January, 1998
Table of Contents
Sulfide Mining Moratorium Bill
Will the Assembly Require Proof of Safety Before Allowing Mines?Trouble at DNR
This is IT --- Mining Vote SOON
Smaller & ScrambledPollution Permit Under Scrutiny
Experienced People Cut
Files Shuffled
No Clear Organization
A Classic Example
Funding Cuts
Political Takeover
Staff in Poor Spirits
Gov.Thompson Cut DNR Enforcement Actions
Dramatic Drop in Enforcement
What You Can Do About DNR Problems
What You Can DoWish List
Reporter Punished for Criticizing Governor?
Sulfide Mining Moratorium Bill
Will the Assembly Require Proof of Safety Before Allowing Mines?
The Mining Moratorium Bill would prohibit mining in a sulfide ore body
until a similar mine has operated elsewhere for at least 10 years without
significant environmental damage. The bill must pass both the Senate (which
it has) and Assembly, and be signed by the Governor, before it can become
law.
Moratorium supporters believe it makes sense to delay sulfide mining
until it can be demonstrated that mines such as EXXON’s proposed Wolf River
mine will not pollute our rivers, lakes or drinking water. The ore in the
proposed EXXON mine contains a high percentage of sulfide minerals. When
pulverized, sulfide mine wastes (called tailings) mix with air and water
---and sulfuric acid is created. The acid can dissolve and carry
with it several toxic metals, like mercury, lead, arsenic, or cadmium which
are present in metallic ores. Across the country, acid drainage from sulfide
mines has devastated rivers, lakes and drinking water supplies. A great
many rivers in Appalachia and the Rockies are lifeless as a result. EXXON
has yet to name even one example of a mine in a sulfide ore body similar
to Wisconsin’s that has not caused extensive pollution. EXXON is expected
to propose a weakening amendment to make the moratorium meaningless, as
part of a multi-million dollar lobbying campaign to defeat the moratorium.
In fact, an EXXON lobbyist said at a legislative hearing they will spend
“whatever it takes to defeat the moratorium.”
Citizens need to speak up.
This is IT --- Mining Vote SOON
The Moratorium will be voted on by State Assembly Representatives as early as January 22. Many Representatives are unsure how they’ll vote. They’re getting daily pressure from mining company lobbyists against the Mining Moratorium Bill. They also say they’re not hearing from regular citizens.
NOW is the time to express yourself. Call your Representative using these TOLLFREE numbers, and tell them what you think. Encourage friends and family to call, too.
Rep. John Ainsworth (Shawano)--- 888-529-0006
Rep. Jim Baumgart (Sheboygan) --- 888-529-0026
Rep. Luther Olsen (Berlin)--- 888-534-0041
Rep. John Dobyns (Fond du Lac) --- 888-529-0052
Rep. Alvin Ott (Forest Junction)--- 888-534-0003
Rep. John Gard (Peshtigo) --- 888-534-0089
Rep. Clifford Otte (Sheboygan Falls)--- 888-529-0027
Rep. Mark Green (Green Bay) --- 888-534-0004
Rep. Thomas Ourada (Antigo) --- 888-534-0035
Rep. Glenn Grothman (West Bend) --- 888-534-0059
Rep. Carol Owens (Oshkosh) --- 888-534-0053
Rep. Joseph Handrick (Minoqua) --- 888-534-0034
Rep. John Ryba (Green Bay) --- 888-534-0090
Rep. Dave Hutchison (Luxemburg) --- 888-482-0001
Rep. Lorraine Seratti (Florence) --- 888-534-0036
Rep. Dean Kaufert (Neenah) --- 888-534-0055
Rep. Greg Underheim (Oshkosh)--- 888-534-0054
Rep. Carol Kelso (Green Bay) --- 888-534-0088
Rep. Bill VanderLoop (Kaukauna)--- 888-534-0005
Rep. Judith Klusman (Oshkosh) --- 888-534-0056
Rep. Steve Wieckert (Appleton) --- 888-534-0057
Rep. Frank Lasee (Ledgeview) --- 888-534-0002
Rep. Robert Ziegelbauer (Manitowoc) -- 888-529-0025
Please call TODAY
Trouble at DNR
Downsized
Politicized
Disorganized
Demoralized
by Kyle Strauss &
Rebecca Katers
The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is the key government agency charged with protecting Wisconsin’s environment.
