ccm19810804COMMON COUNCIL - CITY OF MUSKEGO
MINUTES OF SPECIAL b1EETING HELD AUGUST 4, 1981
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Jerome Gottfried at
7 00 P M, Also present were Aldermen Dumke, Klenz, Knudsen,
Penovich, Radtke, Salentine and Steinberg and City Clerk Stewart
Veto Message of Resolution 11125-81, As Amended, was read by City Clerk Stewart. Ald. Knudsen moved to override the veto
Secbnded by Ald. Steinberg. Waukesha County Redistricting Chairman, George Guhr, was present at the meeting to participate
in the discussion He advised that block splitting was not
allowed and that of all the plans submitted to date in Waukesha
County, only one block split was submitted, however, this plan
has been tentatively approved by the County because the split
was considered to be practical and would therefore better serve
the community. He further suggested the city review all plans
message, upon a roll call vote to override the veto, Aldermen
and submit one by August 10th Following discussion of the veto
Knudsen, Penovich, Salentine and Steinberg voted "aye". Ald.
Dumke, Klenz and Radtke voted "no" Since a two-thirds vote of
the entire Council is required to override a veto, the motion to
override did not carry
At this time a recess was declared by Mayor Gottfried. The meeting
recor.vened after review of the maps by the aldermen.
Resolution 11128-81 - Establishing Ward Boundaries Using 1980
Census Figures. Ald. Salentine moved for adoption, attaching
as Exhibit "A" an amended version of Proposal C which would
District 2, and transfer the area around Kurtze Lane from
transfer two blocks in the northeast corner of District 7 to
District 6 to District 7, and be known as Proposal D. Seconded
by Ald Knudsen. Upon a roll call vote, Aldermen Dumke,
Aldermen Klenz and Radtke voted "no"
Knudsen, Penovich, Salentine and Steinberg voted "aye" and
ADJOURNMENT Ald. Knudsen moved to adjourn Seconded by Ald
Penovich Motion carried The meeting adjourned at 9:55 p M.
Respectfully submitted,
Charlotte Stewart, City Clerk
August 4, 1981
a TO THE HONORABLE ALDERMEN OF TIIE CITY OF MUSKEGO
FROM MAYOR JEROME GOTTFRIED e Gentlemen
Resolution #125-81, As Amended, entitled, Establishing Ward
Boundaries Using 1980 Census Figures. That action was taken after
you know, the creation of districts in the City of Muskego has
rejecting two proposals submitted by a citizens committee As
created a considerable amount of differences of opinion as to how
each alderman's district should be recreated. Several proposals
were prepared and the one finally accepted by the majority of the
Council members split a census block. An alternate was also prepared
in an attempt to assure that no alderman would lose a district and
Aldermanic District V into Aldermanic District 111. It was also
in order to do so it was necessary to place a small section of
necessary to nearly split District IV in two It is my opinion
that the two proposals which you are suggesting be submitted to
have therefore decided to veto your action for the following reasons:
the County reflect lack of thought and time in its creation. I
On the 28th day of July, 1981 your honorable body adopted
a (1) You have failed to give proper consideration to a citizens
which met every criterir; established by the state and federal
conuni.ttee who worked lor~g and hard to develop proposals
laws
(2) You completely ignored the law by splitting a census block.
(3) You used whatever means possible without considering criteria
established by federal and state laws in order that the present
alderman of District 111 could remain in District 111.
(4) You nearly split District IV in two separating people who would
have common interests
(5) You split neighborhoods sL.ch as Bass Bay without any thought as
to what affect it would have on the people living in the area.
There have been many reasons suggested as to why none of
the more 10 icdredistricting proposals were acceptable, none of
which I feef are valid. Some of them are as follows: (1) "It
isn't fair to remove an alderman from his district", (2) I don't
with the people there", (3) "The people at the edge of my district want that area in my district because there are too many problems
be three aldermen representing lake property owners". shouldn't have to travel SO far to vote", and (4) "There shouldn't
m
meets as much of the criteria established by state and federal law
and at the same time inconvenience as little as possible the
citizens of this community. This is our responsibility and I feel
that we should do so. However, the two alternatives as proposed in
Resolution #125-81, As Amended, have ignored, in my opinion, not only
the citizens of this community but the state and federal laws
as well.
possible the suggestions of the citizens committee a new redistrict-
With the help of the staff at city hall and using as much as
ing proposal has be&,; prepared which I urge you give your consideration
attempted to satisfy as much as possible the wishes of the aldermen
for its adoption. Admittsuly, it is not perfect. However, it has
while still meeting the required criteria. It is for the above
reasons that I respectfully urge you to uphold my veto of Resolution
#125-81, AS Amended, and, if possible, adopt this evening's Proposal
which more closely reflects concern for the citizens Of this
community and fulfills the required laws.
As you all know, the ideal redistricting map would be one that
a
a
JJG/ je
'1