Answers to 3 questions about the Cudahy referendum on staggering aldermanic terms

On the Nov. 6 election ballot, Cudahy residents will be asked if they want to stagger aldermanic terms for council members.

Specifically, the question will read: Shall Charter Ordinance 2469 be passed to allow for staggered aldermanic terms?

If it passes, the decision is binding and would set off a procedure to begin the staggering process. A district number would be pulled from a hat two times by an impartial Cudahy citizen to determine which two districts would receive initial shorter terms of two years. The remaining three aldermanic districts would serve their normal three-year terms, according to District 3 Alderman Randy Hollenbeck, the driving force behind the referendum question.

Hollenbeck recently shared his thoughts on why he thinks this is needed as well as his responses to objections he's received to the proposal.

Why bring this to a referendum?

While adding staggering wouldn't require a referendum — just a two-thirds majority vote of the common council would be needed — Hollenbeck said he wanted to bring it to the public.

“I wanted staggering and wanted the people to vote on it so I pushed for the referendum,” he said.

Hollenbeck's original proposal also included an increase in aldermanic term lengths from three to four years. However, he said that suggestion "didn't make the cut" so terms will remain the same length.

Why stagger the terms?

Staggering would bring the aldermanic districts into line with the Cudahy School Board elections and civilian committees, according to Hollenbeck.

“The committees have good reason to stagger, so that all members are not newbies and can learn from the experiences the other members bring to the table. It would appear there was forethought put into the staggering of civilian residents serving on committees; the same should apply to the common council,” he said. “This would also prevent a possible complete turnover of the common council in any given election year.”

Hollenbeck suggested staggering would lessen the chance that officials would shy away from controversial decisions.

“At times when all of the common council is running for re-election with politicians on it, the common council can become mere window dressing, not wanting to even consider lightly controversial issues, let alone tough ones," Hollenbeck said. “Those more worried about being re-elected take the easy way out, doing what is easy instead of what is right.”

He said staggered terms would minimize these issues each year to one or two alderpersons which would allow work to still get done.

What are the arguments against this?

Hollenbeck originally brought up the subject to the common council April 17 and said he had the idea for it since 2008. He said there wasn’t much of a desire to do this in the past from officials.

“For far too long, councils keep kicking this can down the road with the mantra of ‘Let’s let the next council determine or decide that,’” Hollenbeck said. “No. Leaders take action.”

While the common council passed a resolution Aug. 21 putting the question on the ballot, some seemed indifferent. Alderman Justin Moralez said he doesn't see the need but is "glad the voters have the opportunity to weigh in and decide the outcome one way or another."

As for opposition, Hollenbeck said he’s heard arguments against the proposal, such as that it’s a waste of money fixing an issue that isn’t a problem. Additionally, with the 2020 census on the horizon and different district boundaries to follow, the option of waiting was considered.

In response, Hollenbeck questioned how it was a waste following the reasons he gave for why he thinks this is needed. He also said people only fix things when they are broken instead of “replacing the roof when it is sunny out and there are no leaks yet.”

“The worst time to replace the roof is when the storm hits and you see it is leaking like a sieve,” Hollenbeck said.

Hollenbeck acknowledges that opponents may highlight other communities that don’t have such a system.

“What other communities have or don’t have is not the deciding factor of what is best for Cudahy,” he said. “Cudahy needs to do the best thing for Cudahy and its residents. Period, end of story.”