As some of you are no doubt already aware, I was selected this past February to participate in the Wisconsin Rural Leadership Program. This 2-year program attempts to strengthen Wisconsin communities through preparing leaders as catalysts for change. Because one of the main goals of the program is to form a network of people interested in leadership issues, and because I've received so much support already from family and friends, I decided to do an email journal as I go through the program. You're receiving this email because I've taken the liberty of signing you up for this journal. You can expect to receive emails about every other month, following each of our 11 seminars over the next two years. If you wish to stop receiving these emails, please hit Reply, type remove and send the message - you will be automatically removed from the list. If you choose to keep receiving the email, and would like more detail on any topics covered, please don't hesitate to drop me an email. I look forward to any feedback you might care to offer!

Dennis Deery
dennis@irose.com
 

The Wisconsin Rural Leadership Program is a 2-year, seminar-based program offered by the University of Wisconsin Extension. The goal of the program is to educate people on the issues facing rural Wisconsin, and to prepare them to act as leaders within their communities. The program consists of a total of 11 seminars. Eight of these seminars will be instate, each lasting four days. There is a regional seminar that will take place somewhere in the United States, lasting one week. There will be a one-week seminar in Washington, DC, and an international seminar lasting two weeks, for a total of about 55 days together. Each seminar will focus on a broad topic area, and consists of a combination of lecture and hands-on participation.

The program selects a group of roughly 30 people for each two year program, with only one group in the program at a time. Participants must apply to the program, then interview with a panel consisting of program staff, alumni and board members. Our group, Group X, is the tenth group to participate in the program over it's 20-year history. Participants are responsible for about 1/3 of the total cost of the program, as with most state university programs.

I had been considering going back to school for some time, but didn't really feel like I wanted to quit working to go back to school full time. I learned about the WRLP last fall after reading about it in our state senator's Blue Book biography. When I looked up the program's web site, I knew immediately that this was a good starter step for going back to school - it would expose me to a wide variety of experiences, giving me a better feel for what I might want to study further. Unfortunately, I had learned about the program only about 1 week before the application deadline for Group X. After a weekend thinking about it, and much encouragement from Kathleen, I decided I would apply. An encouraging phone call from JoAnn Stormer, the program director, was the last push I needed.

The application required some considerable discussion of issues facing rural Wisconsin and possible solutions. I started work immediately, and as I wrote the application I felt more and more that I was making the right decision in applying. I was fortunate in getting great recommendation letters from 3 friends who were willing to write them with no notice. I was notified in November that I had been selected for an interview, which took place in January. This was an hour-long discussion with the program director, 2 program alumni, and one board member. I think this was probably the first interview I've had where I really enjoyed myself, coming up with answers to some really tough questions on rural issues. Finally, in February I was informed that I had been selected for Group X.

If anyone would like to read my application, shoot me an email and I'll send you a copy. Its mostly a discussion of issues that I see facing rural Wisconsin, and what we might do about them. I think its some of the best writing I've ever done, though you may find some of the topics a bit dull.

The orientation program was a combination of lectures about the program, and games designed to get our group interacting. Details about the seminars facing us were doled out in small measure. The program director, JoAnn Stormer, informed us all that we would be kept in suspense about our international and regional seminar destinations. These would not be decided until later in the program, though we did learn that our predecessor group had traveled to Selma, Alabama for a civil rights seminar, and would travel to China for their international seminar. A tentative agenda for our first seminar in Madison showed that our schedule would be jam-packed, with lots of interesting speakers.

In between games and lectures, we had downtime to get to know each other, time which was, of course, spent in the hotel bar. The more I got to know different members of our group, the more I was impressed by the program staff's skill in selecting participants. There are an incredible variety of personalities in the group, but I can honestly say that I enjoyed chatting with everyone. Political and policy discussions came up over and over again, and I was amazed at everyone's willingness to broach what many people consider sensitive subjects. Not a single argument erupted, instead everyone seemed eager to listen to other viewpoints and opinions. Overall, the orientation weekend left me feeling very excited about the upcoming seminars.

In preparation for our Madison seminar, we were asked to collect information about land-use issues, and to discuss some of these issues with our state senator or representative. My state senator, Sheila Harsdorf, herself an alumni of the program, was kind enough to come to Menomonie to have lunch with me. It was a pleasure getting some one-on-one time with Senator Harsdorf and learning more about her day-to-day responsibilities as a senator. Most importantly, in this encounter and those to come in Madison, I think all our group members learned that it is important to build relationships with our elected representatives, that it is easy to stay in touch with the people making policy decisions that affect us.

Our Madison seminar began on Tuesday evening with a brief discussion of our agenda for the coming days. We then heard a great talk from Professor Steve Born of UW-Madison's Urban and Regional Planning Department. Professor Born has in the past held several positions in state government, and had a lot of good things to say about the current state of politics in Wisconsin. His message would be repeated by a number of speakers over the following days - the state's political process is broken, but it can be repaired.

Our day Wednesday began with a 6:45 breakfast (ouch!) so that we could be in the capitol for a 7:45 talk with Governor McCallum. He spoke for about 15 minutes, halting at one point because he'd been informed that there was a member of the press in the room. His presentation was less than inspiring.