We all pay a lot of taxes to support this agency, and expect it to protect public health and wildlife. But recent trends raise concerns about the effectiveness of DNR.
The Wisconsin DNR underwent a drastic reorganization program which began
in 1995. The shuffling of personnel cost 200 people their jobs, and relocated
many of the remaining 2,900 employees of the department.
The department was divided into six watershed areas, with divisions
in environmental quality, enforcement, resource management, and management
services.
Many times, large bureaucracies need a shake up just to change some
of the outdated approaches, and plan for the future. In the long run, the
new watershed approach may be a benefit to the department. But in these
years following the reorganization, much confusion exists among
employees of the department.
Many of the mid-level program supervisors were cut. These were the DNR’s most experienced staff within their specialty areas. The majority of these experienced people were shifted to new jobs which were completely different, and they often were put in charge of a wide range of issues new to them.
Meanwhile, in their old departments, the less-experienced staff who
were left behind were forced to operate without clear leadership, and without
the benefit of the old-timers’ knowledge and experience.
Given the technical nature of most environmental issues these days,
this is a recipe for mistakes and confusion. The politicians who designed
this reorganization have deliberately destroyed the institutional memory
of the DNR.
Files Shuffled
Many files were moved with personnel when they moved during the reorganization.
Sometimes, the files have moved away from a local office, making the information
inaccessible to local citizens. Even if the files didn’t move, the new
staff may not be able to find information they’re unaware of in the files.
Filing is
a highly personal memory process. This can make it difficult to find
accurate information --- even if DNR knows it has it “somewhere.”
The organizational charts DNR now has are inaccurate, making it difficult to track employees and hire new positions. And there are no succinct records, lists, or flow charts of the reorganization process available for public use. Program managers do not have to report to a particular bureau, as was the case in the past. Many of the experts are in the field more, making them less available, and there is less communication with the Madison offices on many issues.
We’ve been told that DNR staff have been forced to fend for themselves and develop their own sources of information and lines of command.
We tried to follow-up on the wastewater discharge permit for the existing Kidney Island.
We called the local office of DNR and found that Ron Fassbender, who had covered this issue for more than 15 years, had been transferred to Sturgeon Bay’s DNR Office and was no longer working on Kidney Island.
We were referred to Madison, so we called Larry Benson, who had written
and researched the proposedwater permit for the Kidney Island expansion,
which included the old permit for the existing island.
But Larry had been transferred to a completely different DNR job. He
referred us to his replacement. When we talked to the new person, he said
he had 2 large boxes of files from Larry Benson on this topic, and he didn’t
know where to begin to answer our questions. We asked him to call back
when he could. It’s been 5 months, but no phone call.
We persisted in calling the local DNR office, and talked with several
people until we found someone who claimed to now have responsibility for
the Kidney Island issue. He has been very pleasant to work with, but initially
he knew little of the history of this issue. He had to consult with many
other DNR staff, and after several months he still hasn’t been able to
give a clear answer to our questions.
Because of this staff shuffle, the wastewater discharge permit for
Kidney Island is in limbo. Staff acknowledge that the existing island has
been in violation of the law for years, but apparently no action has been
taken.
This is a complex issue with large financial and political ramifications
--- it’s frustrating that all the experienced staff have been taken out
of the picture, forcing new people to learn it all over again, and clean
up the problems.
This is not an efficient, cost-effective method for operating a government
agency.
Funding is another problem facing the department. Most field operating
and support budgets have been reduced --- at a time when Wisconsin’s population
and business growth are increasing the need for careful environmental regulation.
The reorganization itself has cost millions, and has led to many more program
reductions.
