Severson vs. Farrow: Ugly

If you paid any attention to Waukesha County budgets and politics, you'd know that the Sheriff (Severson) has had difficulties with the County Exec (Farrow).  In short, Farrow doesn't want to give Severson the money Severson requests.

Severson has done his part.  This from a 2022 article:

...Over the past 10 years, the department has eliminated 14 positions, Gumm said. ...

...As inflation increases the cost of gas, oil, cars, ammunition and more, the department's budget needs to increase to continue as normal, Severson said. However, every year, the gap between how much the department has and how much it needs grows, he said, which is why this year's struggle to stay within budget doesn't come as a surprise. ...

Farrow sees the numbers differently.

"From 2016 to 2022, the sheriff’s department has received triple the amount of tax levy of the next nearest department," Farrow said in a prepared statement sent to the Journal Sentinel. "Last year, the county received $1.7 million in new tax levy. The sheriff’s department received $825,000 of that new levy." 

But that's playing a numbers game, Paul.

...However, the gap between how much money it is given and how much it needs is steadily increasing, [Severson] said. 

"It's true that every year (the county) gives us more money, more dollars, and we do get the most of that increase — but it's also true that it's not enough," Severson said. ...

Which leads to the current contretemps.  A deputy shot and killed a citizen; the deputy was in fear of his life.  The Sheriff's department does not have body-cams, which means that the deputy's word is final, barring evidence to the contrary or which casts doubt on his testimony.

When asked, Severson said that not having body-cams is 'a financial matter.' 

Farrow fired a howitzer in response:

...To date, the Waukesha County Sheriff’s Department has yet to utilize this technology. Should the Sheriff come forward with a budget request to begin using this technology, we would consider the financial implications of that decision. Any change into the County’s policy on the use of cameras would begin with our elected Sheriff....

(Note well Farrow's weaseling 'we would consider the financial implications' language.)

Farrow has campaigned on a mantra-like "reduce taxes and spending" loudly and clearly.  That "reduce tax" noise is what he learned as a Pubbie, which always sounds great until the rubber meets the road, like it does in this case.  Severson's department has taken on more and more responsibility, and factors outside its control such as fuel and the cost of vehicles, are eating budget dollars.  (Those costs and some others also forced closure of the Huber dormitory.)

Maybe Farrow should 'consider the financial implications' of increasing the Sheriff's budget and decreasing his parks-and-rec and other "nice to have" stuff.  And the Sheriff should very publicly make a request for body-and-vehicle cameras, including costs to install AND costs to maintain.

That's the way to hold a debate, gentlemen.