Eli Judge

The first Common Council meeting quickly approaches and, as promised, the first of the elijudge.org blogs is born. The campaign has been a long one, filled with passion on both sides. As I did at our campaign gathering on April 3rd, I just wanted to thank Lauren for working with me to raise the debate on the things the 8th district cares about most. Continuing on that note, I'm also excited to get to work in the chair of Austin King. Surely, following in the footsteps of a man who put countless hours into the functions of Madison will be a difficult task.

With that said, we look to the new crew on City Council. There are nine of us, a huge number if you are any Madison history buff. During the numerous "alder classes," I expect I'll get to know all of them closely.

So, starting the tradition of transparent decision-making, I wanted to explain a conclusion I've been coming to for some time now:

One of the first thing a municipal officer does is get sworn into office. Look closely at the hyperlink and you can see that, here in Madison, we have the added option of attaching a supplemental "Statement to the Oath" which is directly tied to protesting the ban on civil unions and marriage.

To set the stage for the rest of this post, a little background is necessary. During the 2006 campaign, I had the privilege and honor of serving as the chair of Students for a Fair Wisconsin on the UW-Madison campus. The SFW campaign worked tirelessly to defeat the ban, working hand in hand with the College Democrats, hundreds of other organizations and thousands of different students. Although the rest of the state came up a little short on voting "No," the Madison campus voted in record-breaking midterm election numbers against the ban.

With all that said, I will not be taking the supplemental statement to the oath.

I have told this to a couple students and future-fellow alders and many are relatively surprised. Given my past record and the fact that I publicly identify as "gay", I am usually considered a sure-fire "statement-er". I can assure you, my decision has nothing to do with a change in heart over the ban and its effects. I will continue to fight the ban, prejudice, or hate against any community until the day I die. I simply do not feel the need to declare that truth in the same breath by which I am put into public office.

On a personal note, I also have reservations about tagging things to an oath of office. I fear that, in 20 years, as I watch my children tear down this hateful, worthless excuse for a constitutional addition, some other city or town may decide to follow our precedent and, in the event that we pass an amendment that allows same-sex marriage, establishes a statement against gay marriage. Admittedly, my long-sighted view of the matter is broadly applied, but I fear for the child sitting in a conservative town or village, questioning his or her own sexuality only to find that the individuals who administer his or her town have "stated" that he doesn't deserve equal rights.

With that said, there are some advantages to our city having the statement. Dan Ross, a former appointee to the Equal Opportunities Commission and fellow activist with Fair Wisconsin, left his position on the EOC in light of the ban's passage. His position is more than understandable and, in my eyes, commendable. I believe that, if having the statement can act as a deterrent to loosing such qualified and dedicated public servants as Dan, it serves a good purpose.

It’s a mixed bag. I won’t be taking the statement, but I completely understand why the City and those utilizing the addition would.

Changing gears a bit, the agenda of this week's CC meeting can be found online. Shifting through the 70 page PDF can be a pain, but I'd like to point out one item of impact for the 8th district.

Item 116 aims to "establish regulations for the sale of secondhand textbooks." Alder King, as he explained it to me, got this ordinance started in light of the increase in textbook theft and the frequency by which those stolen items were being sold for quick cash. The change that 116 would create is an additional step in the sellback process. The bookstore would need to record the books and manage the transaction in the same manner as a pawnshop. This would allow for greater tracking and grater aid in theft investigations.

The reason I am inclined to vote in favor of the ordinance is because it is in the students’ interests to do so. A student who has his/her books stolen can sometimes not afford to replace them. Even though the university tends to keep many textbooks on reserve, the student's grades will suffer. If the perception of this ordinance alone can help to curtail the growing trend of textbook theft than I feel it is my responsibility to vote for item 116.

I am running short on time for this post. Please comment on anything in this post and I will do my best to reply, should the post be soliciting one.

Eli

Earlier this evening, the Madison Common Council passed an ordinance which I co-sponsored to help catch textbook thieves on the UW-Madison, Edgewood College and MATC campuses. This ordinance, introduced at the urging of the University Police Department, requires students to show photo identification when selling back books. Further, bookstores must now keep a log of textbooks that they purchase secondhand. When textbooks are reported stolen, the Police Department can retrieve these logs and face much better odds of identifying the perpetrator. For example, if a student reports their Chemistry 103, Physics 104 and Psychology 202 books stolen, the Police Department can check to see if those three textbooks were recently sold back and by whom. According to the Dane County District Attorney’s Office, textbook theft occurs frequently, and is unfortunately not limited to the Grainger Hall incidents from last semester. The process established tonight probably sounds familiar to most, as it is the exact procedure already followed by the University Bookstore on State Street. Here is one example of the effectiveness of this procedure, provided by Detective Peter Grimyser at UWPD:

"Zachary Miller, a former UW Student, was charged on Monday, April 30, 2007 with nine counts of misdemeanor textbook theft, carrying a concealed weapon and possession of drug paraphernalia. We were able to identify Miller through the use of the ID system already in place at the University Bookstore. Tamara Case, a former MATC student, and Miller's girlfriend was also charged with two counts of misdemeanor theft and one count of possession of drug paraphernalia. It was due to the cooperation with the University Bookstore that we were able to build a strong case against Miller and ultimately get him and his girlfriend charged."

This ordinance extends the logging requirement to all area stores that earn at least 25 percent of their gross sales from textbooks. Most notably, this will make consistent the buyback procedures at the Underground Textbook Exchange, a store where thieves have historically sold stolen books for easy money. After consulting with the owner of the Underground Textbook Exchange, I offered several amendments to the original ordinance that make the new requirements less burdensome for local businesses but still effective in curbing textbook theft. For instance, instead of forcing bookstores to regularly deposit records with the Madison Police Department, the ordinance requires them to store the logs in-house and proffer them only when someone reports a theft. Also, I attached an amendment to add student identification cards to the list of acceptable IDs for secondhand sales.

A few bloggers and editorialists have expressed concerns that this ordinance will pose a threat to students’ civil liberties. With class schedules and course book lists already recorded by the university, these logs will not store any information that could be construed as private. Furthermore, it only affects the sale of used textbooks – defined narrowly as ‘a book used in technical schools, colleges and universities as a manual of instruction’ – and will not log the sale of books purchased for other reasons. Finally, I attached an amendment that restricts the storing of these records to six months, after which they will be thrown out.

I would also like to clear up the following concern raised by the Daily Cardinal Editorial Board:

"The ordinance also limits the options available for students in selling back their books. Under this ordinance, it seems as though any student who bought a textbook online or from a friend could not sell it back to a bookstore because there is no record of them ever buying it. Students often use these alternative methods of purchasing textbooks because it is cheaper. Therefore, closing off this avenue puts an undeserved burden on students as well."

In fact, this ordinance does not require students to show proof of purchase before selling books back. I completely agree that students should be allowed to purchase textbooks from other students or online, as these options often save lots of money. Requiring bookstores to keep a log of secondhand sales, however, does not at all affect the choices for purchasing textbooks. I do appreciate the Daily Cardinal’s call on students to take more personal responsibility for their possessions, as this is another important component to reducing textbook theft and crime in general.

I am very hopeful that this ordinance will help deter textbook thieves, although this remains to be seen. It is, however, safe to say that it will help catch and prosecute them. The fact that very few stolen books get sold back to University Bookstore, a store which already follows this procedure, demonstrates the effectiveness of logging second textbook sales.

During my campaign, I spent hours speaking to students at the doors about issues that mattered to them, and the frequency of crime came up again and again. This ordinance is a small but important step toward making our campus a safer place.

There have been many developments over the past couple weeks, quite a few of which affect students in my district directly. Please have patience with what will inevitably end up a rather long post.

As many of you have probably heard, Jeff Erlanger, a long time city activist, passed away two weeks ago at UW Hospital. Though most in Madison knew him primarily for his phenomenal work advancing the rights of those with disabilities, Jeff also spent a lot of time working on student issues. As a strong advocate for improving the Langdon Street neighborhood, Jeff sought me out immediately after the election to discuss issues that were important to him. At the meeting he described his hopes of bringing students back to the “city table” so that all of Madison could become stronger with their voices. When I learned of Jeff’s death, I realized that all students had lost an incredible friend. He will be terribly missed.

Aside from the somber news, there have also been developments at the Common Council. The June 5 meeting was my longest yet, stretching to nearly 11 p.m. Among the many issues discussed were Neighborhood Conservation Districts (NCDs) and the first round of discussions about Alder Brandon’s “Clean Elections” ordinance. I found the deliberations about NCDs particularly interesting. For those unfamiliar with the concept, NCDs generate a zoning overlay in which new development or construction would be required to “fit in” with surrounding buildings. As an example, a distinguishing characteristic of the Vilas Neighborhood is the prevalence of porches. Establishing a NCD would preserve this tradition by requiring new construction and developments to include porches. After lots of questions for city staff, it became apparent that these districts would require a lengthy vetting process with multiple safeguards and would only be handed out in areas of broad community support. Also, staff confirmed that density would not be threatened. After hours of debate, the ordinance passed with 13 affirmative votes, mine included.

Last Tuesday’s Council meeting proved a bit more relevant to students. The big issues of the day were the Law Park alcohol ban, some Human Resources issues, and the legalization (at least to a degree) of small electric vehicles.

I went into the Law Park issue strongly against making the park dry. The impetus for the ban is a transient group of people being very disruptive, publicly intoxicated, and, at times, verbally and physically destructive in and around the park. The problem I had with the ordinance was the fact that we, as a city, have been shuffling a very specific group of people from park to park with little attention paid to solving the underlying problem. I was frustrated by the ordinance because I felt we were simply perpetuating the cycle. I was of the opinion that the city had to find a time to put its foot down and stop issuing familiar band-aids to parks as they became trouble spots.

While we were on the floor, I brought up these points and they were echoed by others. I had urged Alder Veveer, the sponsor of the ordinance, to possibly add a sunset clause, so that there might be pressure to fix the problem on a more long-term scale. I felt comfortable with that decision, particularly in light of Alder Bruer’s perspective. He described this as a “crisis situation” in the 4th district. While I was hesitant to approve the ordinance, Bruer made it clear that the situation that was in place at Law Park at the time may have already been beyond any position of repair (at least with what the MPD is forced to deal with in other areas of policing at the same time). The drain of dealing with the situation in its matured form would have cost the MPD many hours of scrutiny and would have drained their ability to keep other neighborhoods safe. Seeing as students are already complaining about the need for a stronger presence in the realm of street crime deterrence and sexual assault prevention, giving the MPD a break may help to free up essential resources to ease the growing demand for service.

The Council unanimously voted in favor of the new form (complete with a 1.5 year sunset) with the understanding that Alders Clausius and Schumacher would be taking leadership in the Parks Subcommittee designed to deal with this issue specifically. I voted yes in the hope that this gambit we made towards stopping this migrating pattern of disruption will be the last one. Come next December, if it turns out we are planning on banning alcohol in another park I will probably not be sympathetic toward such an action.

One thing should be brought to people’s attention: Although general alcohol consumption in Law Park has been banned, it should be clear that, with a permit from the Parks Department, groups can still enjoy a drink down by the lake.

While we are on the topic of alcohol, I wanted to let readers in on the progress of the Alcohol Density Plan. It was scheduled to appear before the Alcohol License Review Committee (ALRC) Wednesday night but the meeting ended up lasting nearly six hours. I had intentions to attend the Madison Blogger Roundup that evening, but because of the lengthy meeting, I was unable to make it. A thousand apologies!

The Density Plan was referred to the July ALRC meeting, but one comment that was made during the night really struck a chord within me. The reason the meeting had gone on so long was due to a controversy over the new establishment trying to replace the Kamia Lounge, “Lucille’s.” Droves of downtown residents came down to testify against it, including State Senator Fred Risser. All involved were either living in close proximity to where the new lounge would be, or knew of Kamia’s past reputation. At the end of all of the testimony (and final referral * eye roll *) Chair Rearick stopped the proceedings and talked directly to the audience. She observed that many of the speakers and testifiers made an allusion to downtown being equivalent to any typical neighborhood. The truly refreshing reminder she made was that downtown is not a residential neighborhood. It is a mixed use, multifunctional area of our city. It is the beating heart of our entertainment and cultural centers while also home to one of the biggest universities in the country. All of these things come together to make Downtown Madison what it is. To draw a parallel between downtown and a sleepy suburb, in my opinion, is an action that requires quite a bit of renewed scrutiny and understanding of urban life.

With that out of the way, we can talk about these go-cart “things.” The Council referred making “electric street vehicles” legal to a later meeting due to a slip-up in Legistar, the city’s legislative database. The university has just recently procured a fleet of these devices and is hoping to use them on campus. A funny point on these from the Public Safety Review Board: one of the members of the committee asked about the probability of these vehicles becoming as popular as mopeds. I smiled at the MPD representative and asked how much they cost. Unless people are feeling like finding parking, getting a special license, and forking over $10,000 for one of these mini-cars, I think Langdon Street drag races are safely out of the question. Personally, I thought jousting tournaments would be fun, but the MPD rep didn’t agree.

That’s it for now. As always, I encourage you to stop by my office hours at 11:45am on Mondays at Lakefront on Langdon or email me at district8@cityofmadison.com.

Since my last post, quite a lot has happened in Madison. However, given that it is summer and most of my constituents are still in their hometowns, I have less to report that directly impacts UW students. While campaigning around campus before April’s election, I discovered that many students did not understand the basic functions of Madison’s Common Council. Through this blog and my alder office hours at Lakefront on Langdon, I hope to educate students about the City of Madison’s governing body and how the decisions it makes affect their daily lives. In both forums, I will strive to keep my work as transparent and accessible to my constituents as possible. I strongly encourage my readers to e-mail me at district8@cityofmadison.com with questions, comments, and concerns that arise after reading my posts or about any city issue. With that said, and seeing as I just received a constituent email that read only, “I COMMAND YOU TO POST!” I felt it prudent to comply.

During the past two meetings, much of Common Council’s time has focused on items pertaining to the Water Utility. At our July 17 meeting, those watching in TV land would have seen harsh questioning of the utility’s director, David Denig-Chakroff, over what turned out to be nearly $140,000 in unauthorized spending for a consulting firm named EMA Inc. The debate revolved around whether or not the council should bail out what was obviously a major misunderstanding or disregard for city procedures. In either case, the management of the water utility had put the city in a terrible position. EMA-gate, as I like to call it, has illuminated for me some of Madison’s bad habits. I have learned that it is common for consultants to hold the Common Council hostage by overcharging and overspending, then coming to us with weak arguments as to why we should continue to fund their work.

Let me be perfectly clear: I support having an external consultant work with the Water Utility leadership because they are obviously in need of management advice and a change in organizational culture. What I cannot accept, however, is the presumption that the Common Council will simply roll over and play dead whenever it is strong-armed by a division, utility, or other entity regarding funding and services provided to Madison taxpayers. As a city we cannot afford for this to be a frequent practice. Last evening, I voted against extending EMA’s contract for a variety of reasons, but mostly because I have very little confidence that this contract will solve the long-term problems at the Water Utility. Also, I felt that Common Council deserved to be presented with more options instead of being forced into a corner. My frustration was compounded after hearing testimony from Lori Kief, a former member of the Water Utility steering committee, who revealed that several employees at the utility are not buying into the EMA-led process. Alders Brandon, Konkel, Rhodes-Conway, and Rummel – a strange coalition to be sure – also voted against this measure.

On the topic of student safety, several initiatives are quickly taking shape around campus. As I talked about with great enthusiasm during my campaign, neighborhood watch programs (which have been dormant in the summer months) are getting administrative upgrades and assistance from around the city. I have been working with Kelly Arendt, the leader of ASM’s watch program, to plan the fall launch of the already established campus watch program. We will be working closely with both the UW and Madison Police Departments. Also, Downtown Madison Inc. and its president Susan Schmitz have been working closely with us to find support for these programs. I am very happy to be working with the folks at DMI, who are emerging as key allies for UW students. I hope that when the time comes, the UW administration will be willing to offer their support to these essential programs.

Also of note, there will be an “Alder Retreat” to discuss the proposed Alcohol Density Plan next Thursday. The purpose of this meeting is to give us the chance to discuss the plan outside the Council chambers and the restraints of parliamentary procedure. Although the public will not be able to testify during the discussion, anyone is encouraged to come and watch. The meeting will be held Aug. 9 at 6:30 in the Police Classroom (GR-27) in the City-County Building (210 MLK Drive). I look forward to reporting on the fruits of this conversation.

