Posted on Sunday, 29th June 2008 by Patrick Dorwin
Aldermanic Privilege: The concept that the full Common Council will defer to a local alderman on issues that directly impact his district. It is a phrase, that until the federal trial of Alderman Michael McGee, never entered into our thoughts, but now that it has, it has sparked a lot of debate.
The debate is focusing on the Licenses Committee and their issuance of liquor licenses in the city of Milwaukee. Opponents like mayor Tom Barrett and the Journal Sentinel Editorial Board believe the entire system of how we issue these licenses should be scrapped and the responsibility be turned over to an Alcohol Control Board, appointed by the mayor. This is an idea that I oppose. Taking this responsibility away from the local elected officials and giving it to an unaccountable appointed board is wrong. This is a responsibility that should stay with the aldermen that are responsible to their constituents.
I know that the perception of this aldermanic privilege is what led foreign born business owners in Michael McGee’s district to believe that he was the only one that decided if they would get or keep a liquor license, but with someone like “Thug Mike,” having an appointed board wouldn’t have changed anything. He had these people convinced that since he was the alderman for the district, he was in control, and Barrett’s board wouldn’t have changed a thing. McGee preyed on foreign born businesses that likely didn’t fully understand the law. You will notice that none of the people he was shaking down was American born.
Common Council President Willie L. Hines Jr has come under fire for defending the current licensing procedure and refusing to accept that Aldermanic Privilege even exists. He and others on the board point to numerous rulings that have gone against their wishes, and they point out that police, public health officials, building inspectors and the city attorney’s office are all involved in the Licenses Committee hearings. Alderman do of course have a powerful role to play, as they should, they are the elected representative of the people in the neighborhood and their position should be given great weight. We can’t let “Thug Mike” take away the representation of the people at these hearings.
The prosecution itself has admitted that “aldermanic privilege†was really a concept that one former alderman put forth to intimidate uninformed business owners. As the Journal Sentinel’s Greg Borowski recently reported, it was the perception of aldermanic privilege that did the most damage to the 6th District. It would only compound the recent sufferings of those disenfranchised residents to overhaul the entire licensing system based upon a myth put forth by an incarcerated and discredited former elected official.
–Common Council President Willie L. Hines Jr
License Committee Chair Jim Bohl says that the paper has taken testimony that he gave in the McGee trial out of context, Bohl told Wispolitics.com, “McGee’s abuse is only evidence that he was able to prey on naive people who believed that aldermen have absolute say, when they do not.”
The paper is also misleading in saying:
Hines told us the city should develop a handbook for store owners and other businesspeople delineating the process, including rules and regulations, of applying for, getting an alcohol license and keeping it, so there isn’t any public misunderstanding.
[Emphasis added]
The fact is, the Common Council, the License Division and the Department of Neighborhood Services have already been working on this, and the editorial board knew this at the time of their writing. This booklet is being finalized and will be given to potential licensees and will outline their rights and responsibilities.
Another fact that the papers editorial has left out, but Greg Borowski reported in their own paper, an Alcohol Beverage Licenses Task Force has been started by Hines and will review how licenses are, and will be issued in the future.
Alderman Willie Hines will appear on Sunday Insight with Charlie Sykes this morning, and from tidbits that Charlie has leaked, it should prove to be must see tv… 10:00 AM on Chanel 4 (it will also be available on-line in a day or two). I am sure that after the airing of this show, we will have more to add in Comments.
Posted in Home | Comments (23)
23 Responses to “The Aldermanic Privilege debate”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
June 29th, 2008 at 10:15 am
Comment on Sunday Insight: Alderman Hines took some real shots from Owen, of Boots & Sabers and from Sykes himself. Political reporter Ken Lamke’s comments were much closer to my view of things.
Granted, those that refused to see McGee for what he was were close minded and refused to look at reality and should rightly be criticized. Even Mikel Holt brought an empty bucket, he will no longer carry water for McGee.
June 29th, 2008 at 10:47 am
Alderman Hines took a shot at Mayor Barrett. Could this be the opening shot in the next mayoral election? As you know, after Sheriff Clarke said he would not run against Barret in the last election, I hopped that Hines would. He didn’t do it and Barrett had a cakewalk, but hopefully that won’t happen the next time around.
June 29th, 2008 at 10:48 am
The editorial board aligns with Mayor Barrett (or perhaps Mayor Barrett is aligning with the editorial board) and believes that there is merit to the idea of “…turning the job of alcohol licensing over to an alcohol control board whose members are appointed by the mayor and approved by the council”. Alderman Hines feels that the system in place should not be condemned because it was abused by Michael McGee jr. I agree.
Call it aldermanic privilege, influence or whatever other word you care to use, but I believe that aldermen are elected to represent their constituents. I believe they should carry considerable weight in matters affecting their specific aldermanic districts. An alderman representing his district and speaking to the members of a Common Council committee cannot, alone, control whether or not someone is granted or denied a license. If an alderman makes any attempt to “shakedown” license applicants, he/she will face the same fate as Michael McGee jr and others before him. To think that some commission appointed by the Mayor is beyond such temptation is absurd. If one member of the Common Council can abuse his authority so can one member of any commission. Where does oversight end and how many commissions funded by taxpayers have to be established before people believe in the integrity of their government? Does the taxing power of the MATC board ring a bell? Isn’t that what elections are for?
