Advisory — Green Bay, WI
Date: 2011-11-10
Time: 17:00

MINUTES
 ADVISORY COMMITTEE
 Thursday, November 10, 2011
 City Hall, Room 604
 5:00 p.m.

MEMBERS: Council President Tom DeWane, Council Vice-President Amy Kocha, Ald. Tony
Theisen, Ald. Chris Wery, Ald. Steven Deneys, Ald. Jerry Wiezbiskie
OTHERS PRESENT: Ald. Guy Zima, Ald. Brian Danzinger, Ald. Buckley, Ald. Ned Dorff, Lauri
Marenger, Kris Teske, Anita Raleigh, Dawn Foeller, Tony Wachewicz, Kail Decker, Mike Hronek
and others

1. Call to order.

Roll call was taken and all were present

2. Approval of the agenda.

A motion was made by Ald. Wiezbiskie, seconded by Ald. Kocha, and carried to approve.


3. Approval of the minutes of the June 1, 2011 Advisory Committee meeting.

A motion was made by Ald. Kocha, seconded by Ald. Wiezbiskie, and carried to approve.

4. Discussion and possible action on redistricting and the adjustment of ward boundaries.

Assistant City Attorney, Kail Decker, gave the committee a presentation on the redistricting of
2011. Attorney Decker began by explaining the City has received a tentative plan from the
County outlining its Supervisory District lines. Legally, the City is tasked with creating wards
followed by the creation of Aldermanic Districts. However, Attorney Decker advised they create
Aldermanic Districts before creating wards so that they create Aldermanic Districts within legal
guidelines. In reality, wards are the building blocks that make Aldermanic and Supervisory
Districts, so there is no point in creating wards that do not allow the City and County to make
legal districts. He recommends they determine the Aldermanic Districts and then divide those
districts into wards.

State law sets a framework for designing wards. They must use whole blocks, keep in mind the
convenience of the voters, and be sure the district designs conform to a somewhat solid,
compact shape. Also, the City and County districts need to be close in population. Per state
statute, the wards must be between 800 and 3,200 people. The City currently has fifty wards
that make up twelve Aldermanic Districts.

Attorney Decker explained the reason why the City must change its current boundaries is due to
a substantial increase in population in District 1. The other districts have stayed pretty much the
same in population, but the increase in District 1 means other districts must absorb some of that
population in order to remain compliant with state statute. That being said, the City districts
adjacent to District 1 – Districts 2, 3, and 6 – are the only districts capable of absorbing some of
District 1’s constituents. In turn, they will lose some of their current constituents to Districts 4, 5,
7, and so on as each district’s boundaries extend east to pick up constituents as a result of the
expansion of other districts.
Given these facts, the committee must first decide if they want to follow State Assembly District
lines. The County’s current plan does not follow state lines in nine separate locations. This is
significant because the City will need to create nine additional wards to account for the
inconsistency in borders. The standard before the City is to make a good-faith effort to
accommodate the County’s tentative plan. Attorney Decker suggests a good-faith effort would
be to divide its wards to allow the County to create eleven districts since that was approved by
the County. That does not mean they legally must do so, but to change any County lines must
be done so in good faith. An example of a good-faith effort would be to match the State lines to
avoid any voter confusion and, in turn, allow for the easier administration of elections. The
other option is to create small wards when necessary without changing the County’s plan. Both
options are lawful and up to the City Council to decide.

Attorney Decker drew attention to a map outlining both the State Assembly Districts overlapped
by the proposed County Supervisory Districts. There are nine locations on the map in which the
State’s Assembly lines diverges from the County Supervisory lines. This means that voters in
those nine pockets will vote for different State and County offices as compared to the majority in
those districts. That being said, if there is not a polling location located in those pockets, those
people will either have to vote at two different polling locations based on if it is a spring or fall
election, or put two wards at one polling location to manage two different ballot styles.

Ald. Theisen pointed out that there must be an exception to state statute to allow for the creation
of wards in those smaller pockets of the City where State and County lines do not match up.
Attorney Decker said that is correct because the City is being asked to develop its districts after
the State has developed its boundaries, which has not been the case in the past. Therefore, the
exception will allow for a ward to be drawn with less than a population of 800. The key is that
the ward must border a State Assembly District border.

Ald. Kocha asked for clarification on the exception. The wards that do qualify for the exception
do not need to be made into wards, but the exception will allow for that.

