Did Mayor Paul Soglin play the Common Council with an ingenious political ploy?
That's how some council members felt after last week's budget battle with the mayor. Soglin -- who faces at least four challengers in next April's reelection bid -- was threatening to veto the budget unless the council amended it to include an extra half percent raise for non-police and non-fire employees. He also wanted the council to lower the capital budget by at least $20 million.
Most of the council members balked at his demands. The mayor backed down on his veto threat, but he also didn't sign the spending plan, letting it take effect without his approval.
Even though the mayor didn't get what he wanted, it's hard to see how he came out a loser. He pushed for a tiny raise for city employees, and some of his opponents -- including Ald. Scott Resnick, a leading challenger for mayor -- voted against it.
Former Ald. Brenda Konkel calls it this way: "Maybe the mayor outsmarted them, but he handed them something they could have voted for and felt good about."
The Capital Times editorial page, which is generally friendly to the mayor, painted Soglin as the grownup: "Soglin was ready to continue sorting things out, but the council majority dug in its heels. The majority missed an opportunity to make valid and fiscally responsible adjustments that were proposed by the mayor and some of their fellow members."
But many on the council -- including some supporters -- were left with a bitter feeling that he manipulated them for political gain.
"There's clearly political motivation going on here," says Ald. Lisa Subeck, who has endorsed the mayor's reelection bid. "I don't think it's right to make our city staff pawns in any political game."
Adds Subeck: "I'm very disappointed and upset with the mayor with this."
The Common Council first approved the budget -- including a $283.1 million operating budget and a $264.7 million capital budget -- in the early morning hours of Nov. 12. It was unusual for the council to spend just one night on budget deliberations. It usually takes two or three nights.
The next day, Soglin was threatening to veto the budget. Initially, council leadership -- president Chris Schmidt and pro tem Denise DeMarb -- appeared to have worked out a compromise. However, numerous alders protested the deal.
"There was a palace revolt," says Ald. Mark Clear. "People were really upset."
Soglin held a Nov. 14 press conference outlining his demands. Primarily, he wanted to reduce the capital budget by at least $20 million and increase pay for non-police and non-fire workers. Soglin's proposed budget called for giving these employees a 1-1/2% raise, and the mayor wanted to increase that to 2%. (Fire and police employees are getting a 3% raise).
While many council members support the concept, they were outraged by the mayor's tactics, feeling he played the moment for political gain.
Ald. Marsha Rummel notes he could have asked for pay raises during the council's initial deliberations on Nov. 11. There was a moment at the end of those deliberations, she says, when it seemed like he might.
"It looked like he was calculating whether to say [something] or get some drama out of it," says Rummel. "I felt disrespected that he chose the drama."
Nevertheless, Rummel still voted in favor of the extra half percent pay hike. She was joined by Alds. David Ahrens, Paul Skidmore, John Strasser and Ledell Zellers. The rest of the council voted it down.
Subeck was at a conference and not at the meeting, but says she would have voted against it. "If the mayor was genuine about raising pay he would have and should have been raising the issue throughout the budget process," says Subeck, who was elected to the state Assembly in November but will serve on the council through April 21. "That makes me think there was political motivations behind it."
Although clearly unhappy with the mayor, she says she still supports his reelection bid.
One of the mayor's opponents, Ald. Scott Resnick, argues that Soglin's behavior is evidence the city needs a new mayor. He says Soglin is hypocritical in pushing for pay increases, while at the same time complaining about increased debt and championing costly projects like Judge Doyle Square.
In a statement released the day after the meeting, Resnick said, "The mayor placed blame on a number of people last night for the state of our deficit: the council, former Mayor [Dave] Cieslewicz, County Executive Joe Parisi, and the state and federal governments. The only person he left out was himself."
Soglin declines to comment on the matter through his campaign spokeswoman, Melissa Mulliken, who writes in an email: "The mayor's concern was this budget's effect on the people of Madison, and the city's future, in 2015 and in subsequent years."
Local historian Stu Levitan, who is chairman of the Landmarks Commission, sees the spat as the beginning of the 2015 campaign cycle. Aside from Resnick, Soglin is also being challenged by former Ald. Bridget Maniaci, former Dane County Supv. Richard Brown and activist Christopher Daly.
"[It] will figure heavily in the mayoral campaign," says Levitan, who considers Resnick the leading challenger. "[It] was certainly the opening salvo of Resnick v. Soglin."
He anticipates both sides spinning the moment in their favor.
"From the mayor's perspective, he can say 'I proposed this very simple proposal, and the council voted against it,'" Levitan says. "Resnick campaigns that the council hates the mayor so much they won't even go along with this simple proposal. 'I'm the guy who can bring everyone together.'"