his district--it's a signal that the 5th CD could be ready for a change this November. But if there's not even going to be a fuss over his calling Mayor Barrett a crybaby, there's little hope of harnessing that negative sentiment and using it against him.

Warner Woos Wisconsin: Founder's Day Dinner Wrap-Up

All photos, unless as noted, by my friend and fellow blogger Scott Feldstein, who has them at much better resolution at his place.

It is no secret that former Virginia governor Mark Warner is running for president. So he's doing what candidates do--particularly candidates who are "unemployed," as he kept reminding us during his speech--he's talking to any assemblage of Democrats he can get his hands on. And trying to drum up all the buzz he can.

The buzz is where I come in: A couple of weeks ago I got an email from Warner's Forward Together PAC--and, yes, in introducing Warner, Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle did joke about Warner's use of Wisconsin's motto ("Forward!") in the name of his PAC. Nate invited me to attend the Democratic Party of Wisconsin's Founder's Day (née Jefferson-Jackson) Dinner as a guest of the PAC and to blog the event. So here we go . . .

Events like this are always a who's who of the state Dem party, so it was a lot of fun to get to meet or get re-accquanted with some of the big names in the party from around the state. And then it was also good to see my state representative and a few of the candidates for the open Congressional seat in Wisconsin's 8th CD, including Dr. Steve Kagen and Nancy Nusbaum (I also saw but didn't talk to Jamie Wall). There were tables full of goodies, too, including some great merchandise from Russ Feingold's PAC, like a t-shirt with a snake-like phone cord and the tagline "Don't Spy on Me!" (I can't find those online.) I got hit with so many stickers I felt like a race car.

And the place was packed, too, sold out. It shouldn't be that big of a surprise in an election year, but everyone seemed quite overjoyed that that many tickets were sold. It was a good night for the DPW's coffers, I guess.

How much of those full coffers were due to Warner, I don't know. I joined up with him and Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle (that's them on the left, in a photo I took) as they left the extra-special VIP reception before the main event. Warner was mobbed even then, as Doyle tried to get him introduced to some more of the movers and shakers in the party. The speaking part of the night started almost half an hour late, in part because Doyle and Warner couldn't get into the room.



As I ate my buffet meatballs, veggie sticks, and cheese (it is Wisconsin, you know), the speakers for the night got up and did their thing: In order, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett (not pictured), Congresswomen Tammy Baldwin and Gwen Moore, Senators Russ Feingold and Herb Kohl, and Governor Doyle.

The speakers all made a big deal both about the high attendance at the event (Barrett credited Wisconsin's dissatisfaction with Bush and Republicans, though I doubt any real swing voters were in the room) and the great successes Democrats have had in the state. In particular, they highlighted two results from last week's spring municipal elections: 24 of 32 communities voting to start bring troops home from Iraq now passed, some overwhelmingly (see my take on that) and the election of Democrat (in a non-partisan election against a Republican state representative) Larry Nelson as mayor of Waukesha. That's Larry smiling there in the right in a picture I took; I've known him for a few years, and he's a teacher, a labor leader, and a strong progressive. What makes this important is that the city of Waukesha is the red center of one of the reddest counties in the country, and Larry was able to win with a strong populist message. I do think that bodes well for this fall, and in particular, the campaign of Bryan Kennedy, running for the congressional seat that includes Waukesha, currently held by Jim Sensenbrenner.

But you didn't click on this diary to hear about all of that: You want to hear about Mark Warner. Yes, well, first I want to tell you what Russ Feingold said, since the two were the two presidential candidates in the room. You're probably pretty familiar with Feingold's message, which started and ended with the notion that Democrats need to "stand up" to Bush. He called again for censure (something Herb Kohl conveniently forgot to mention), and for a timetable to bring our troops home from Iraq by the end of this year. And, of course, he talked about the NSA spying scandals and administration stonewalling, although, I will tell you, the best line of the night on that actually came from Tammy Baldwin, who said, "It cannot be a government of the people if the people are kept in the dark."

Warner, as the keynote speaker, was able to do a lot more in his speech, including the biography bits necessary to introduce himself to an audience that didn't know him. In contrast with Russ, he spoke with less fire and passion, but with an equal desire, it seemed, to rid the country of its current leadership and put us back on track. In that way, I think he hit a strong message several times. He kept talking about "seeing further down the road," while Republicans, he said, "put posturing and posing ahead of foresight and follow-through." Part of that biography that Warner stressed is that he was able to look forward in business, starting up the company that went on to become Nextel. He also stressed that as governor of Virginia, he looked toward the future, including strong investments in education and bringing technological development in to replace fading manufacturing ("If they can build it in Bangalore, they can build it in Lebanon, Virginia"). "Politics," he said, "should not be about Left versus Right, but about the future versus the past."

Warner also struck some familiar Democratic foreign-policy themes, saying that "no one thinks it is more important than Democrats to keep America safe," and reminding us that a sound energy policy is a key element of national security. He lamented what has happened in Iraq.

He also said a few things that, I think, shows the influence that Howard Dean's run in 2004 will be having all over the 2008 race. I can't tell you how many times I heard Dean's stump speech in that cycle, so I know it well enough, and in Warner's stump here I heard the familiar themes: "Being called a 'red-state governor' makes me cringe," Warner said, "because the Democratic Party needs to be competitive in 50 states." Even in the foreign policy section, Warner talked about how we need an attitude that will "unite our friends and scare our enemies, not the other way around." Mostly, I was very surprised to hear Warner end with a call to "take our country back."

As it was the DPW's dinner, Warner made sure to reinforce several things. One, of course, is how important it is to re-elect Jim Doyle this fall. He helped to frame some things that will be very important to that race, including Mark Green's identity as a member of a very do-nothing Congress and the importance that the issue of stem cells will play in the election (at least, if Doyle's smart, they will be the campaign issue). He also took the time to remind of why he is a Democrat, even if some might be tempted to call him a "centrist" or "moderate." "I'm a Democrat because," he told us, "the Democratic Party has never stood for the status quo, but for hope and optimism." And he's right, you know; the Republicans have monopolized fear and distrust, and we must get that message of hope and optimism across in all races, at all levels, in all fifty states.

Warner left the stage to a standing ovation (about equivalent to Feingold's standing O earlier), and was immediately mobbed afterwards, by every elected official in the crowd, and a whole lot of everyone else (including civil rights pioneer Vel Phillips). I asked Warner's people how much of this sort of thing--traveling around the country talking to roomsful of Democrats--he was doing. "A lot," I was told. I tried a little bit to gauge the sentiments of the crowd afterwards as well, and everyone seemed to like Warner's message. It's hard, of course, for Wisconsin Democrats to talk about anyone but Russ as a favorite for 2008, but I didn't find anyone who said they hated Warner.

I know that Mark Warner has a strong following on the internet, and now, having met him and heard what is clearly a compelling story, it is easy to see why. Certainly, with a field including the likes of Feingold and Warner, 2008 will be a great year for Democrats.

***

Two last things: The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has a fair take on the event here. I should also point out that the dinner was live-blogged by Zach Corey at CampusTavern.com. All that time taking notes in class must have paid off, because he's got a pretty accurate rendition of all the speeches: Mark Warner, Jim Doyle, Herb Kohl, Russ Feingold, Gwen Moore, and Tammy Baldwin.

That will be $7.50, please

Actually, I don't know what the going rate is for Mayoral Joke Writer, but it really seems like I ought to get a little credit if Milwaukee's own Tom Barrett is using my material, right?

Actually, the article ends up mostly being about why the voucher cap deal may not go through anyway. I will repeat what I have said previously: Scrap this deal; real quick pass a bill that would restore DPI's original rationing plan--the one that protects current students and existing schools, the one Republicans and voucher supporters shot down last year; and go back to work on a comprehensive reform as part of the 2006-2008 biennial budget. That way, you can fix the tax fairness issue (and school funding issues statewide), address accreditation, boost SAGE, and all of that in a more comprehensive way.

Milwaukee Mayor Tom Quixote

Mayor Tom Barrett--a likeable enough guy--is tilting at the windmills again, meeting with those who have no power to do anything in an attempt to solve the phony voucher "crisis." Yesterday it was the MPS school board; today it was the city council (no link, since I lost the "Daywatch" post and the full story isn't posted yet).

You'll notice that neither of those groups has the authority to raise, lower, eliminate, or otherwise adjust the cap on enrollment in Milwaukee's Parental Choice Program. Always with the impossible dream, eh, Tom?

Mayor Barrett on Vouchers

Seth has the scoop. Basically, Barrett confirms that eliminating the program would save Milwaukee money, despite conservatives' claims that vouchers do education on the cheap. Barrett also would like to see the kind of property-tax relief that I wrote about yesterday.

UPDATE: Alan Borsuk has more in Wednesday's paper.