Ald. Wiezbiskie pointed out that an obvious solution would be to eliminate those pockets that
create those smaller wards. This could be done by adjusting the County lines.

Ald. Theisen stated the County can only change the boundaries if the change resulted in a 10%
or less population variance between districts.

Attorney Decker stated the important thing to note is the County cannot change the ward lines
as set by the City. That is why the City must make a good-faith effort in its ward creation to
allow the County to adjust its boundaries lawfully. The County set a tentative plan to inform the
City of the lines it intends to draw, but once the City sets its wards, the County will build its
district lines around those ward boundaries, provided it can do so lawfully.

Ald. Theisen said in the past, the City was allowed to have as many Aldermanic Districts
regardless of County Supervisory Districts. Attorney Decker said that is correct.

Attorney Decker went on to explain some advantages and disadvantages of changing the
County’s lines. An advantage to changing the County’s lines is that it avoids voter confusion by
eliminating different overlapping State and County districts, thereby making it easy for the voter
to determine the appropriate polling location and offices he/she is eligible to vote for. This also
reduces the cost of having extra polling locations that may result for those voters residing in the
few small pockets developed from such an overlap. The alternative to an additional polling
location would be to have that voter travel to a different polling location outside the district in
which they live, dependent upon the type of election, whether it be spring or fall.

Some disadvantages to changing the County lines are that district population differences may
increase slightly and other lines will change due to a population shift.

The goal of the committee is to make a decision if they want to change the County lines and
start building the Aldermanic Districts around those lines, or if they want to keep the County
lines as is and then start building the City districts.

Ald. Theisen pointed out the concerns of incumbents in all of this. The County’s lines were
drawn to avoid an incumbency problem, so if the City changes those line configurations to
match the State’s boundaries, it may very well be pinning a County incumbent against another
incumbent and the County will not like that. He also questioned the possibility of creating twelve
Aldermanic Districts given the County’s eleven Supervisory Districts. Attorney Decker replied
that it is possible to do so, but the State and County lines cannot remain the same.

Ald. Theisen stated the City could first decide on eleven or twelve Aldermanic Districts and go
from there. However, if they do make that determination, an alderperson may find out he/she
was better off in the other scenario.

Attorney Decker said they can create a City plan that avoids an incumbent versus an incumbent
situation. However, this may create that type of situation at the County level.

Ald. Dorff wanted to respond to the slide on advantages and disadvantages. He believes the
advantages do outweigh the disadvantages if you consider it from a voter’s perspective. That
issue should take priority over having multiple incumbents in the same district.

Attorney Decker said it would be ideal for a voter if they lived in a district that voted for the same
City Alderman, County Supervisor, and State Assembly person.

Ald. Zima said he believes there will be a lot of confusion for voters if they decide to create a
different number of Aldermanic Districts from Supervisory Districts. He suggested an alternative
would be to double the amount of Aldermanic Districts within the County-created Supervisory
Districts so as to have two alderpersons per Supervisory District.

Ald. Wiezbiskie said he agrees with Ald. Dorff that they need to remove the political aspect from
the decision, but they also must consider the costs involved in all of these changes.

Ald. Theisen recommended they stick with eleven or twelve Aldermanic Districts. Increasing
beyond that would not be favored by the public.

Ald. Wiezbiskie also pointed out that the alderpersons may be running against a few opponents
in the upcoming election, so the incumbency issue seems immaterial given that aspect.

Attorney Decker continued with his presentation by pointing out step two of the decision
involves choosing between eleven or twelve Aldermanic Districts. While the creation of more
than that is legally possible, the proposal by Ald. Zima was the first he had heard. He had only
prepared five sample maps based on eleven or twelve Aldermanic Districts, so he asks that they
consider those proposals.
Attorney Decker said an eleven Aldermanic District map would be the easiest given the
County’s eleven Supervisory Districts and the ability to remain consistent with those boundaries.
Again, this makes it easier on the voter come election time.

Alternatively, the twelve Aldermanic District option would remain relatively consistent with what
the City has today. However, that does not mean that it would be easier for the voter because
reconstruction of those lines would not be as congruent as the eleven Aldermanic District
option. There is no right or wrong answer; it simply boils down to the weight the alderpersons
place on the advantages and disadvantages of the alternative options.

Attorney Decker proceeded to present five options for the committee, though more options are
certainly available. Of these five options, two presented eleven Aldermanic Districts and three,
twelve Aldermanic Districts.