Of course there is a solution to this problem. One might even call it the perfect solution (and for those of you who can’t figure this out, I say it with sarcasm). The Mayor or alderman Hines could appoint an oversight commission which would control the licensing of liquor establishments. Appointments to this commission would be limited to members of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel editorial board and/or its group of “Watchdog” reporters, because as we all know they operate with the highest of ethical standards and are never wrong. And if that works, well then we could eventually eliminate or make part time the position of alderman since they really would only be limited to providing input from their constituents and have no real authority/influence over anything in their aldermanic districts. That would be the purview of Mayor Boss Tweed – er, Tom Barrett and whoever pulls his strings. Maybe if this change works out for him he’ll even start looking at taking over MPS.
As for Charlie’s show this morning, I think Ken Lamke was right on; alderman Hines did an excellent job of making his point; Owen was wrong (and I like Owen); Charlie was also moving in the wrong direction, but I almost always agree with Charlie on everything else, and Mikel Holt was, well, Mikel Holt. Mikel just couldn’t resist defending McGee jr by saying that he did alot of good things as an alderman and that “shouldn’t get lost in all this”, yet when a cop gets in a jam Mikel never looks at the cop’s history of “good work”. He, and others like him including the Journal Sentinel’s “Watchdogs” and editorial board, just focus on the one act of the cop and do all they can to fuel the fire. Predictable.
June 29th, 2008 at 11:07 am
Good grief; anytime you put a committee under direct control of a mayor via his/her appointments, you take away the voice of the people. That is a horrible idea.
June 29th, 2008 at 11:41 am
An appointed board, with all the efficiencies of our present Fire & Police Commiccion? Yeah right… Much as I hate o agree with “Slick” Willie Hines, I have to this time.
June 29th, 2008 at 11:43 am
Have any of you been to (or watched on the City Channel) some of these committee meetings? They make me wonder if some aldermen really DO have the best interests of their constituents at heart.
June 29th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Interesting, I learn that that dead tree version of the JS editorial is not the same as the on-line version. The hard copy doesn’t slam Hines as hard as they do on the website.
June 29th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
I spoke to someone that had $8,000′s taken from her via a contractor McGee recommended to build a house. I believe all this stuff happened before it got to the board. I believe McGee thought he could get people to believe that he would do something for them or against them before it got to the committee meetings.
I think the handbook is an excellent idea, because it gives everyone the direction that they need to be in – without anyone being able to be mislead.
June 29th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Hey Patrick and all,
I was just about to post something similar. I do think that the physical paper has a much more accurate and compelling editorial. Not sure what happened, but I’m glad there is someone trying to get the facts out somewhere. Generally speaking, I think the MJS editorial board is well intentioned and tries to drive discussion in a positive way — even when we disagree. It was pretty hard to follow the reasoning in that original online version, though. Thanks again for working to get the truth out.
June 29th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
-Alex, I wonder if they seen Borowski’s story and decided that they better adjust their piece so they didn’t conflict so much with a real reporter doing his job?
-Marge, if I remember correctly, Vianna Jordan also had McGee try to force “his” contractor on her for a project. maybe someone with a better memory can refresh mine?
June 29th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Many of you have not had the “privelge” of going before the licensing committee. I have. There is nothing fair about that process. Whoever donates the most will get the most. Even a VERY HIGH priced attorney suggested that several large donations be given to the committee members before the hearing. The alderman do not have the interests of the community on their mind. They have their pocket books in mind. To see Alderman Hines deny that this exists when assistant city attorney Schrimpf of the licensing committee has used this term in countless hearing is laughable. Alderman Hines probably doesn’t believe that their is a blue code of silence either.
A mayoral commission may not be the answer but changes are certainly needed. Has anyone examined the donations to the alderman and looked to see who donates to them, not by business name of course, but by personal donations of wifes and family members. Coincedently timed with the votes on licenses. Wake up people. Politicians are politicians.
June 29th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
BHB (#5) you are right on target. The Mayor’s Fire and Police Commission couldn’t even get it right when they conducted their search for a Police Chief. After the application process was closed Ed Flynn was recruited to apply and the application process was reopened for him. As it turned out we got an outstanding Police Chief, but it was not by any design of the Barrett administration and certainly not his FPC which was (and has long been) quite obviously over their heads. It took the Bradley Foundation to straighten out the mess and get somebody like George Kelling to “help” the FPC with their search.
June 29th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Alex the MJS editorial board members hide behind their anonymity when rendering their opinions. Ever see one of their editorials signed by anyone? It’s as if they are all holding the pen and it just kind of writes their collective point of view. They typically take the Party line in a very elitist fashion to tell us how we should be thinking. Like Tom Barrett, they wouldn’t want to offend the man behind the curtain.
