Meet DENNIS DECKER
Candidate for Alderperson, District 3, Muskego
Hello! Allow me to introduce myself.
I am a candidate for Alderperson in District 3, Muskego, and grew up in a small town (Milford) in downstate Illinois, located 100 miles straight south of Chicago along the Indiana state line. My family was in the livestock business—we were cattle and hog buyers from area farmers—and we also farmed. As you can see, my roots are small town, rural; not big city.
At the end of September of 2018, I moved to Muskego from Libertyville, Illinois, where I had been living and working in the corporate world for about 18 years. Since moving to Muskego, I did contract work for Abbott Labs and SC Johnson, then 2 years as an employee for Airgas during the pandemic, and then another contract assignment for Harley-Davidson. Currently, I am the trustee for our family farmland trust.
My family has had some civic involvement. My father served on our local school board, was a bank director at a small community bank, and served on the advisory board for Parkland College (Champaign, IL) in its early years. My dad’s first cousin (which I believe would be my second cousin) played a major role in the development of Cary, IL, which is only 33 miles southeast of Lake Geneva. Although to the best of my knowledge, my cousin, Tom Decker, did not hold an elected office in Cary, he did donate the land on which the Cary Area Public Library sits. In fact, the library building bears his name.
My own political involvement began many years ago when I had the privilege of working as a Congressional Intern on Capitol Hill for an Illinois Congressman. That was an experience I will never forget, and I value the lessons learned back then. What stands out in particular from those days was the highest priority put on constituent communications, especially the mail. Every letter was read, regardless of whether it was neatly typed on a typewriter or scribbled on a postcard; and every letter was answered.
As family members did before me, I am hoping to serve my community as well. Hence, my run for Alderperson in District 3, Muskego.
Are the citizens being heard?
While gathering signatures for my nominating petition (thought it best to go for the maximum required rather than the minimum), I received feedback making me question how effectively the citizens of the district were being served. For example, there was a neighborhood group who took the step of launching their own petition drive to address a parking problem in their area. Another individual had persistent noise problems from an inconsiderate neighbor. And then another group with lakefront homes was preparing to sue the city over relocation of the seaweed-cutting machine to minimize the racket created when operating.
In neither of these instances was an alderperson involved.
In years past, a previous alderperson had advocated for his constituents in such a way that he brought suit against the city for damages caused by flood waters that could not drain properly because a city-owned channel was clogged. Having seen firsthand good constituent service in a Congressional office, I believe District 3 needs the same kind of advocacy so the citizen is not standing alone.
It is noteworthy (and not necessarily in a positive way) that Muskego has had at least a couple of citizen-driven recall efforts in the last 25 to 30 years. This knowledge, coupled with other comments received during signature-gathering, makes me think that citizens are feeling they are not being heard by their officials. Much of this feeling appears to tie into city planning.
Identifying a problem. . .
Muskego has two entities tasked with city planning. One of these, the Community Development Authority, can include 5 community residents, each appointed to a 4-year term. However, this organization is currently dormant.
The second entity, the Plan Commission, consists of the mayor (an automatic seat), one alderman (appointed by the mayor to a 1-year term), and 5 citizens, each with staggered 3-year terms.
Five citizen members having appointed 3-year terms is problematic, because 1) they are appointed (thereby little accountability to voters) with a term one year longer than an elected alderperson, and 2) they are not term-limited. Furthermore, there is no limit on the consecutive terms that an aldermanic representative can serve on the Commission.
By virtue of the nature of its work, the Plan Commission is one of the most powerful elements of city government. Its present configuration, in my view, can give rise to a dangerous developer/municipal alliance with the potential of becoming a shadow government rivaling the power of even the Common Council.
The present membership of the Plan Commission illustrates one way this risk can begin to assert itself. We have the same aldermanic representative completing 7 terms, one citizen serving a fourth term, another a third term, another 2 terms plus a year, and the others a second term.
It is not my intention to “call anyone out” or to impugn anyone’s integrity. Rather, I prefer to assume the best in others. Nevertheless, the danger inherent in the present situation should not be ignored.
A “Modest Proposal”. . .
We need to sunset the Community Development Authority. The 4-year appointive terms are problematic in and of themselves. Though dormant now, we do not need to see this entity revived.
We need to reform the Plan Commission:
An observation. . .and something to consider. . .
Tom L. Johnson, an early 20th century Cleveland (Ohio) mayor once said:
“I believe in public ownership of all public service monopolies for the same reason that I believe in the municipal ownership of waterworks, of parks, of schools. I believe in the municipal ownership of these monopolies because if you do not own them, they will in time own you. They will corrupt your politics, rule your institutions, and finally destroy your liberties.”
I would like to see the city develop new revenue sources. Accordingly, I propose that the city explore the building of a municipally-owned broadband service. A recently passed infrastructure law set aside $41 billion to develop city-run broadband services throughout the U.S. A quality, well-run, and competitively-priced broadband service could provide a new income source for the city and be helpful in attracting new business and industry.