Option 11A

  Aldermanic Districts = 11

  Changes to the County’s tentative plan? = No

  Theme: County and City districts share borders

  Advantages: Accomodates County plan, no voter confusion in Spring Elections

  Disadvantages: Voter confusion in Fall Elections and creates extra wards

  Statistics: 43 wards, 6 areas will have different state assembly representatives

Option 11B

  Aldermanic Districts = 11

  Changes to County’s tentative plan? = Yes

  Theme: County and City districts share borders

  Advantages: Least chance of voter confusion, least number of wards (only 11 ballots)

  Disadvantages: Changes County’s tentative plan

  Statistics: 37 wards, no areas will have different state assembly reps

Option 12A

  Aldermanic Districts = 12

  Changes to County’s tentative plan? = No

  Theme: Reflection of current Aldermanic Districts
  Advantages: Similar to current districts, accommodates tentative plan

  Disadvantages: Voter confusion (33 different spring ballots and state/county lines
 diverge)

  Statistics: 48 wards, 6 Aldermanic and 7 Supervisory Districts will have different state
 assembly reps

Option 12B

  Aldermanic Districts = 12

  Changes County’s tentative plan? = Yes

  Theme: Reflection of current Aldermanic Districts

  Advantages: Consistent with current districts, reduces some voter confusion by
 matching State lines

  Disadvantages: Voter confusion in spring (26 different spring ballots)

  Statistics: 42 wards, 6 Aldermanic and no Supervisory Districts will have 2 state
 assembly reps

Option 12C

  Aldermanic Districts = 12

  Changes to County’s tentative plan? = No

  Theme: Example of compact 12-Alderperson plan

  Advantages: Accommodates tentative plan, compact Aldermanic Districts

  Disadvantages: Voter confusion (29 different spring ballots), significant boundary
 changes

  Statistics: 44 wards, 6 Aldermen and 7 Supervisory Districts will have 2 state assembly
 representatives

Ald. Theisen stated plan 11B is less expensive administratively and less confusing to the voters.
This option involves changing the County lines, but the County does not care what the City’s
lines are, it is only the incumbents in the County that would care.

Ald. Dorff said there is more of a disadvantage to 11B than what Ald. Theisen stated. There
would be more constituents added to the districts, which in turn could negatively affect the
quality of service the aldermen provide to their districts.
Ald. Kocha believes the first consideration needs to be the voters. She asked to hear from the
staff involved with the administration of elections.

Ald. De Wane turned the floor over to the City Clerk, Lauri Marenger.

Ms. Marenger explained their decision on redistricting will have a huge impact administratively.
The City’s Election Specialist has a huge task when it comes to reporting and balancing all
elections within 30 days of an election. Ms. Marenger spoke to the County Clerk to determine
some of the costs involved in the electoral process given the various redistricting options before
the committee. For instance, if the lines match with the County, the expenses for ballots are
shared between the County because both the ballots encompass both County and City
elections. However, the City will need to cover the full expense of those elections in which the
County and City do not share an elected office on the ballot, which would be situations involving
those pockets of smaller wards. Additionally, there will be additional programming costs for the
voting machines because of additional ballot styles that will need to be generated as a result of
those overlapping districts. There is a $120 charge per ward, per election. The law states that
you can only have one ballot style at one ward, so if you have two wards voting at one polling
location, you will still have to pay the $240 cost to program the machine for two wards, two
ballot styles. The less ballots there are, the less confusion for the voters. The election staff
receives many calls at election time regarding polling locations and the offices up for election on
the ballot, so the less confusing the borders, the less staff time spent fielding such calls and the
less voter frustration.

Ald. De Wane asked Election Specialist, Kris Teske, if option 11B is the preferred option, and
she agreed that it is. She wanted to clarify that the City is legally not able to have two ballots at
one ward; it is only capable of having one ballot per ward. There is the option to put two wards
at one polling location, but the cost of programming the Eagle machine will remain consistent
with two wards, meaning the City will be charged as if it was operating a second ward.

Ms. Teske also wanted to bring up Ward 2, the University of Wisconsin Green Bay (UWGB)
polling location. There are eight “permanent” residents within that ward that were required to go
to a different location if UWGB was not operating as a polling location. This required a letter be
mailed to those residents notifying them of their change in polling location for a specific election.
They have requested over the years that they be included in a normal polling location with the
next census because of the confusion involved in switching polling locations based on the
election. Given the possibility of there being nine pockets that would require such notification,
she asks that they consider the administrative effort in notifying those additional people of their
change in polling location that would result between spring and fall elections. There is more
than just ballots to consider. There is postage and staff time to consider as well.