As the summer progresses and more student interest in the council starts to take shape, I plan on posting more frequently. Until then, feel free to stop by my “Alder Hours” (every Monday from 11:45 a.m. to 1 p.m. and every first Thursday from 6 to 7:15 p.m. at Lakefront on Langdon) to have a chat.

Tuesday evening’s Common Council meeting, with 223 agenda items, will advance a variety of important initiatives, including a plan for Allied Drive redevelopment and the creation of a Regional Transit Authority. I co-sponsored the latter resolution because I believe that a commuter rail line will lead to economic development and provide exciting new transportation options for students. After our resolution passes, the ball will be in the state legislature’s court to provide similar authorization.

One agenda item that promises to attract a lot of attention is the resolution urging the U.S. House of Representatives to initiate impeachment proceedings against President Bush and Vice President Cheney. Let me be perfectly clear: I detest the current presidential administration and look with increasing longing toward January 20, 2009 and the hopeful inauguration of a progressive president. Further, I believe that President Bush demonstrates a cavalier disregard for the Constitution and basic civil liberties on issues ranging from domestic wiretapping to torture at Guantanamo Bay. I will not, however, support the impeachment resolution before Common Council.

My first reason is not terribly original but nonetheless deserves a few words. During the campaign, I made a promise to voters in my district that I would focus exclusively on local issues and devote my time as a Madison elected official to strengthening basic city services. The safety of our streets and sidewalks represents the most vital of these services for downtown and periphery residents alike. I do not feel that it is within my prerogative to legislate on issues of national import like impeachment of the president and vice president. I share the dismay of my sponsoring colleagues at the litany of presidential offenses listed in the resolution, but I feel that a measure urging impeachment falls squarely outside the purview of my locally-elected position.

An equally important rationale for my abstention derives from the wisdom of one of my political role models, Senator Russ Feingold. In an Aug. 19 column for the Appleton Post-Crescent, Feingold wrote:

“As I travel around Wisconsin holding listening sessions in every county, there is a common refrain when people talk about the misconduct of this administration: that the president and other administration officials must be held accountable for their wrongdoing. They have violated the trust of the American people by misleading this country into, and subsequently mismanaging, a disastrous war, and by undermining
the rule of law at home.

Some have coalesced around a call to impeach the president and the vice president for their wrongdoing. I believe that the president and the vice president may well have committed impeachable offenses.

That does not mean, however, that putting the country through two potentially lengthy impeachments in the House and trials in the Senate is required or the best thing for the country. Congress should exercise its discretion by not pursuing impeachment so that it can focus on fixing this nation's pressing problems.”

I trust Senator Feingold’s prediction that impeachment proceedings would hijack Congress’ agenda and stall meaningful work on issues of greater importance like expanding access to health care and ending the war in Iraq.

That’s it for now – expect a longer post in a few days to recap what happens at Tuesday evening’s meeting. On a closing note, my sister Casey moved to Ann Arbor last week to begin her freshman year at the University of Michigan. I sure hope she enjoyed her first college football game.

Today will be a very interesting day in City Hall. Although the Council agenda does not forecast another ten hour meeting, it contains a matter of great importance for students. The Madison City Council will finally vote on the Alcohol License Density Ordinance after opening the floor to neighborhood representatives, landlords, tenants, residents of Madison, and UW students.

I hope that my consultations with my colleagues on Council will influence them to vote against this misguided plan. In these recent meetings I have tried to make the negative implications of the Density Plan very clear. This approach would not solve the problem of downtown crime; it would in fact exacerbate the situation.

The increased risk of house parties, packed establishments (both licensed and not), and shifted density are all possible consequences should this ordinance pass. My view has been shared by countless downtown students, landlords, and business owners. I appreciate the Badger Herald's recent editorial on this topic.

As I have expressed in every committee meeting on this issue: I urge my colleagues to oppose the Density Plan. Instead, help students and downtown residents support smarter initiatives like the Neighborhood Watch Program and the Downtown Safety Initiative, which are proven and powerful methods to keep our streets safe.

Join me today as I oppose the Alcohol License Density Ordinance. The meeting is today (9/18) at 6:30 PM, in Room 201 of the City-County Building (210 Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd.).