Policy, not residency, sets taxes
STANDING ON A PRINICPLE
can sometimes be an organization’s downfall.
Fortunately, the Sheboygan County Board of Supervisors avoided being the latest example of that last week when they voted to loosen residency restrictions for department heads and managers.
On the surface, it seems like a reasonable requirement to have the county’s most visible employees live in the county as well. But other than for appearance’s sake, there is no reasonable argument in favor of such a residency requirement, and many good ones against it.
More than requiring that department heads live in the county, taxpayers are better served by having the best qualified people hired to run the various departments of their county government.
Often times, the best qualified person has a valid reason for not living within the borders of Sheboygan County, be they personal, family, financial or otherwise.
There is nothing magical about the borders of Sheboygan County that makes a person a better, more responsible, more fiscally wise manager of a county department than they are if they live outside the county.
You don’t need to look any further than Rocky Knoll, just outside the city of Plymouth, for an example of that. Administrator Michael Taubenheim — who lives in neighboring Fond du Lac County for family reasons — has done a magnificent job in his brief tenure there in reducing costs and expenses at the county’s only remaining health care facility, saving substantial amounts of taxpayer dollars through prudent fiscal management.
Those who argued for a residency requirement said those who run county government should pay the same taxes as county residents do so that they keep a lid on spending. That’s a specious argument and works for appearance sake only.
Supervisor Michael Ogea summed it up perfectly when he pointed out that the people directly responsible for setting spending and tax levels are required to live in the county. It is the elected members of the County Board who set policies that lead to the budget and tax rates, which are also set and adopted by the County Board. That is why they are our elected representatives, to keep an eye on spending and taxes and keep them within reason.
We’ve seen that happen over the past decade or so, where County Boards have set a budget policy of holding down or reducing spending, the tax levy and the tax rate, and department heads — whether they live in the county or not — have hewn to that directive and met those goals.
It has happened in the past — and likely will again in the future — when county spending and taxes have risen too precipitously for their constituents’ liking that a number of supervisors have been turned out at the next election, which is the way it should be.
Good ideas, and good management, know no boundaries and are not enhanced by living on one side of a line or the other. The County Board was right to recognize that.
At issue: County residency policy Bottom line: Board made right choice