Ald. Wiezbiskie also asked about public notice. She agreed that cost would go up with
additional ballot styles.

Ms. Marenger mentioned the 2012 proposed budget was premised on 36 wards; if they were to
increase the ward number, the budget would be affected. They need to keep in mind that each
ward costs about $1,200 per election. This cost involves poll workers and Department of Public
Works staffing. The DPW staff is responsible for the delivery of supplies, testing of the
machines and setting up each polling location. The DPW election staff, as well as some Park
and Recreation staff, will also run ballots out to polling locations as needed on Election Day.
Ald. De Wane pointed out the 2012 budget accounts for 36 wards and Redistricting Option 11B
has 37 wards factored in. Finance Director, Dawn Foeller, pointed out that the 37th ward is
actually joined with another ward for voting purposes but there will be 36 polling places, so the
number is actually 37 wards.

Ms. Marenger stated that the City was set to implement new voting equipment in 2012, but it
looks like it will not be until 2013 due to delays in certification of the new voting equipment. This
is probably a good thing, considering it will be a Presidential Election year tripled with
redistricting and voter ID changes. That being said, the start of 2013 will involve the use of the
new equipment. The first year will be of no charge to the City, but the fee thereafter there will
be a $250 annual maintenance fee per machine.

Ald. Theisen suggested they first decide if they want to do eleven alderpersons since it is the
simplest plan. Otherwise, twelve alderpersons will involve more input on how they want to draw
the lines. Option 11B seems the obvious choice since it matches the County’s lines.

At this time, the committee and other alderpersons present took some time to review the five
maps Attorney Decker had created.

Ald. Kocha asked Attorney Decker to explain the difference between maps 11A and 11B. He
responded the only difference between the two maps is that the County’s lines are changed to
match the State Assembly lines in 11B, which results in a change to the County’s tentative plan.
Option 11A has six more wards as compared to 11B without such an adjustment of the County’s
lines.

Ald. Wery said he does not really see the average citizen caring if they differ in Assembly
District.

Director Foeller said the cost for the four 2012 elections will be around $30,000 with the
additional six wards.

Ald. Theisen asked Ms. Teske to reiterate the circumstances where additional letters would
need to be sent to voters notifying them of a change in polling location. Ms. Teske explained
that circumstance happens if those smaller pockets in 11A do not have their own ward, thereby
requiring voters within those pockets to travel to a different location. The City Clerk’s staff
prefers 11B because it eliminates those pockets, which in turn reduces voter confusion and
makes the administration of elections easier.

The alderpersons took some additional time to review all the maps and discuss the various
options amongst themselves.

Ald. De Wane brought the meeting back to order and asked they vote on the maps to determine
the direction they want to go, whether it be eleven or twelve alderpersons.

Ald. Kocha made a motion to approve moving forward with a eleven district plan. Ald.
Wiezbiskie seconded the motion.

Ald. Dorff stated a twelve district plan provides for better quality of service to the constituents.
Ald. Wery agreed that increasing the number of constituents will require more investment of
their time, which is already quite limited. The position will turn into a full-time job more suitable
for a retiree or self-employed individual if you decrease to eleven aldermen because you will be
spreading your time among more constituents and likely have to attend more committee
meetings.

Ald. Danzinger said he understands the rationale behind reducing to eleven districts. However,
as alderpersons, they work on special projects and serve on various boards within the
community and the idea of decreasing the size of Council threatens their ability to continue to do
so.

Ald. Kocha said she agrees with the alderpersons in support of the twelve districts, but her main
concern must be for the voters and reducing as much confusion for them come election time.
Also, she is concerned about staff time and the workload and expense involved if they decide to
go with twelve districts over eleven. Finally, they are responsible for making a good-faith effort
in their decision, and she has a hard time believing they would be doing so if they remain with
twelve districts.

Ald. Wiezbiskie said he realizes the increase in constituents would be challenging, but he has
had such a large population over the years and knows it is manageable. Their duty is to find the
least complicated adjustment for both the voters and administrators of elections. In conjunction
with that, they must consider the costs involved in their decision, and staff is clearly advising
them to go with eleven districts.

Ald. Buckley stated he is also concerned about the workload they will face if they reduce
districts. While he understands the concerns of those in favor of eleven, he must support a
twelve district map.

