Thoughts about Ephraim's complaint to the Tourism Zone regarding the Community Investment Fund
This is in response to https://doorcountytourismzone.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/MINUTES-DRAFT-September-Minutes.pdf#page=3. I was unable to find the letter of complaint from Ephraim, but am reasonably certain it pertains to the issues discussed in https://ephraim.wi.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/23-3-14-Board-Packet.pdf#page=3.
If Ephraim wants the money to be allocated differently, it can be implemented in the following manner:
Section 4.3, “Terms of Office” from https://doorcountytourismzone.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Door-County-Tourism-Zone-Commission-By-Laws.pdf#page=2 states that the municipal tourism zone board members “serve at the pleasure of the appointing official”.
It follows from this that if the Door County municipalities which account for a majority of seats on the Tourism Zone board were to each vote on a resolution instructing the Tourism Zone carry out some particular measure, the members of the Tourism Zone board would be practically obligated to go along with it. Dissenting members could be removed by the principal elected official of their respective municipalities.
In this way, the Tourism Zone could be compelled to carry out the wishes of the municipalities.
With Destination Door County, there is nothing in state law compelling the Tourism Zone to work exclusively with them. State law does not specify how many tourism entities may receive funding from 70% portion of room tax. DDC happens to be the exclusive tourism entity at present because no other entities have been designated.
If the municipalities so desired, they could designate a second tourism entity consisting of a selected group of their own members, and decide that it be a grant-making entity for tangible municipal development purposes. The Tourism Zone could allocate room tax funds to both Destination Door County and the new entity at whatever proportion the municipalities instruct them to. This concept was described in a previous post: https://doorcounty.substack.com/p/another-response-to-linda-waits-question
If the intention to designate a second entity was made clear, it seems likely that the possibility alone of this happening could be used as leverage to get Destination Door County to allocate moneys for tangible municipal development grants in whatever proportion is desired by the municipalities.
I gather that there is an attorney who is willing to take Ephraim’s complaint to court. I hope Ephraim’s board will refrain from this because lawyers and court costs eat up a lot of money. Trying the democratic process would be cheaper.
The first step could be to pass a resolution asking for all municipal governing bodies to meet together. If the proposed mass meeting gets rejected, just the Ephraim board alone could draft and pass a resolution for the Tourism Zone to implement. Then they can wait and see if other municipalities copy the resolution and pass it at their own meetings. If that fails, Ephraim could always try again with a different resolution.
If Ephraim is able to persuade the other municipalities about something, they will prevail.
Posts about taxes: