The Wisconsin State Treasurer is advocating to eliminate his own office in an effort to eliminate underused government positions.

Matt Adamczyk has laid off his two-member staff and is working to eliminate underused positions such as the treasurers office, which he refers to as government waste.

The state is spending $500,000 per year to run the treasurer’s office. In the past, the office was responsible for the unclaimed funds and life insurances policies that were not cashed, Tim Lakin, chief of staff for the Wisconsin State Senate, said.

These responsibilities have been transferred to the Department of Revenue to

increase efficiency, Adamczyk said.

As these duties have been taken away from the treasurer’s office, they have been left with nothing to do, Lakin said.

Currently, the treasurer’s office just attends two meetings a month on the board of commissioners of public lands, he said.

The bill to eliminate the position would have to be passed by two consecutive legislatures. Since it is a constitutional amendment, it would also have to be passed by the voters of Wisconsin.

Adamczyk, who ran on the campaign promise to eliminate the state treasurer’s office, said he isn’t worried about losing his own job.

“I hopefully will be the guy who pushes this to the very end and finalizes this once and for all,” he said.

Adamczyk said he is optimistic that this bill will be passed, as it has already been passed by the Assembly with a two-thirds majority.

If the bill does not pass, Lakin said, they are going to advocate for more responsibility to get transferred back to the office.

Adamczyk is planning to return 25 percent of his $69,936 salary to the state.

With the lack of duties for the state treasurer’s office, Adamczyk said he does not have a lot of daily responsibilities. Currently, he said is working to find ways to make the government more efficient, to save money and find other ways to get rid of government waste.

“We are talking half a million, these are scarce resources in the state,” Adamczyk said. “We can either put that money towards agencies that aren’t doing anything, or we could put it towards areas that need more money.”