They voted on Ald. Kocha’s motion to draft eleven districts. The motion failed 2-4, with Ald.
Kocha and Wiezbiskie voting yes and Ald. Theisen, Wery, Deneys, and De Wane voting no.

Ald. Wery made a motion to move forward with drafting twelve districts.

Ald. Zima said they should consider 11A if the majority is opposed to 11B because it is still a
reduction in polling locations from what the City presently has and does not change the
County’s lines. It would be ill advised to create a map that disrupts County and State lines
because of the confusion among voters that would undoubtedly ensue.

Director Foeller reminded them that the additional polling locations would increase the Elections
budget by about $30,000. They need to increase the staffing at polling locations for 2012 as
well. The City currently has 49 polling locations, but as Ald. Zima pointed out, Option 11A is six
less than that.

Ald. Zima reminded them of state statutes and those things they must consider throughout the
redistricting process – reduce voter confusion and create compact districts. The County was
instructed to follow natural boundary lines and try to keep the districts as similar in size as
possible. Any option involving twelve districts does not account for voter convenience.

Ald. Theisen clarified Option 11B is the map that will provide the lowest voter confusion.

Ald. Wery made a motion to move forward with a twelve district map.
Ald. Kocha asked Ald. Wery what he sees as the advantages 12B has over the other twelve
district options. He said Option 12B keeps his district relatively the same and compact and is
the cheapest twelve district option.

Ald. Wery’s motion was seconded by Ald. Theisen.

Ald. Dorff said he if they are moving to a twelve district plan, he is in favor of Option 12B
because it matches the State lines.

Ald. De Wane stated Option 12B would drastically change his district. He pointed out that the
redistricting needs to be approved by the entire Council at the next Common Council meeting
Tuesday, November 15, so changes can still be made at that meeting.

The vote on Ald. Wery’s motion failed 3-3. Ald. Kocha, De Wane, and Wiezbiskie voted no and
Ald. Theisen, Deneys, and Wery voted yes.

Ald. Kocha asked Ald. De Wane what he thinks they should do. Ald. De Wane said he voted
against the eleven districts, but he has now changed his mind and is in favor of the eleven
district option because of the work that was already done at the County level to create their
tentative plan. Also, Option 12B does not conform to his current district at all.

Ald. Wiezbiskie does not think the County spent as much time on this as other members have
stated.

Ald. Theisen said historically, the County set its lines first, sent it to the City to set its lines, and
then sent it to the State. This time, the State decided to set their boundaries first. Ald. Kocha
said it is a political maneuver to ensure the State Assembly incumbents were eligible for
reelection, did not face off against one another, and also to ensure their boundaries conformed
to the old boundaries as much as possible.

Ald. Theisen said no matter what they do tonight, six more votes will be involved come
Tuesday’s Common Council meeting. He suggested that once they understand the various
options, they should refer it to Council to hash it out there.

Ald. Zima said they should choose an option to recommend and try to tweak it as much as
possible at this committee.

Attorney Decker suggested they select both an eleven district and twelve district option to refer
to Council if they are unable to decide between eleven or twelve districts this evening.

Ald. Theisen made a motion to refer the item to Common Council on Tuesday, November 15,
for action. Ald. Wery seconded the motion. Ald. Theisen ended up withdrawing that motion and
made a motion to hold the item until a special Council meeting Saturday, November 12, at 9
a.m. No one seconded that motion.

Discussion continued over the action the committee should take. Some stated they needed to
make a decision at this committee given the urgency of having to approve a map at the
Common Council meeting on Tuesday. Another suggestion was to hold a special meeting of
the Council prior to Tuesday, but it was determined that option was not feasible given public
notice requirements and the Monday night Packer game. Finally, referring this to Tuesday’s
Council meeting without a recommendation was also not the best option given the 2012 budget
is on the agenda and will likely take up most of the evening. They decided the other Council
members need to review the maps as well before making a decision on the matter.

It was decided they would hold a special Common Council meeting to discuss the redistricting
options as a whole. The meeting will commence at 1 p.m. Tuesday, November 15, with a final
vote to be taken at 3 p.m. to allow for Ald. Danzinger and Ald. Wiezbiskie to be present.

A motion was made by Ald. Theisen to recommend to Common Council Option 11B and Option
12B as the most feasible options for eleven and twelve districts. The motion was seconded by
Ald. De Wane and carried to approve.

A motion to adjourn was made by Ald. Wiezbiskie, seconded by Ald. Kocha, and carried. The
meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m.