June 29th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Michael, you’re wrong. I have been before literally hundreds of licensing committees; I have no idea who gives to Pres. Hines’ campaign — he doesn’t tell us, and we have a lot of input regarding what neighbors/residents are saying. If residents don’t want a bar/tavern/whatever, he just won’t support it. Campaign stuff never comes into play. (I’m sure that’s illegal and we’d be off to prison like McGee if we did anything like that.)
June 29th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
The Editorial Board has issued another editorial.
Editorial: A need to restore trust in city liquor licensing
June 29th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
Why don’t you just get down to brass tacks? The entire Milwaukee city government needs a thorough disinfecting. Find some honest people and run them.
June 29th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
I’m a little confused here…isn’t part of the job of the council (and what they get paid for), to determine who can get an alcohol license or not? Isn’t there a committee in Milwaukee like a Law and Licensing committee already? The idea of having police involved in the decisions sounds good, though.
June 29th, 2008 at 10:21 pm
1. Milwaukee’s custom of “aldermanic privilege†is sensible, lawful and has withstood legal challenge.
2. It’s not just about liquor licenses.
3. The press hasn’t done its job.
4. Anyone paying attention could see the McGee trouble coming years ago.
5. Most Milwaukeeans DON’T think aldermen are abusing their privileges.
6. Those who think aldermanic privilege is a present and ongoing source of corruption have a warped or uninformed view.
7. Politics can be nasty, but that’s not corruption.
8. An informed and politically active public is the best check against corruption and the excessive influence of special interests.
9. The Common Council is composed of quality neighborhood people.
10. The current system isn’t broken but can be improved by doing more fully what it already strives to do.
Full elaboration at:
http://www.riverwestneighborhood.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2443&Itemid=582&lang=
June 29th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
Alex. I think you need to open your eyes then. If you have been to hundreds of these hearings then you know how the procedure works. For questionable license renewals, it is ALL politics, connections and donations. ANd if you say it is not, then you better stop drinking the cool aid they are serving you. That committee especially has always been and will always be on the take. Every lawyer and tavern owners knows it. I am surprised the feds haven’t picked other aldermen off as well…at least not yet.
June 29th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
I was told, you needed the support of your alderman if you needed a license. If they didn’t support you, there was no point in going to the meeting. Yes, Vianna Jordan is whom I was speaking about.
June 30th, 2008 at 9:42 am
As I pointed out in a post in milwaukeeworld last week, “aldermanic privilege” could only be exercised on new licenses. Many aldermen, including President Hines, former Alderman D’Amato and his successor Alderman Kovac, entrust the initial vetting process to neighborhood organizations like Business Improvement Districts in general, and the Brady Street Neighborhood Association in particular. If these organizations come back with a negative report, the alderman will not advance the application if it comes before the Licenses Committee. So, yes, you might call that “aldermanic privilege,” if once-removed at that. It’s just plain good governance.
McGee’s intimidation added an element to aldermanic privilege that does not exist in theory or practice. He threatened to not renew existing licenses without cause. A license, once granted, becomes property, and cannot be revoked except by due process in a court of law, if the council’s action is challenged by the license holder. Perhaps the license holders were ignorant of that, or knew of some susceptibility to revocation due to the way they operated their businesses.
The important point is that aldermen have some discretion in the approval of new licensees in their district, and it is in their interest to not permit bad operators in their districts. Our license process gives aldermen an incentive to be particularly attentive to the interests of their constituents.
Previous to last week, the Journal Sentinel never took note that the license process does not involve mayoral approval, unlike other council actions. Now it has become its mantra. Let’s hope liquor license approvals never become subject to mayoral approval. If that were to be the result of our proposed reforms, it would divert significant campaign cash from the council members and put it in the mayor’s treasury.
Michael Horne
http://www.milwaukeeworld.com/blog/2008/06/butler-plans-book.html
June 30th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Two quick points:
Given the “no snitching” culture of Milwaukee’s 6th district, I’m left wondering how many payments to “The Gatekeeper” in return for anticipated favors were never revealed to anyone, and how many more stories of his greed and recklessness will never be told.
Also, I agree with Dan Knauss, the press didn’t do its job in this case – and rarely does, where African-American politicians in Milwaukee are involved, (until the indictments come down, of course) for fear of the perception of racism. In a strange twist, McGee’s predisposition to shaking down mostly foreign-born business owners was, by its own nature, an overtly racist act.
June 30th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
Bruce about McGee and his targeting of immagrants to shakedown for money and especially arab americans is horrible. I feel ashamed he was a part of my community.
As for ALdermanic Priveledge we shall see. I would hate for not being able to protest something and my alderman having nothing to input.
Make an example out of McGee, Put someone in charge of oversight from the common councilor from outside the counsil that you trust and write into the council bylaws if you are found guily you pay the city a million dollars for what you did and loss of trust in public officials. Do not take it away, where do you leave the public?