Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4hhp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-18T11:33:26.000Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Progress of County Government Reform in Wisconsin

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Lee S. Greene
Lee S. Greene
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Recent developments in Wisconsin in the field of county and town government indicate clearly that reform elements working within the electorate are not yet sufficiently powerful to overcome the forces of rural conservatism, political inertia and ignorance, and professional office-holding. Here, as elsewhere, county government remains in the grip of shrewd and stubborn opponents of reorganization. The forces of reform are not, on that account, to be under-rated. On the contrary, they show increasing evidences of realization of the nature of their function and the difficulties of their problem. Political education is being undertaken by a variety of agencies, and there exists ample indication of a genuine growth of popular interest in the needs of the state and its subdivisions.

Type
Rural Local Government
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 30 , Issue 1 , February 1936 , pp. 96 - 102
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1936

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Milwaukee county was the first to adopt a county zoning ordinance (1927). Oneida county, the first rural county to take such action, did not follow until 1933. A county zoning ordinance exists in Manitowoc county, but as it is not designed to meet the problem of the forest region, it is not included in this study.

2 Rowlands, , “Rural Zoning Ordinances,” Wisconsin Public Employee, Nov., 1935Google Scholar; Greene, , “Rural Zoning in Wisconsin,” The National County, June, 1935Google Scholar.

3 Sometimes only two.

4 In the spring elections of 1935, West Allis voters reversed their previous verdict, although in this case the questions were deliberately framed so as to make the danger of absorption by Milwaukee city seem imminent. Milwaukee Sentinel, April 3, 1935. A resolution for a constitutional amendment to open the way for a city-county merger in Milwaukee has also been defeated. City and county officials are doing what they can to advance the merger of individual functions, such as park and election control, as between county and city. Milwaukee Sentinel, Dec. 2, 18, 1934.

5 Governor Schmedeman.

6 Including the Federation of Women's Clubs, the Wisconsin Congress of Parents and Teachers, the Wisconsin Teachers' Association, the State Department of Public Instruction, and others.

7 This procedure before the commission was provided for in a separate act, passed later, without affecting the problem of the size of the unit. In the expectation that the federal government will retire from direct relief, five counties, all predominantly rural, have decided to abandon the county unit system.

8 Similar bills have previously been defeated. In this connection, it is interesting to note that a $5,000,000 relief bill passed by the legislature in the spring of 1935 provided for administration of work relief and direct relief programs by local units of government exclusively. This provision was vetoed by Governor LaFollette, who cited Harry Hopkins' disapproval of local administration of relief without centralized control. Capital Times, March 15, 1935. This is especially interesting politically since the governor's Progressive party contains some of the state's most militant particularists.

9 In which the capital city is located.

10 Capital Times, Feb. 14, 21, 22, 1935.

11 Ibid., Feb. 27, Mar. 29, 1935. An act of the 1935 session permits county boards to place deputy sheriffs under the merit system.

12 Amended in 1923 and 1933.

13 Burnett, 1923; Rusk, 1928; Vilas, 1933; Douglas and Sawyer, 1934.

14 The commission form had been a political issue in Dane county.

15 State ex rel. Adams v. Radcliffe, 216 Wis. 356, 257 N.W. 171.

16 In some counties, there has been discussion of the project of creating utility districts as provided for under the 1931 law. The voters of parts of Polk and Burnett counties have acted to establish such a power district. The proposed district having been approved by the Public Service Commission, motion to acquire existing utilities in the district has begun. A utility group has challenged in court the validity of the referendum vote on the establishment of the district.