The rest of the day Wednesday was filled with a tour of the capitol and talks from people in various segments of state government. Our speakers included the state budget director, a staff attorney with the Legislative Council, Supreme Court Justice David Prosser, an assistant attorney general, and a DNR staff member. Each of these speakers filled us in on the role of their agency or department in state government. While all the talks were very informative, Justice Prosser's presentation was the most engaging. It might be hard to imagine a Supreme Court justice running around, waving his arms, and getting down on his knees, but Justice Prosser did all of that while explaining to us how the Supreme Court works. He showed incredible enthusiasm for his job. As a former member of the state Assembly, he also expressed dismay at the state of affairs in Wisconsin politics, but like most other speakers, also expressed hope that things can be turned around.

Wednesday evening the Dane County alumni of the WRLP hosted a picnic for our group at Vilas Park. It was a blast getting to know some of the past participants in the program, and hearing stories about what lies ahead for us. Like Tuesday night, Wednesday night ended with members of our group scattered up and down State Street in various bars.

Thursday morning we learned more about Wisconsin's Smart Growth law. Brian Ohm, a UW-Extension professor who wrote the Smart Growth law, gave us a brief introduction to the law and it's history. Next we heard from Representative Mike Powers from Albany, who was a chief sponsor of the Smart Growth law. Representative Powers is a UW-Platteville alumni, graduating just a couple of years ahead of me. He gave a very good (and entertaining) outline of how the law was put together and the horse-trading required to get such a law passed. Finally we heard from lobbyists from 4 different groups that were involved in development of the Smart Growth law. This was a panel of 4 speakers I'd seen a number of times before, as they generally are the folks asked to speak at any Smart Growth event. Dave Cieslewicz, Executive Director of 1000 Friends of Wisconsin, an organization I belong to, was entertaining as always.

Thursday afternoon and Friday morning got us out of classroom mode and into the hands-on portion of this seminar. The seminar leaders chose three issues related to land use that we would examine. The issues were factory farming, incorporation of towns, and the power line currently being planned in northern Wisconsin. We were divided into six smaller groups. Each smaller group was assigned to one side of one of the three issues. I was appointed leader of the group opposing the Arrowhead-Weston powerline. Our assignment was to learn about our issue, then Friday morning we would have to testify in front of a mock legislative hearing about our issue.

Thursday afternoon each small group interviewed three people involved in their issue. Our group interviewed two state representatives, one opposed to the line and one for the line. Our third presenter was the director of the Citizen's Utility Board, a third party in the powerline dispute whose goal is to protect the interests of the citizens. Our task was to interview these people to learn as much about the issue as we could. For two days we had been hearing from government officials about their difficulty in making policy because of the competing interests and unclear information available. Our interviews Thursday allowed us to see this in action, as we tried to sort out the conflicting information we were given.

Thursday evening during dinner we heard from Kathleen Falk, the Dane County Executive and current gubernatorial candidate. After rushing through dinner, we broke out into our small groups to prepare our testimony for Friday morning. Our group of five sat on the capitol grounds hammering out a speech for our testimony. We worked very well together, and came up with a great speech (copies available if you're interested!). By 11:30 we were all pretty wiped out and called it a night, knowing we had to be ready to go at 8:00 Friday morning.

And ready to go we were! Breakfast Friday morning included a lot of trash-talking between opposition groups. We drew fourth position for the testimony, following our opposition. This was pretty helpful to us, because we were able to stick some last-minute facts into our presentation to dispute facts our opposition presented. Our testimony went pretty well, with all of our group members chiming in. We were able to come up with pretty decent answers for all the questions the panel had for us.

It was really interesting seeing the different approaches taken by all six groups. Our mock legislative panel, three lobbyists who have lots of experience in testifying before the legislature, gave us all kudos for doing a fine job. The panel leader pointed out that we had given them an excellent teaching case, because each group used a different approach, from sarcasm, to hard facts, to emotional appeals. The critique given by the panel was very helpful, and I know I learned a lot about speaking to sway people on an issue. Our biggest compliment (or insult, depending on your viewpoint), was when one of the panel members told us "There's a lot of people in the capitol in Armani suits charging an arm and a leg to lobby that don't do as good a job as you folks did this morning - so go get yourself some Armani suits and go to it."

During lunch on Friday, we took a bus tour of Middleton Hills, a neighborhood development in Middleton that's designed like an early-1900's neighborhood, with narrow streets, small lots, and integrated shopping with living quarters above. The style, called New Urbanism, uses considerably less land than traditional suburban neighborhoods, and is more pedestrian-friendly. Lots in Middleton Hills are selling like hotcakes, proving that there is a demand for more traditional developments. Since Kathleen and I lived in Riverside, Illinois, a Chicago suburb, I've firmly believed that how towns and neighborhoods are designed can really impact quality of life in huge ways. Riverside, surrounded by run-down suburbs like Cicero and Berwyn, was like an oasis with little crime, mild traffic, and friendly shopping. It's a pleasure to see developments like Middleton Hills being well-received.

Friday wrapped up with a brief intro to our next seminar, then a session where we all had a chance to express our thoughts about this seminar. In those comments, and the emails that flowed in the days following the seminar, I think our entire group came away with the feeling that this program really is going to be a life-changing experience. Now, three weeks later, we're all still exchanging emails, and the excitement seems to be building for our next seminar.