LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Eagle River voters to consider term limits

Letter to the Editor:

On Nov. 3, 2026, ‘We the People’ of Eagle River have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to bring change by voting ‘Yes’ on a citizen-led term limits referendum.

Term limits have many advantages. They can restore accountability and emphasize public service in elected offices. According to the National League of Cities, term limits can bring new officials and perspectives to a small city, curb entrenched power, and reduce incumbency advantages and corruption risks. Term limits can also foster greater citizen participation.

Eagle River’s Term Limits referendum would limit mayors and alderpersons to eight consecutive years in office (i.e., four, two-year terms), requiring a break before the same people could run again. The measure would apply retroactively, counting terms served before its passage; the full terms appear on the ballot. 

An attorney hired by Eagle River found the referendum’s terms and wording legally sufficient. The petition followed all the necessary rules. Fact sheets for voters in October 2026 addressed questions they raised last summer as signatures were collected to put the issue on the ballot. One of the questions: “Who would this immediately affect?”

If passed, the referendum would immediately prevent two Eagle River residents — Kim Schaffer (an incumbent since 2003) and Jerry Burkett (alderperson from 1997 to 2026) — from seeking the mayor’s office or another aldermanic seat in 2027. If it fails, Burkett would be eligible to run for mayor or alderperson in Eagle River starting in 2027, as would Schaffer. Burkett alluded to city referendum terms during his chair comments at the Sept. 22 Vilas County Board meeting. 

City residents on all sides of the city and of all political leanings signed the term-limits petition, with some saying, ‘We need this,’ ‘We are tired of seeing the same people,’ and, ‘Thank you for doing this.’  Per Wisconsin law, voters not only get to decide who serves in office, but for how long. 

Local officials and their agents have tried to thwart success of the Eagle River’s term limits referendum. An area voter accurately sized up their words, as she signed the petition: “Of course they (Eagle River) would be against this... why would the status quo be for this? 

Only the city knows why it routinely appoints alderpersons without advertising vacant seats that invite residents to formally apply, even though the state identifies advertising vacancies and opening them to all constituents as a best practice. Instead, newly appointed alderpersons in Eagle River have reported they receive a phone call. Voila, these hand-picked people are seated at the common council table. Allowing everyone to apply ensures under-represented groups — such as working class residents and younger generations, an opportunity to hold public office. 

Going forward, Eagle River should not oppose electing alderpersons ‘At Large’ -- a change that would give voters more candidates to choose from. ‘At Large’ Aldermanic elections mean candidates could live anywhere in the city, not just within specific wards, and voters would pick their representatives from this broader field, just as they do for the mayoral seat. At recent common council meetings, two alderpersons pointed out that they had to give up their seats after moving to a different part of Eagle River. In a city of fewer than 1,700 residents, common sense says there is no need to carve the community into tiny wards.

“Institutional knowledge” is what Eagle River leaders attempt to argue as the advantage of keeping multi decades-long officials and not having term limits. But does longevity in office equate with better decision making in the City of Eagle River? People who regularly attend public meetings can attest that it is often the newer alderpersons who make better decisions for residents, notably evident within the U-Haul storage unit hearings, as well as the Riverside Park debacle. 

During the 2026 U-Haul hearings and votes, new Alderperson Vic Washelesky (elected in 2025) made a motion that was seconded by Alderperson Dan Dumas (elected in 2025) to deny the U-Haul conditional use permit request to construct units totaling almost 52,000 square feet while other alderpersons were not there or voted for it. Jerry Burkett (29 years as alderperson), did not attend the May, June, or July 2026 Planning Commission meetings or the July 14 Common Council meeting, while Kim Schaffer (23 years as alderperson), voted against Washelesky’s motion to deny U-Haul a conditional use permit. 

Former engineer Washelesky attended the city’s Planning Commission meetings and the July council meeting, although he was not a commission member. He identified unresolved elevation errors in U-Haul’s conditional use permit plans and noted that MSA recommendations had not been adequately addressed. He also expressed serious concerns that approving the large structure could cause water runoff and have negative impact on the value of nearby businesses. Washelesky used professional experience, attention to detail, and common sense to assess the situation. 