It will take at least five or six years before some of the kinks are
worked out of the system, and the Department can stand on its feet again.
Meanwhile, the public could experience serious environmental and health
threats.
In the 1995 budget, Governor Thompson (with the help of the new Republican legislative majority) made sweeping changes in the way Wisconsin government manages environmental issues.
First, they destroyed the Public Intervenor Office which for 26 years had represented public rights in the environment. This was a small office of two attorneys and a secretary who watchdogged the DNR and other agencies, to make sure the agencies abided by the law. They also advised citizens on how they could address their environmental concerns. The loss of this office was an extremely serious loss to Wisconsin’s environment.
Second, they gave the Governor direct control over the DNR Secretary, George Meyer. Previously, the Secretary had answered to an independent citizen committee called the Natural Resources Board. The citizens were appointed to 6 year terms by the Governor, but once appointed, they made independent decisions. The old system still allowed some political influence, but usually the Board consisted of a mix of people appointed by different governors.
Now, the Governor is directly involved in DNR’s everyday activities, and it shows. For example,the Governor is using the DNR Secretary to negotiate gaming compacts with Wisconsin’s Tribes, which is clearly not his job. His has many more important and appropriate things he should be focussing on.
In recent years, DNR staff have suffered severe morale problems because
of the re-organization, budget cuts, staff cuts, and politicization of
the agency. As a result, we’ve lost a lot of good people
who left to find more reasonable workplaces.
When we call to ask questions of the remaining staff, we can hear the
frustration in their voices. The DNR is not a healthy, happy workplace.
The staff are angry that the public seems unaware of the large, negative
changes within the agency. When we call for help on issues, we can almost
hear them saying, “Well, what do you expect under the circumstances?”
It doesn’t help that the Governor and his Secretary now refer to DNR offices as “Customer Service Centers” and they refer to polluting industries as their “clients” or “customers.” It’s an open joke among staff.
Gov.Thompson Cut DNR Enforcement Actions
When Gov. Thompson took control of DNR in 1995, he arranged for appointments of his political friends to key positions within DNR. One of his worst appointments was David Maier, who had previously worked as a Thompson aide, and in the Wis. Dept. of Transportation.
Thompson made Maier the Administrator of DNR’s Division of Enforcement and Science, one of the most powerful DNR staff positions.
Maier was completely unqualified for this job. In fact, when he worked at Dept. of Transportation, he was involved in efforts to exempt the DOT from the Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act, which requires environmental impact studies. And the DOT tried to get an exemption from the state’s endangered species law.
As Administrator, Mr. Maier oversees highly sensitive issues, including sign-off on Environmental Impact Statements, endangered species, and the Exxon Mine --and ALL enforcement actions by DNR. He oversees research, environmental analysis, and review.
Mr. Maier has gotten his jobs without competition against qualified public servants with years of experience. While at DOT he was only a “Limited Term Employee.”
Not surprisingly, DNR law enforcement has dropped significantly
since Maier’s appointment.
The number of cases that DNR has referred to the Department of Justice
for litigation has gone down dramatically, dropping from 165 and 170 total
cases in 1995 and 1996, to only 92 cases in 1997.
In addition, the records show that polluting industries are much less
likely to legally challenge the strictness of their discharge permits.
These cases have dropped by half. This indicates that new discharge permits
are weaker and the polluters are more satisfied with their permits. (See
related article Pollution Permit Under Scrutiny).
The DNR’s weak approach to the Fox River Clean-up may be part of this overall pattern.
We’ve been told by several sources within DNR that DNR staff are so demoralized by the lack of enforcement, that they are no longer bothering to gather evidence of violations to help build cases. They may have perceptions that bad news is not welcome, and that polluters should not be challenged, but just be left alone. They do not want to go through all the work of setting up a case, just to have it shot down when it comes to enforcement.
It is frightening to find this behavior taking place in a department where public protection and enforcement should be a top priority.
What You Can Do About DNR Problems
Write to your Senator and Assembly Representative and tell them what
you think.
(If you don’t know who your elected representatives are, call the Legislative
Hotline 1-800-362-9472 on weekdays.)
State Rep. (Last Name, A thru L)
P.O. Box 8952
Madison, WI 53708
State Rep. (Last Name, Mc thru Z)
P.O. Box 8953
Madison, WI 53708
State Senator
P.O. Box 7882
Madison, WI 53707
Pollution Permit Under Scrutiny
The DNR recently proposed a new 5-year water pollution permit for P.H. Glatfelter Company, a Neenah paper recycler.
Clean Water Action Council has requested a public hearing and an extended public comment period before DNR issues the final permit.
The following are our concerns:
1. Landspreading ---A solid waste landspreading permit was included in the water pollution permit, which is unusual.
More importantly, the permit notice provides no information about the quality or quantity of sludge to be landspread, or where the landspreading sites will be. We asked the DNR for any data they might have on the chemical nature of the sludge, but they told us they had no data.
Nor is an explanation given in the permit notice for the need to landspread. Afterall, Glatfelter is one of the companies planning to burn sludge in the Minergy Incinerator. DNR staff told us only one type of sludge from the wastewater treatment would be spread, but no such restriction is mentioned in the permit.
In addition, no mention is made of any public notice, comment or public hearing opportunity related to the specific landspreading sites or plans of the company. This may be our only chance to comment.
Such vagueness is unacceptable. We know the sludge will be contaminated with a wide range of chlorinated organics, heavy metals, and a whole host of other chemicals. Neighbors of proposed landspreading sites will be exposed, and the general public which will be forced to eat foods grown on those soils. We should be allowed a significant say in whether it should be allowed --- but this permit gives so little information that it’s impossible to evaluate it.
This entire landspreading section should be removed from the proposed permit, and it should stand alone for proper review, after all sludge chemical data reports and specific site proposals have been made. The public should not be asked to simply “sign-off” at this point. We also question the legality of the public notice, because landspreading is not mentioned in notice title.
2. Solids Dumped in Lake --- This permit would allow Glatfelter to dump up to 1,211 tons of solids in Little Lake Butte des Mort each year. This is the same as allowing them to discharge 60 dump truck loads of sludge in the flowage --- an unacceptable situation. The sludge will carry hundreds of kinds of chemicals into the Lake, the Fox River and Green Bay.
3. Lack of Limits --- The permit sets no limits for Ammonia Nitrogen,
Total PCBs, or a whole host of other chemical contaminants (especially
heavy metals, solvents, pthalates, etc.) known to accompany typical waste
paper de-inking plants. A wide ranging analysis of the wastewater
recently detected chromium, copper, cyanide, chloroform, methylene chloride,
phenol, and endosulfan. At the very least, the permit must include regular
monitoring to determine whether the detection levels were accurate, or
understated. And the permit should include a requirement that if concentrations
above health standards are detected, this constitutes a violation and corrective
actions should be taken immediately.
These are serious toxins, including human carcinogens, being discharged
into a public water supply. The DNR needs to have a better picture of the
situation, and clear responses if problems are detected.
4. Chlorine Compounds --- Glatfelter uses chlorinated compounds in de-inking or bleaching of their pulp, and they recycle chlorine bleached waste paper. We object to the lack of any limits for the many kinds of chlorinated compounds which will unavoidably be released as part of this operation. We’re concerned that no chlorine, chlorinated resin acids, chlorpyrifos, or AOX samples were required. (AOX is a measurement of total chlorinated residues --- chlorine can form thousands of different compounds with other chemicals.) The chloroform releases show the presence of chlorinated chemicals, and the public should be told what those concentrations are, before the company is issued a permit with no limits for these chemicals. (And what are the air emissions of chloroform as a result of this permit?) Chloroform is a known cause of cancer in humans.
5. No Monitoring --- The permit does not require ANY monitoring for the chemicals of concern listed above. Therefore, the DNR will be guessing in the dark as to the potential impacts of this mill in the future. This means future permit reviews and river health studies will be much poorer because of the lack of historical data. Glatfelter is one of the most difficult polluters on the Fox River, and has been penalized for violations several times. They need to be tracked and monitored carefully, to allow prompt and effective enforcement actions and appropriate permit changes in the future.
6. Dioxin and Furan Samples Inadequate --- The permit requires Glatfelter to sample only one of the 79 kinds of dioxin. Many other kinds of dioxins, and the related furans, also have toxic properties and should also be monitored regularly. The company recycles bleached papers and its processes are undoubtedly contaminated with many kinds of dioxins and furans.
These are some of the most toxic man-made chemicals, and scientists have yet to discover any safe level of exposure to them.
7. Only One Sample Taken --- We object to the notion that one
chemical scan in 5 years is adequate to show the true chemical nature of
this company’s wastewater.
It is especially disturbing that this sample is collected by the company
itself, analyzed by the consultants of their choice, and the company has
weeks to prepare and clean-up its operations before the scheduled sampling
date. With millions of wastewater treatment dollars at stake,
the temptation is too high to risk allowing the company to “put on a good
face” for the test.
Instead, the DNR should collect several samples on several surprise
visits to get the true picture, and should randomly assign the samples
for analysis at a variety of independent laboratories, to ensure honesty.
It’s impossible for one sample in 5 years to have any statistical significance.
8. Flow Limits --- The permit should include maximum limits on wastewater flow quantities, and restrictions on flow during monitoring events, to prevent short term violations and to ensure accurate, undiluted samples.
9. Dilution is No Silution --- Little Lake Butte des Mort is not a true river, with full river flow. It’s a flowage lake, an impounded river with stagnant pockets on both sides of the main flow. It’s unhealthy to apply the usual river dilution standards (called “wasteload allocations”) to this stagnant water situation.
As last summer proved, the nutrient levels are clearly too high in Little
Lake Butte des Mort, the Fox River and Green Bay. Healthy water quality
is not being maintained at minimum standards. The gross algae blooms and
decomposition befouled the whole area, causing serious suffering to local
residents, and wildlife health problems as well. The phosphorus, nitrogen
and BOD (Biological Oxygen Demand) must be further restricted in this permit.
The proposed permit would give the company an “alternate phosphorus
concentration limit” of twice the recommended standard, claiming that they
need time to learn how much phosphorus they need to operate their biological
stage of wastewater treatment.
But after all these years they should already know, and if they don’t, they should be able to complete studies within a month --- they don’t deserve another 3 years for this study.
The ratio of total pollution flows to background water in Little Lake Butte des Mort is 1 to 22, so industrial flows are a significant portion of Little Lake Butte des Morts’ water. The permit analysis used flows downstream of Wisconsin Tissue Mills, which is not similar to Glatfelter’s discharge point upstream.
The flow is not “uni-directional” as claimed by DNR. To the west of Glatfelter’s the Lake widens and creates large pockets for backwash, as shown by the toxic “PCB Deposit A” --- a major deposit zone to the side of Glatfelter’s discharge pipe. This stagnant water should not be used for dilution.
10. Acutely Toxic --- This permit allows Glatfelter’s pollution
to be dilutedby Lake water 20 to 1 before it has to meet standards, because
they’re allowed a “Zone of Initial Dilution” (ZID).
This is a serious loophole in Wisconsin’s laws, which the paper industry
lobbied hard for. A ZID allows the discharge of acutely toxic water, on
the theory that the initial velocity of the water is too fast for fish
to exist in anyway. (!!) Yet this pipe is actually to a lake,
not a river --- making this ZID especially inappropriate. We also object
to DNR’s proposal to drop monitoring requirements because of the extreme
dilution allowed.
11. Acid/Alkaline Discharges --- We object to the lenient time frames allowed for violating Wisconsin’s pH standards for discharges. Fish and aquatic wildlife could be seriously injured by repeated acid or alkaline discharges.
It’s not enough to “report” violations, they should stop. They should not be “forgiven” for 7.5 hours of violations each month. They already have a very wide pH range to work within.