Institutional knowledge by long-term alderpersons also was not evident during the public hearings before the city’s Planning Commission and Common Council meetings in January 2026, when the community voiced strong opposition to the rezoning of Riverside Park from Park/Recreational to Residential, setting the stage for it to be sold and developed by Vilas County. City Alderperson Jerry Burkett attended the Jan. 8, 2026, Planning Commission park rezoning/development hearing as the representative for petitioner Vilas County. Kim Schaffer voted for the rezoning of Riverside Park from Park/Recreational to Residential, both as planning commission member and as city alderperson. 

It was a new alderperson, Vic Washelesky, who voted ‘no’ to the rezone of property at Riverside Park and believed there were no commonalities in Ordinance 601 and Resolution 1072. Washelesky did not believe the zoning amendment was consistent with the comprehensive plan as the plan listed it as a park, and he did not believe it was compatible with surrounding land uses. Indeed, the decision of Eagle River to approve Ordinance No. 601 was unlawful under Wisconsin Statute §66.1001 (3) which requires that as of Jan. 1, 2010, official mapping ordinances, local subdivision ordinances, and city zoning ordinances must be consistent with a local government’s comprehensive plan. The city’s comprehensive plan included Riverside Park as Park/Recreational, not Residential. 

Former Eagle River City Administrator Joe Laux’s recent letter to the editor raises questions already answered in the referendum information sheet available at city hall. Nowhere in his letter to this paper did he mention that Becky Bolte, who serves as Eagle River’s City Clerk and election administrator, is a direct relative. Again, last summer, an attorney retained by Eagle River confirmed the terms were legally sufficient. Readers may well ask whether the author had another reason for writing such a curious letter.

Readers may also see irony in Laux claiming concern with detail as he is the same person who led Eagle River to approve about $5 million for public works projects outside the approved boundaries, violating a directive in a letter from the Wisconsin Department of Revenue. A 2024 special audit found that, during his tenure, the city improperly spent about $1.4 million from Tax Incremental District (TID) 2 and $3.6 million from TID 3 on projects outside district boundaries.

In an open session in October 2024, Eagle River Alderperson Dan Dumas called the TIF mismanagement “infuriating” and said it should also “infuriate the residents of Eagle River.” Because Wisconsin law prohibits such spending in severely distressed districts, the city had to transfer $2 million from its general fund to reimburse the TIDs and refinance the remaining balance as general obligation debt. 

At a common council meeting before leaving the city council in August 2026, Alderperson Dumas recognized the term limits petition organizers’ extensive efforts and stated local voters should decide whether to adopt term limits. Rather than leave that decision to voters, Eagle River officials — and their agents — are publicly questioning the referendum’s terms and the good intentions behind it. Can’t they trust area voters to decide a referendum for themselves?

Instead of worrying about a successfully launched, properly vetted, citizen-led term limits referendum, Laux would be wise to instead place his energy to help get an Eagle River Fire Department Resolution to Exceed Levy Limit Referendum for Fire Protection and Emergency Services on the ballot, for which the department currently needs funding. Bolte said in a special session meeting on Aug. 19 she needed assistance getting the ballot question, formula, and data in correct form or the Department of Revenue would not be able to certify it. Sadly, Eagle River voters will not see that important fire protection referendum on the November ballot.

To Joe Laux, in response to your letter: It’s wonderful that you are enjoying retirement from city administration. Meanwhile, Eagle River taxpayers are left wondering whether certain roads will be repaired and whether they will lose a park to development. They also need affordable housing, and they know developers look for active, viable TIFs. As Benjamin Rush observed, “Controversy is dreaded by the advocates of error.”

Eagle River voters: Do NOT forget to VOTE on Nov. 3. 

Kathryn Craffey, 

Member of the Vote Yes Eagle River Term Limits Referendum Committee

PAID CONTENT