12. Mercury Must Be Limited We are very disturbed that mercury is not restricted in this permit. Instead, DNR requires only studies. But it isn’t enough to study such a serious issue. Glatfelter has known for years about the mercury problem in the Fox River --- they should not be given five more years to report additional study results. They should be required to meet limits immediately.
The DNR background document states: “reported effluent concentrations [of mercury] exceed the monthly average limits based on wildlife criterion and human health criterion.”
13. Bioassays Inadequate --- The proposed permit requires Glatfelter to perform “bioassays,” whichare tests where minnows and water fleas are exposed to different concentrations of wastewater. If a certain number of minnows or fleas die at certain concentrations, the company fails the tests.
These tests provide valuable information, but they are no substitute
for actual chemical monitoring, and they tell us nothing about accumulation
of toxic chemicals up the food chain or chemical effects on other wildlife
which may be more sensitive.
These bioassays are especially worrisome when they measure health effects
only after a 20 to 1 dilution of background water to wastewater. With such
a large volume discharge, acute and chronic mixing zones could be large,
permanent areas of toxic water in Little Lake Butte des Mort.
Glatfelter frequently failed these bioassays in the recent past, and
their laboratories lacked adequate quality controls on the tests.
The DNR admits that it is recommending bioassays because of a “reasonable
potential for water quality standards to be exceeded.” Later, DNR staff
make another statement: “... there is uncertainty regarding the potential
for fish and aquatic life toxicity.”
Given this potential and uncertainty, why is DNR granting the permit?
These statements highlight the need for increased chemical sampling and
stricter limits. Without chemical data, how will DNR or the Company begin
to address a toxicity problem if the company continues to fail the
bioassays?
14. Water Treatment Additives This permit should (but it doesn’t) spell out exactly which water treatment additives will be permitted in the cooling water (this is water used for cooling equipment, it’s not used in actual paper making processes.) These water additivies can include highly toxic “biocides” used to prevent zebra mussels, bacteria, or lime build-up in the pipes. DNR did not include any chemical limits in this proposed permit forcooling water “because these discharges are seasonal.” Yet, this is a public water supply used by people and wildlife all year. And some biocides include persistent chemicals which will accumulate downstream. Chemical discharges should be monitored and restricted all year. DNR needs better data before it can justify this part of the permit.
15. By-Pass Loopholes --- This permit gives approval for wastewater treatment bypasses, without penalty, as long as the DNR is notified promptly. In other words, the permit limits are meaningless.
Bypasses allow untreated wastewater to be discharged directly into Little Lake Butte des Morts.
16. Inadequate Public Notice
For this public notice to be useful and meaningful, it should include
total permitted discharges of all known chemicals, as well as all known
past discharges and violations under the permit which is to be replaced.
All chemical releases should be expressed in simple terms of pounds
or tons per year --- not in ml/l or other concentration standards which
are hard for most members of the public to understand. Does this permit
represent an increase or decrease in discharges? How can such basic information
be left out?
Conclusion
This industry is requesting the privilege to discharge it’s contaminated
wastes onto farmland which produces food for human consumption, and into
a public waterbody which is used for drinking water supplies, fish eating,
duck eating and other human consumption. We believe the public must be
given more information in a more understandable form --- so we can easily
evaluate whether the company deserves this privilege.
Other Permits Also Weak
We’ve received a number of 5-year permit renewal notices recently, and they all appeat to be as weak as this one. Something is clearly wrong at Gov. Thompson’s new version of the DNR.
We encourage you to write a brief letter to the DNR expressing your concerns about this permit. (Refer to Wis. Pollutant Discharge Elimination Permit # WI-0001121-6 for P.H. Glatfelter Company).
Mr. Rick Reichardt - WT/2
Wisconsin DNR
101 S. Webster Street
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, WI 53707-7921
Public Hearing
We expect the announcement of a public hearing within this month. Please attend and help show support for clean water.
Can you help furnish key parts of our new office? Donations are tax-deductible. We’ve received two desks, a lamp, and an answering machine,but we still need:
Computers & Printers
Copier (especially
duplexer)
Plain Paper Fax
Office phones
Office chairs & Chalk
Board
Tables and stackable chairs
Quality electronic typewriter
Lots of Shelves
Several File Cabinets
Vertical Literature Displays
Miscellaneous Supplies
We’re very pleased to announce that we have a new formal office space in downtown Green Bay. We found a very economical 5-room space, on the street mall level, in the East Port Center, at 1270 Main Street, Suite 120. It will take a month or so to switch all our mail and phone information --- so our current contacts will still work.
Initially, the office will be open weekday afternoons from 12:00 noon to 3:30 p.m. or by appointment.
The benefits for Clean Water Action Council will be tremendous:
1. Reference Library --- This will be a great spot for setting up a library of publications, factsheets, file cabinets, and possibly in the future, Internet access for researching environmental issues.
Our Executive Director, Rebecca Katers, currently works from her home, in a large basement room overflowing with a large 15 year collection of files, books, Clean Water records, newsletters, and other publications. This information needs to be more accessible.
2. Working Space --- Desks and large table spaces will be availablefor group meetings or laying out work projects. We have needed a better space for processing our mailings and displays.
3. Public Contacts --- An office will provide a formal place for
citizens to come with questions about key environmental issues.
We already serve as an informal referral service from our homes.
We’ll also be better able to serve the large number of students who contact
us each year for research papers and projects.
4. Door-to-Door Headquarters --- The office will be a formal gathering and training spot for our Door-to-Door Organizers and their Director, Jack Young. We have a large crew of great people who are helping to build our membership and improve public outreach efforts. They currently work out of Jack’s home.
As you can imagine, we’re anxious to provide a more normal office atmostphere, while reducing the burden on Jack’s private life. (The crews include some people who even work weekends.)
5. Merging Functions --- We feel its important to bring all the Katers’ equipment and files together with our Door-to-Door Organizing effort, to streamline communication and use of equipment.
6. Volunteer Opportunities --- Under our current arrangement, it’s awkward to organize consistent volunteer efforts --- but with a large, formal space with regular hours and staffing we’ll be better able to coordinate helpers.
Our school intern program could also expand if we have a place for interns to work.
by Jack Lohman
How would you feel if you found out the U.S. Government was taxing you $1670 per year to offset the cost of political campaigns? Pretty mad, I bet.
In effect, Congress is doing just that by allowing special interests to fund the American electoral system.
In the 1996 federal election cycle, special interests invested over $800 million in politicians --- and every year Congress doles out $167 billion in corporate welfare to campaign contributors.
Your share of the excess government spending is slightly under $1700 --- spent on federal grants, subsidies and tax credits. Over the two year election cycle, for every dollar special interests give to political campaigns they get $400 back from taxpayers.
In any other country they’d call that bribery. Only in America do we call it “free political speech” by campaign contributors.
The only solution is to have the electoral system financed by those who politicians should owe their allegiance --- the taxpayers.
It would cost each of us about $10 per year. That’s the only way to stop money from flowing from those who want laws written to those who write them.
(Jack Lohman is the president and CEO of a Milwaukee company. This radio commentary is reprinted with his permission.)
Reporter Punished for Criticizing Governor?
An article in January’s Milwaukee Magazine reports that Dan Bice, one of the most tenacious newspaper reporters covering activities of the Legislature and Governor, has been reassigned because the Governor disliked his stories. The Governor was quoted as telling Bice’s employer, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, to “call off the dogs.”
Mr. Bice had exposed the Governor’s questionable trips, paid for by lobbyists with Phillip Morris tobacco company --- and in an amazing week-long series this fall he wrote about numerous connections between the Governor’s campaign contributors and the Governor’s resulting policies.
This is frightening evidence that we are no longer served by a “free press” which helps watchdog the activities of our government.
Our democracy is in danger.
|
|
|
|
|