Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

Now that the hustle and bustle of the holiday season is winding down and everyone is enjoying the holiday with family and friends, I would like to take this opportunity to wish you and yours a very Merry Christmas and a Wonderful and prosperous 2008.

Take Care all and enjoy the holidays.

Kent Monte and Family.

Council Members idea of "notice"

This morning, Stew Rieckman makes a good point about Council Member statements and what is discussed during those statements. It has long been used as a method of getting a discussion on the agenda that citizens are not allowed to comment on. The rule is that if it appears anywhere on the agenda, it cannot be commented on during citizen statements. And of course citizens are not allowed to comment anymore once the Council Members take over.

It was done before, during the process of dismissing Mr. Wollangk, and now we see it again for them to look for his replacement. Although they don't vote, they make decisions based on "consensus" of the Council. My question is; What is the difference? "Consensus" or "Vote". The only difference is that one is formal with a roll call and the other is a head nod.

Now Oshkosh appears to have some quality legal advice from our Acting City Attorney Lyn Lorenson. She has some issues with this method of discussion and she should. It is being used to skirt around the legality of citizen input. I am quite sure that isn't the intention, but it is certainly doing just that.

So far, they haven't hit a topic that had a real impact. Should the citizens wait until they do? OR should we do something about it now?

You decide.

And the Search Begins...

I know this may be old news, but I still wanted to post on it and I just haven't had the time to do it.

As many of you know, there was a group of people (myself included) that met and discussed the possibility of a petition drive to get a referendum question on the ballot to change the form of government. I wasn't convinced that a Mayoral form of government was right for Oshkosh. I liked the idea of being able to select a leader based on qualifications on a nationwide search. I didn't like the idea of a Mayor selected by "popularity contest" running the city.

During that first meeting, my mind was changed. There was an idea pitched out by Stephen Hintz that seemed to have merit. He said that this city could function by having a Mayor and a Deputy Mayor. The Mayor would be elected. His/Her deputy would be hired. Selected by the Mayor and approved by the council, the deputy would be running the day to day operations of the city. The Mayor would have authority over the city, the deputy would have significant input to the Mayor.

This is a poorly written, rough look at the alternate form of government (lack of time). There would have been much more involved if we could have been more organized. Getting 4000 signatures is no small task and two months to collect them would be a challenge. Having less than two months would be near impossible.

Could this city ever entertain the idea of having a full time Mayor rather than a City Manager? Why can't the council at least ask the question? Putting an advisory question on the ballot would be one way to do it. As long as we don't get too deep in the weeds with the question, there shouldn't be a problem. But instead, they are choosing to move forward with the search for a new manager. Is this really the direction we want our council to go?

What do you think?

Another $23k in Legal Bills

This law firm must come highly recommended because this is the second time that they have taken Oshkosh taxpayers for a ride.

Ironically, it is nearly the same amount. The OASD paid Tony Renning nearly $20k for the recount effort 18 months ago.

I don't know if it was really worth it. I guess it will end up being a wait and see once we know which direction the city will go.

I have committed to the circulation effort for the Mayor referendum. I believe that the voters have a right to make the choice. Maybe it will result in the same, maybe this time it will be different. Either way, we needed the change.

One can hope that the circulation starts soon. There isn't much time.

The verdict is in... the City will pay

It is official, the bill will be paid by the cities insurance carrier. I got the information a couple of days ago, but it is now official and a matter of public record that it will be covered.

Although it is a hit for the insurance, the true burden would fall on the city as Mr. Esslinger was acting in an official capacity when the situation occurred. Had Mr. Castle sought advice prior to making the allegation like Mr. Esslinger did, we probably wouldn't be in this situation now.

Maybe the insurance company is planning on Mr. Castle to "reimburse" them. That is common practice for most insurance companies to go after the other party after they pay the claim. Hard to say if that will happen here though.

Who Should Pay the Bill?

I don't know that this post is entirely necessary, but of course Cheryl Hentz is up to her neck in what she doesn't understand yet again.

So the question now needs to be asked, 'who should pay the bill?'

My first answer is Bill Castle. He jumped the gun and filed a complaint without legal consultation and lost. The costs incurred by Esslinger should be reimbursed by Castle. BUT, Castle is NOT required by law to pay those bills (this was not a court filing or civil suit) so he is simply opting to not pay and let the taxpayers foot the bill instead. Responsible politician.

My next answer is the city. Esslinger was acting as a public servant at the time the comments in question were made. He was also acting AFTER receiving legal advice from the city attorney and told by the City Attorney that he could NOT give any advice once the investigation began. Therefore, he should NOT have to bare the expense.

The third option was suggested by Hentz. That Esslinger should pay the bill himself. And here is where Hentz is completely off her rocker. First, he was acting as a Council Member and was not allowed to even SPEAK to the City Attorney about the complaint. If I were approached by the DOJ and told that I was being investigated for a comment that I made while doing my job, I would want to confer with an attorney too. As a matter of fact, Mr. Esslinger asked the DOJ if he should have an attorney and they told him "that was his right".

Here is the clincher... Two years ago, Mr. Esslinger sent a letter through his attorney addressed to Cheryl Hentz asking her to retract an inaccurate statement that she had made regarding campaign contributions made in the year before. Basically he told her that she lied. What did Hentz do? She hired George Curtis. Now I have to ask WHY? Why should she have to hire an attorney if she didn't do anything wrong? Esslinger didn't file a lawsuit. He didn't file a complaint with the DA. He simply had his lawyer mail a letter and Hentz hires an attorney. Talk about a hypocrite.

Hentz also stated that "every elected official who has a complaint filed against them does not get an attorney right from the start. In fact, I would venture to say there are many more who don't than do". Really Cheryl? And just what FACTS are you basing your comment on? Your extensive network of elected officials that have been investigated? Truth is that you don't have a clue. Just admit that you are looking for ANYTHING to throw at Esslinger. The first step to recovery is to admit that you have a problem. Sure is a good thing that you didn't get elected.

On a side note, there was an inaccuracy (lie) that was uncovered by the ONW on the form that Castle filed with the DOJ. When the question was asked if he had contacted any local agencies (ie police, fire, DA office, etc.) regarding this complaint, he responded "NO" even though he contacted the Winnebago County District Attorney first. Not important, but food for thought.

City Councilor Investigated by Dept. of Justice

In a long drawn out process, it was finally released today that Council Member Paul Esslinger was investigated (and cleared of any wrong doing) by the Department of Justice over a baseless complaint filed by Former Mayor Bill Castle. After Castle ignored the request for reimbursement for his legal expenses, Mr. Esslinger filed his claim with the City today. He was, after all, serving in a city position when the statement was made and could not be represented by the City Attorney. It is an unfortunate expense that could have and should have been avoided if the Former Mayor had just gotten the free legal advice afforded to him by the city. Below is the summary and statement from Mr. Esslinger today.

Department of Justice criminal investigation review:


On February 27, 2007 the Oshkosh Common Council had a closed session meeting to discuss the performance of the City Manager (Richard Wollangk). I had asked Mr. Wollangk to attend the meeting because I wanted to discuss what I felt was his lack of performance regarding one of his department heads.

Previous to the February 27 meeting, Council member Dennis McHugh and I met with the Winnebago County District Attorney (Christian Gossett) to ask him if it was legal for a Council member to inform the City Manager that they would terminate him because he is not disciplining his staff because of a lack of performance. Attorney Gossett said this question was out of his jurisdiction and that we should contact the Oshkosh City Attorney (Warren Kraft) because it was within his jurisdiction.

Mr. McHugh and I took the advice of the District Attorney and met with Mr. Kraft. It was Mr. Kraft’s opinion that it was within a Council member’s authority to inform the City Manager that they would fire him if he did not terminate a member of his staff. And now after the Department Of Justice investigation, it is also their opinion I did nothing illegal.

After I found out from the City legal staff I had this authority, I then asked the City Attorney to have Mr. Wollangk attend the February 27th meeting so I could inform him I felt he was not disciplining his staff, and I felt he should be fired if he didn’t terminate one of his department heads.

Before Mr. Wollangk came into the executive session, I informed all the Council members at the meeting that Mr. McHugh and I asked City legal staff if what I was about to do was legal. I said that if they didn’t believe me they could ask Mr. Kraft and he would corroborate my statement. No Council members said anything at that time. After I made my statement, Mr. Wollangk was invited into the room. When Mr. Wollangk entered the room, I told him I was not happy with his performance because there was a department head that in my opinion needed to be fired and if he didn’t fire him then I felt Mr. Wollangk was not performing his duties and he should be fired.

After the meeting with Mr. Wollangk a couple Council members stated they were displeased with what was said. I said I respected their opinions; however, what I did was within my rights according to our legal staff.

In March of 2007, Mayor Bill Castle filed a complaint with the District Attorney’s office accusing me of blackmail. Due to Mr. Castle’s reckless behavior for not consulting with the City Attorney as was suggest, a lengthy tax-payer funded investigation ensued.

I was contacted in April of 2007 by the Wisconsin Department of Justice and informed I was under investigation for criminal activity relating to the February 27, 2007 closed session of the Oshkosh Common Council. Because a criminal investigation conducted by the Wisconsin Department of Justice is a serious matter, with potentially severe consequences, and because the City Attorney (Warren Kraft) was not able to represent me in this matter, I had to retain legal representation to defend myself against the charges.

Because of Mr. Castle’s baseless claim and his unwillingness to seek the truth before filing a claim, I now have attorney’s fees relating to this matter. I feel it would be appropriate for Mr. Castle to pay these attorney’s fees. If he doesn’t, I will have no other reasonable choice but to file with the City of Oshkosh to pay these attorney fees.

I sent a certified letter to Mr. Castle dated October 19th, 2007 and asked him to either contact me or pay the enclosed invoice for my fees by the end of day October 29, 2007. He has not contacted me and has not paid the invoice for the attorney’s fees.

Because I am a representative of the City of Oshkosh and the City Attorney can not represent me in this matter and because Mr. Castle will not do the responsible thing, unfortunately, I now have to file with the City of Oshkosh to have the attorney’s fees paid.

I’m frustrated that the Mayor of Oshkosh, with years of political experience, chose not to contact the City Attorney, someone that Mr. Castle repeatedly said he had full faith and support.

Sincerely,


Paul Esslinger
Oshkosh Common Council


Relevant timeline:

February, 2007: Mr. McHugh and I met with the District Attorney. Mr. Gossett suggested we meet with City Attorney Warren Kraft.

February 20th, 2007: Mr. McHugh and I met with City Attorney Warren Kraft. Mr. Kraft said I was within my rights to tell Mr. Wollangk we would fire him if he didn’t fire one of his department heads.

February 27, 2007: City Council held a closed session with Mr. Wollangk. This is the meeting where I informed Mr. Wollangk that I was not happy with his performance because he would not fire a department head.

March 6th, 2007: Mr. Castle files a complaint with the Winnebago County District Attorney.

April 18th, 2007: I was contacted by the Department of Justice and was told I was under criminal investigation.

July 27th, 2007: Met with two criminal investigators in my attorneys office

August 8th, 2007: Council member Dennis McHugh provides a sworn affidavit of his recollections regarding the February 27th, 2007 closed session which corroborate mine.

September 10th, 2007: The Department of Justice rules that I did nothing illegal in the February 27th, 2007 closed session of the Common Council.

October 19th, 2007: Letter sent to Mr. Castle asking him to pay for my legal fees.

November 2nd, 2007: Because Mr. Castle would not pay the legal fees, I filed a claim with the City of Oshkosh. //End Statement//

You can read the entire report here.

King for State Senate??

It was reported by Babblemur the other day and although I should be surprised, I'm not. As it turns out, Jessica King actually does have aspirations for higher office. It was announced at the JFK dinner in Fond du lac by Peg Lautenschlager over the weekend that the Democrats are going to run King against Roessler for her State Senate seat.

Over the past couple of days I have trying to find the conversation in which Ms. King said that State Representatives don't make enough money to interest her. She stated that she makes more as a lawyer and wouldn't take the cut. Of course those weren't the exact statements but they are close. The conversation took place on the election threads of Oshkonversation during the election when rumors were active that she was using the council as a spring board to other offices. Why else would someone sink more than $7000 on an elected position that would only earn $4800 for the entire term? Unfortunately, Mr. Hummel did not archive the thread so the record of the response is gone. I can only hope that others recall the statement as well but I'm sure not counting on it.

I guess we can expect to see more of this in the next year. Senator Roessler has been in her seat for more than 20 years and if she runs for re-election, will make for a difficult campaign. Of course there are rumors that the Senator will retire after this term, but nothing has been confirmed. Ms. King will have her hands full if retirement is a rumor.

Either way, if she wins, she probably won't be able to fulfill her obligation to the voters by serving the remainder of her term on the Council. It isn't certain that will be the case but I don't see how anyone could maintain the schedule or whether a non-partisan official can hold a partisan office. That would be for the lawyers to figure out.

Millers Bay Fishing Pier

After 2 years of complaining and court battles, the people fighting the Millers Bay pier may have another swing with the ax. According to the ONW, Jessica King is bringing it back for consideration. Just 6 weeks before they planned to put in the pier, it could be reversed in an unprecedented way. King argues that the "community members didn't have enough time to bring their concerns about the pier forward two years ago when it was approved". Never mind that they have been trying to convince them ever since that they shouldn't have to look out at that pier from their homes. Someone should tell them that they didn't buy waterfront property. The city did and that is what they have chosen to do with it.

I haven't always agreed with the installation of a pier that was promoted for the young and disabled of the community yet no provisions have been taken in the way of handicap accessibility. All it would take is for someone to make an ADA complaint and the city would be forced to comply and install bathrooms, handicap parking, and other provisions required by ADA laws. Having the pier would be great. It would allow for better fishing in the bay for children in that community.

It is not surprising to see this again. I just would have thought it would have come earlier than this. Ms. King has been on the council for 6 months and she waited until now to put it on the agenda. I would hope that this isn't a last ditch effort by that neighborhood to stop this. If it is, Ms. King has been duped. And if so, I would hope that the rest of the council would see through it and prevent the reversal of the previous council.

What do you think should happen? Did the neighborhood get hosed? Should the pier be stopped? Should the city change the methods used to accept donations?

Warren Kraft has Heart Surgery

I was just informed that this morning, Former City Attorney Warren Kraft went in for quadruple heart bypass surgery. The notification came via email to our Acting City Manager John Fitzpatrick last night for dissemination to staff. I don't have any information on the outcome of the procedure or his current condition. I would imagine that the ONW may follow up when that information is available and I will update this when I know more.

Our thoughts and prayers go out to the Kraft family. Best wishes for a speedy and full recovery.

Kent and Michelle Monte

Kraft Retires.

Perhaps the POLL to the right was more accurate than I thought. Although I got word this morning about the retirement of our City Attorney, I haven't had a chance until now to write about it. This will be short as I am out the door in a minute again anyway.

I noticed that in the article for this story that Mr. Wollangk stated that the 100 block was not the reason for Kraft's early departure. Although that may not have been a deciding factor, I find it difficult to believe that it didn't play a role at all. There have been many instances in recent past that have been overshadowing the performance of Kraft and this may have been the final piece to that puzzle. Then again, there may be other reasons for Kraft to want out. After 23 years, perhaps he really didn't want to make the transition to another boss. If he was close enough, why not retire rather than put up with what lay ahead? Who knows? The bottom line is that it doesn't really matter.

Anyway, feel free to post your thoughts on the departure of our City Attorney and/or our City Manager. Remember though, that this is not personal and if any comments are made that are not appropriate, I will not post them.

The Secrecy Continues...

All you need to do is take one look at this morning ONW and you can see that there is very little doubt that this city NEEDS to change if it is ever going to grow and become a place worth living/working in. Once again, we see that our illustrious City Attorney has given us another reason to want him replaced.

Warren Kraft has been making the wrong choices for years and now this just puts the icing on the cake. He actually RECOMMENDED using an escrow firm rather than the city to manage the TIF to keep the development away from public scrutiny. Now, had the deal been successful, it would not have made a bit of difference and we would not have even been concerned with the secrets. BUT... we all know that Ganther and his associates did not make good on the deal that they made with the city and now the city has been forced to go to court in order to recoup the loss of the TIF funds. Meanwhile the City Attorney "doesn't recall" what he recommended during the development of the project. All I can say is that his memory SUCKS.

One thing that I never thought I would say is that I agree with Stew Rieckman and his assessment of Kraft. Along with Kraft, Kinney's tenure should be looked at hard for going along with any attempt to circumvent the open records law in community development. That department is responsible for an extraordinary amount of money being spent each year. They make recommendations to the Redevelopment Authority who in turn recommends to the Council for the agreements being made with these developers. If it wasn't for his recommendation, Ganther would not have even been a part of this building to begin with. It was his recommendation that allowed Ganther to develop this parcel. And even better... Ganther admits to the ONW that he didn't read the agreement when he signed it! That should tell us plenty. The "good ol' boy" network needs to be dismantled.

A read a comment on another site (I don't remember which) that listed the personnel that NEED to be replaced on city staff. Kinney and Kraft were on that list and I agree that they both need to be gone. Now! Don't wait. Just do it. Before they get this city into really deep water that we cannot recover from.

I think that a Properly Managed TIF is a good thing. Too bad we don't have the staff to manage it correctly.

Should Voters Have Input?

In a previous post I commented about the proposed referendum that the council will see in the next couple of weeks that would essentially put the decision in the hands of those who vote on what form of government Oshkosh should have. Although I have gone on the record to say that I prefer the Manager form better because of the ability to screen the person better than a campaign would, I agree that it is good to get the voters opinion. Mine is not the only one in town.

I was given a copy of a letter(email) sent by another elected official to the council that seems to think otherwise. I will share that here with you and let you see what you think about it.

[Subject: Council/Mayor Referendum Proposal

My family and I respectfully and adamantly request that the
council reject the most recent call for yet another referendum on the
form of government here in Oshkosh. We firmly believe that the
Council/Manager format is far superior to any of the other proposals
forwarded over the past 10 years or more and we now sincerely regret
having an elected mayor rather than a "mayor" chosen by the council from
its own ranks.
The nose under the tent flap that the elected mayor represents
only serves to embolden and encourage the most vocal and vicious of the
political malcontents and wannabees in this community, thereby
exacerbating the social rifts they exploit. It also encourages an
endless stream of whining that "the public hasn't been heard on this
subject".
We submit that the public has indeed been heard loud and clear
on the many previous occasions when each and every one of these
proposals were soundly defeated. The current proposal deserves to die
and early an ignominious death. It's time for the council to focus on
the far more important issues facing this city rather than supplying
oxygen to the blatant political ambitions of the vocal few.

Sincerely,
Ted and Karen Bowen ]

This is unbelievable that a representative of the taxpayers doesn't feel that we should have a say in how our city government is run. It also seems to be a slap in the face of our current Mayor Tower and former Mayor Castle saying that we should not be able to choose our Mayor and the council should appoint him/her.

Mr and Mrs Bowen have no problem voicing their opinion. Heaven forbid that we do though.

What do you think?

Advisory Referendum

In yesterdays ONW we see that there will be a second proposal for an advisory referendum that, if approved, will appear on the ballot in April. This is a multiple choice referendum that will give the council a better idea for where we should go with our form of government.

I think this is a grand idea. I only wish now that there was a scheduled election in November this year and we wouldn't need to wait until spring to vote on it. I don't feel that we should spend the extra money it would take to hold a special election if this was the only thing on the ballot. Not to mention the turn out for that type of election would most likely be less than 10%. People don't go to the polls in this city when it's future is on the line, what makes us think that they will go for a simple multiple choice question?

[----excerpt from the ONW

The advisory referendum will allow voters to pick one of four options:


1. A full-time mayor with seven alderpersons elected from districts


2. A full-time mayor with seven alderpersons elected at-large


3. A full-time mayor that votes with the council and four council members elected from districts and two at-large


4. The current form with a full-time city manager, directly elected part-time mayor and six councilors elected at-large.

end excerpt------]

Given these options, I would have to say that I would either like it to remain the same (option 4) or if there was to be an elected Mayor, option 1 would be the better of the 3. I have always believed that an elected Mayor is just a popularity contest that is won by the one who spends the most. It has very little to do with actual qualifications. If we have an elected Mayor, what would be the term? I have heard that it would be 3 or 4 years. That means that we would have to put up with a person for that period of time even if they are not doing the job. Election laws would hamper removal of an elected position. A recall would need to take place and that requires several thousand signatures to even get to the ballot box. At least with a hired Manager, the council is able to screen candidates and hire on merit rather than popularity and they are able to terminate the contract if they do not perform to the satisfaction of the council.

It has been discussed that there were many applicants last time that withdrew their interest in the position because there was a Mayor question on the ballot. I would imagine that we will have the same obstacle now. Perhaps the decision for a replacement needs to be postponed until April. Then we can get a better idea for a permanent replacement from a good field of candidates (assuming that we keep the same form of government).

In the mean time, perhaps the city could hire Mr. Wollangk back on as a temporary Manager until this decision is complete or appoint someone (maybe the Public Works Director) to fill the position on a temporary basis. I feel that the temporary replacement should be handled similar to a case that our Manager was on vacation or extended leave.

Now I will leave you with a couple of questions to ponder... If the referendum recommends that we have one of the first three options, when will the "full time" Mayor be elected? Will there be a special election in the summer? Would it take place with the Partisan elections in the Fall (Presidential Election)? Or would it wait until Spring of 2009 with the non-partisan election?

What is your opinion?

Today's Concerns...

Earlier today I read a comment for moderation that requested a piece on the budget. Although that would be a good topic, I think that there are more pressing issues that should be addressed.

In today's ONW, we find an article that points to 5 of the public unions going to arbitration rather than take the offer from the city. There were 3 of the eight that agreed to the terms offered near the end of 2006 but the other 5 opted to ride it out and work without a contract. After waiting nearly 6 months after talks stalled, the city opted to work with an arbitrator and get some closure to this issue. The reason for the stall? The unions didn't like the offer of 2.25% the first year and 2.75% for the second and third year. They want 3% for all three years to keep up with the increase in insurance.

Sorry, but give me a break. Who do they think really pays for the insurance? The taxpayer does. If there is an increase, they can pay a fair share of that increase. I think that we (the taxpayers) pay enough of the insurance without having to pony up more on yearly increases because they want to keep up with the insurance.

Now before anyone goes nuts about me being "anti-labor", I will mention that I am a member of a union myself. The difference is that I accept what I get in an annual cost of living increase without pissing and moaning about it. My union won't go after Congress if they don't approve a large enough increase... We just take it and move on.

Now, the union has every right to take this to arbitration and get what is decided. But was it really necessary over less than a percent each year? Sometimes we need to step back and use some common sense and realize that we are in tight financial times. The city cannot offer to one union more than they gave other unions... what would they think? I guarantee that they wouldn't be the first to sign next time.

Now my position with the city unions may have cost me the election. It also could have been my big mouth. Either way, I am not a candidate anymore and I can speak my mind. It says loud and clear that we need to use common sense and stop trying to squeeze blood out of a turnip. The city offered what it can afford. If that isn't enough, try the private sector and see what you can get...

Enough for now... Happy Labor Day to all. (Ironic, isn't it?)

Where do we go from here?

First, let me start by thanking Dick Wollangk for his service over the past 10 years as our City Manager and his elected service prior to that. He has given many years to this community and his effort should not be overlooked. Despite the outcome, he still deserves respect. Over the past couple of years, he has taken quite a bit from members of the community (including criticism from myself) over his performance. Although we don't see eye to eye on how the city should be run, he did give a great deal to do the job.

Now, as I said before, where do we go from here? Now that Mr. Wollangk will retire effective October 13th, we need to know what will happen next. (By the way, how does an "at will" employee get a SEVERANCE package at RETIREMENT that totals $113k?).
Tony talks about the appointment of a yet to be established interim manager while the community hashes out the inevitable task of deciding... Mayor or Manager?

I am seriously torn on the issue. I have said in the past that I don't like the elected Mayor senario. I believe that a City Manager form of government can be strong if the correct person is in the job. We need a strong leader. One that is not afraid to get his hands dirty and ensure that the department heads are doing the job up to standards. One that cannot be afraid to discipline those same department heads or terminate them for sub-par performance. Unfortunately, that may come at a price. Equivilant cities pay >$130k for such a manager. I think that the added expense may be worth it. It also gives the council the ability to screen candidates with resumes and interviews. The media has very little to do with the final choice.

Now we look at the flip side of the coin. If there was an elected Mayor, we have the opportunity to elect, at large, the leader of the city. It no longer has anything to do with the council and the voters (all 21%) will make the decision who will run the city and how it is done. No more reliance on the Common Council to make the daily decisions. No more worrying about the "goals" set by the council. The Mayor will have to "put up or shut up" or risk being ousted in the next election. The flood gates will open. If you think that the Castle/Esslinger race was expensive (over $20k combined) stand back. This will make that one look small. The ONW will take sides, the political parties will get involved (despite the "non partisan" tag) and there will be quite a mud slinging affair between the "sides" that will form. It will be a popularity contest like you have never seen before and we will be lucky if we get a candidate that can find his ass with both hands and a flashlight to run the city. Believe me, that is what happened in Sheboygan for many years. It was run by someone who nobody would challenge and he ran the city down. Now they are scrambling to recover and if you have watched the news, it isn't easy.

I have never been a fan of the Mayor form of government. Especially in a city that doesn't vote and the ones that do vote don't pay attention (how else can you explain polar opposites winning an election?). If Oshkosh is going to see one, this will be the time. I am not sure what choice I will make when I go to the polls... perhaps I will write about it at a later time. From the looks of it, I have 'till November to think about it.

I will run a poll. Tell me what you think.

Is the City Manager Managing?

There has been a great deal of public debate lately regarding whether or not Dick Wollangk should keep his job as the City Manager. Now there is another news story hitting the papers regarding the "personal guarantee" given by Ganther and the 100 block investors. Turns out now that the "guarantee" isn't worth the paper it is written on (someone else's words, not mine). This "oops" is going to cost the city Millions. Millions that we cannot afford. No wonder nobody was taking care of that building. It has been falling apart for more than 2 years but nothing was done about it. Now that is in foreclosure, there isn't a thing the city can do about it.

Now, understand that although the City Manager may sign a document like this, he does not write it. An argument can be made that he has nothing to do with it. I beg to differ with that though. I think that he is ultimately responsible for the actions of his subordinates. If they do something that reflects poorly on the city, then he should take action on it. If he doesn't or fails to do it properly, then he is not effective as a manager and should be relieved of his position.

This isn't the first time that Mr Kinney or Mr Kraft have been in the paper because of actions that are less than healthy for our city. As a matter of fact, they are in the paper for more negative items than positive items. Mr Kinney has the Five Rivers mess that has cost the city a small fortune... Mr Kraft has the PMI contract mistakes, a forced apology to a council member for false information, and now a document for the 100 block that "isn't worth the paper it is written on".

Well Mr Wollangk, it is time to step up to the plate and show the city that you have the stones to do the job. Failure to do so may result in your dismissal by the council. As they say, the fat lady hasn't begun to sing. But you can bet she is warming up...

Open Mouth... Insert Foot

Well, I know that this is no longer news and I am not one bit surprised that I am the first one writting about it. It is all about Brian Bain stepping on his tongue and getting himself removed from the City Manager discussions and not about Paul Esslinger doing something wrong.

Funny, there are a couple of people out there that are all over Paul whenever he does something that they don't like but when their favorite screws up (BIG) they don't say a peep.

I do like Dick Wollangk. He has been open and helpful in both of my bids for office. His door was always open for me to pop in and ask a question. I don't know if he deserves to be fired for what is happening or whether he should be given the chance to get his department heads under control. Either way, the city will benefit from the effort. Mr. Bain has jeopordized this action. He has weakened the council by using his blog and/or the newspaper to voice an opinion of a matter that should be taking place behind closed doors. He has shown extreme bias in regards to the city manager. By doing so, he tainted the discussion to the point that prevents him from doing his duty as our representative. Without his vote, our council could remain deadlocked on any decision that could be reached. Without his vote, he isn't much of a representative is he?

But of course, it isn't Esslinger, McHugh, Palmeri or Monte so who cares right?

Update to Jackson and Murdock Intersection

As I said in my previous post, more to follow... Here is the follow up.

Everyone is up in arms saying that putting a roundabout at the intersection of Jackson and Murdock is a matter of public safety. I have numbers that disprove that theory, at least takes the priority off of THAT intersection.

Would it surprise you to know that Jackson and Murdock is not even in the top 10 of the "dangerous" intersections in Oshkosh? Actually, it isn't even ranked in the top 20! It is ranked 21st and it's neighbor, Wisconsin and Murdock is ranked 17th!

There were only 6 accidents that occurred at this intersection in all of 2006 while the traffic numbers over 29,000 vehicles PER DAY that travel through it. Given that ratio, perhaps it is not such a high priority to do this one first.

The highest accident intersection is 9th and Knapp Streets. It had 16 accidents in 2006 followed by High Avenue and Wisconsin with 14. Then Washburn/Witzel-13, Bowen/Murdock-10 and Koeller/9th-10 round out the top 5. Koeller/9th has posted double digit accidents in ALL of the last 3 years. Wait... low and behold there are 3 within a mile of each other in the top 5. Seems to me, that our focus is a little off with safety of intersections.

This is NOT the first intersection that has been proposed to get a roundabout. The DOT would like to put the same type of intersection at 41/Witzel (one on each side of the highway for each frontage road). My opinion is that to build a roundabout at an expense of more than $600,000 to the city is ludicrous if they do not do anything to address the neighboring intersection of Wisconsin/Murdock that has posted more accidents in each of the last 2 years. This would NOT be productive and MAY actually cause more problems than they set out to fix.

If I understand the new design correctly, KFC would be purchased and the intersection widened to allow for additional turn lanes regardless of whether the roundabout is built or not. I am not sure about that aspect but either way, improvements can be made WITHOUT building an intersection at a significantly higher expense to the city with no real proof that it will improve anything. Accidents will happen at ANY intersection regardless of design. Will the 6 improve enough to justify the expense?

Guess we will find out if the council approves this design tonight...

Jackson and Murdock- A matter of safety?

After reading the article on Cheryl Hentz's site, I had to do some digging for myself and actually taking the time to put together some numbers to support my thoughts.

Cheryl states that Esslinger is "silly and hypocritical", but has nothing to support her statement. Of course, Paul is one with a bulls eye painted on his back because I noted that she didn't mention any other opposition to the intersection. There were others that do NOT support this expense as it was proposed. More information was needed and I have some of it.

I posted earlier about information that I found on google about roundabouts and what the safety is. It also proved that my theory about negotiating an intersection was not a problem. But what MAY be a problem is the significant difference in the cost. Instead of costing the city $152k, it will cost $718k for the roundabout.

I found out tonight that the accidents were in the single digits while traffic numbers were one of the highest in the city. Is it really worth the added expense just to have an intersection that few cities have? Is it REALLY a safety concern? OR is Cheryl trying to be opportunistic? I think it is personal and she is digging for yet another reason to drag Paul through the MUD!

Go figure, if you can't support your theories... Just make it up.

More to follow...

So, Sheboygan has all the answers?!?

Surfing the web this evening, I couldn't help but notice one of the new posts on the commons. It had a misspelling that caught my attention and the article really peaked my interest.

The biggest argument during the last contract negotiations was the fact that Sheboygan pays 100% of the health insurance for their Police officers. Funny that now they are looking at exactly the same way to REDUCE their budget that Oshkosh did last year with garbage. Only now they are taking it further by offering a early retirement to several employees in order to hire more for less AND looking at changing the health care to save up to $400,000 per year.

So, here we are. I stated plainly that we SHOULDN'T make comparisons to other communities because we don't know what their budget looks like. Now we are beginning to see.

I used to live in Sheboygan. Grew up there in fact. I have no desire to move back there. Perhaps a nice place to visit, just not to live.

100 Block Belly Up?

Well, there goes the neighborhood... The cornerstone of the "new downtown Oshkosh" is now in foreclosure to the same bank that owns the adjacent property (Park Plaza). Hell, if we keep going, BB will own the entire downtown. What do you think that they will do with it? Do you think that they will keep those projects as is? Or will they raze them and start over with projects that are viable for a city of this size.

I vote for the the second choice. There isn't much doubt that these properties weren't going to do well in the first place. There is too much competition and when the market is flooded, something has to give.

Heaven help those that speak against a project when it is proposed. That is considered anti-progress. All I can say now is, we told you so.

With the downtown, we need to think smart. Time to do what is REALISTIC with the downtown and quit throwing good money over bad at it just to watch the loans default. Who is going to pay the TIF now?

Time to rethink that downtown plan. And quit following the "progressives" lead. Time to take a realistic, manageable approach to improving the downtown.

Any ideas?

Going 'round with Roundabouts

Well, after reading the commotion over the proposed roundabout for the Murdock/Jackson Street intersection, I decided to do some research myself. I have not been a big supporter for these designs. I don't like negotiating them and would have thought that the accidents would increase if they are built.

My goal was to prove it. However, when I went to Google and typed in the search, the first article that came up did the opposite. It actually convinced me that this type of intersection SHOULD be done if logistically and financially possible. It seems that they will improve traffic flow and prevent some types of accidents. Sure, there will be the occasional "fender bender" but high speed running the red light will not happen anymore. The accidents that happen at roundabouts rarely have injuries and almost never have serious injuries.

I would like to suggest that everyone read up on these intersections. Perhaps you can start in the same place that I did. Take a look at what Kansas State University reports. One example included Madison.

Is it the answer for us in Oshkosh? Tell us what you think.

Council Member Esslinger Media Rants

Well, so much for a hiatus. But I think that there is a subject that needs to be discussed further.

First, on Jef Halls blog you will see a post that tells us about Paul Esslinger contradicting himself by writing a letter to the editor regarding the loss of manufacturing jobs in Oshkosh and then the next day being seen in a "Toyota"... Well, I don't know where Jef gets his information from, but he is really off base with this one.

During the Forth of July parade, Paul was driving a PONTIAC G6 Convertible provided by Bergstrom Automotive. Any implication that Paul is supporting an overseas manufacturer is incorrect and untrue. Besides, most Toyotas that are sold here in the U.S. are built here in the U.S.

Next, on a similar issue, this mornings opinion poll on the ONW website is a question that asks if Paul "acts in the best interest of the city". What kind of question is that? And why are they singling out just one council member? Talk about poor taste, they have really sunk to a new level this time.

I know that the ONW doesn't like Paul and they have made that perfectly clear in the past. They are the biggest reason for the conspiracy theory over the River Mill sidewalks started. There isn't a big political conspiracy folks. Paul was simply acting on a statement made at an earlier meeting by a resident of a different neighborhood that brought up River Mill trying to avoid getting walks in front of his house. He was quoted as saying that "we are trying to avoid the PERCEPTION that the 'richer' neighborhoods can avoid sidewalks". The key word is PERCEPTION. There are too many "us vs. them" arguements in this city. The sooner that we realize that this city is equal the better we will all be.

In the meantime, we should probably THANK him for his public service. A service that he doesn't take a dime to do. All of his salary from the City goes right back to the city through donations to the Senior Center. This isn't an ego trip for him and his intentions are pure. Perhaps people should look beyond their opinion and see what is plain as black and white.

Enough venting for now, Stay cool everyone.

K. Monte

Summer Hiatus

Hello all,

Due to my extremely busy schedule and the beautiful weather, I have decided to take a break from the blogosphere for a while. Judging from my site counter and the lack of comments in moderation, I feel that I will not be missed. I really don't think that the city will stop functioning if I take a break and it gives people a chance to use another site to throw mud at each other.

Michelle is still pretty active with School issues and will continue to operate her blog but I simply don't want to miss this nice weather sitting behind a keyboard typing when nobody cares to read it. Seems like such a waste.

I will still be watching and if there is an issue that I should write about (no sidewalks here, sorry) I will sit and type.

In the meantime, a short hiatus is long overdue and I hope that everyone will watch the commons for new posts upon my return.

Thank you for your patronage and have a wonderful summer!!

Kent

Unfortunate Circumstances

Today we read in the ONW the potential problem one of our downtown businesses is facing just by being a tenant in a Ganther building.

Although it is unfortunate, it is a problem that an innocent business owner faces when they "partner" or lease space that relies on the license of a known delinquent taxpayer. After all, it is not the Baer brothers fault that Ganther and his partners have not paid the taxes on the 100 block. But they are the ones that depend on the liquor license that Ganther holds for that property. It sure is easy to say that exceptions should be made, but should they?

What do you think?

Welcome to our new leaders

I would like to take a minute to welcome our newest (and returning) council members.

We got to see Tony Palmeri and Jessica King take a seat on the council this week. Along with them, we welcomed back Bryan Bain and after a year of "vacation" we welcome back Frank Tower as our newest Mayor. Congratulations to all.

Now it is time to get down to business. I am making a public plea to the City Council that I will also include in an email to each council member. This is something that I feel needs their attention and should be addressed.

To Mayor Tower and Oshkosh Common Council Members,

I would like to address an issue that is evolving within our school district that will have a great influence on city assessments for many years to come. As most of you already know, the school board has approved an open ended scenario 7 to be addressed by the administration. If this scenario is allowed to be brought to completion, it will mean a drastic reduction in property values in many areas throughout the city while stagnating growth on the south/west section of the city. This scenario is NOT a viable option for Oshkosh and should NOT be considered acceptable by this council. I plea with you step in and protect the cities interest in this matter. It will have a lasting negative effect on this city and should not be allowed to be completed. Further scenario discussions should include City Administration to represent the council and homeowners/taxpayers.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Kent Monte

Scenario 7 Effect on Oshkosh

After weeks of watching from the sidelines and wondering what the School Board was going to do with the district and the scenario plans, I feel that the City is effected by this decision and some of these effects should be pointed out.

Now that Scenario 7 has been approved (although open-ended) it brings with it some serious concerns in regards to property and assessments within the city. I have looked at the map for all of the different grade levels to find that housing that used to be appealing because of the proximity to a school will no longer have that appeal. Prime examples would be Casey Meadows on the west side. The developer of that subdivision got to watch his property values drop off with the approval because even though this subdivision will be directly adjacent to Carl Traeger, NONE of the people buying houses there will be able to send their children to that school. ALL of the new students in that area will be bused to Read and Merrill. Does that sound right? No, and it doesn’t stop there. The entire Westhaven area will be effected because they will no longer be able to walk to Traeger either. That includes the families buying on Woodstock (the street directly to the east of Traeger).

Oshkosh just went through a complete revaluation of properties less than 2 years ago and those values were partially based on proximity to schools. Now those K-3 students in Westhaven will be bused to Shapiro rather than walk out their back door. Even my property will be effected (not my children though as they will all be 4th grade or higher by the time these schools are reconfigured) because K-3 in my neighborhood will be bused to Oakwood rather than be able to walk to Traeger.

With this change and the subsequent drop in property values, will mean less taxes collected throughout the city (Westsiders are not the only ones involved).

Does anyone think that the school district and city administration have discussed this? Not to my knowledge. If they have, it has NOT been discussed by the Council. But it sure should be. This is a large problem brewing and should be addressed before long term changes are made. There are many lives that are affected by a reconfiguration that has not been studied or proven in communities of our size. Sure, it has been done in smaller cities that are about 1/3 the population of Oshkosh, but not in comparable cities. Do we really need to be the “crash test dummies” on this? (I am using that term loosely) Is there a better way? I know that this has been discussed at length on other sites, but I am really concerned that the decision makers are not willing to listen to common sense. They sure were not swayed by anything said at meeting because they labeled the “complainers” as “NIMBY” and just did what they wanted anyway. Perhaps the city should step in and get involved before it is too late.

What do you think? Comments can be left here, or Michelle has started a discussion on her site too. Here is a chance to sound off. Politics are not involved so save your personal attacks for other sites. I will approve any comment on topic whether I agree or not.

2% Room Tax Proposal

Happy Easter everyone. I have gotten a request for a new thread regarding the new room tax proposal that will be going before the council on Tuesday night for approval (I cannot access the city site to see the agenda when writing this, I will try again later). We have been pretty busy this weekend, I will put something together quickly to allow discussion. This is the last act of 2 council members (Scheuermann will not be present) before the reorganization meeting on the 17th.

As far as the increase in the room tax, I really don't care one way or another. I don't think travelers will either. That 2% will not mean that they will go to Appleton rather than get a room here. 2% is still less than the fuel it would take to drive back and forth for events like Country USA or EAA.

BUT, there are considerations to this for me;
1. The money that is generated from this additional tax should be funneled to our Convention Center.
2. This tax should be reversed as soon as the debt is expired rather than use it for other "improvements" throughout the city.
3. Any local residents that are staying in a room (for various reasons) should not have to pay this additional tax. This could be done by presenting an ID that shows residency. Of course this last one would not be a deal breaker for me, just something that I would like to see.

As I said earlier in the post, this has been a busy weekend for us. I will be checking for posted comments as much as possible over the next couple of days. Please be patient. Thank you.

Election Day Results

Good morning Oshkosh. The final results are in and we have our new (and some old) representatives for the next 2 or 3 years.

In the race for Mayor, it was Frank Tower by less than 300.

In the council race, there was no surprise that Bain, Palmeri, and King would be the top three. Many in the community were not impressed with Scheuermann and it showed by the large margin between her and newly elected King. Scheuermann trailed all night, sometimes in 5th place, before moving ahead of Bob Cornell by a small margin. I was kind of glad to be a spectator during this event as I don't think I could have kept up with the top 3. I still have a problem with the amount of money that some candidates poured into their campaigns. I feel that it is ludicrous to spend more to gain the seat than the salary for BOTH years in the seat. That is what Jessica King did. I guess it worked, she won.

The School Board race was somewhat of a surprise. I have a hard time figuring out the community that will elect (by a larger margin) two candidates from the opposite end of the spectrum. Becker and Bowen aren't even close to being similar. Yet only about a hundred votes separate them. With Michelle taking third, it was nice to see that the voters did like some of what they saw her and didn't let the recount be an issue with Dan.

I don't think things will stop here. Michelle and I will continue to be involved in one form or another. We are not sure what the future holds so I will not speculate to whether either of us will run again in the future. My thoughts turn to next year but with my commitment to the Fox Cities Bowling Association, I will be quite busy next spring handling the State Bowling Tournament in Valley. That would leave very little time to campaign.

Anyway, Congratulations to all the candidates that were successful in their bids for office and a HUGE thank you to everyone else that ran. It is one thing to sit on the sidelines and complain but quite another to put yourself out there for public ridicule. Believe me, I know.

Have a great day, try to stay warm, and if anyone has a sign please call me and I will come and pick it up today.

Thanks again Oshkosh, it has been quite a ride.

Conspiracy Theory

For anyone who wants a good laugh, take a trip over to Jef Halls website to read his conspiracy theory of my cover up of election law violations...

I considered his tactics insulting and demeaning but I have come to realize that he is not worth the energy it requires to debate the issue so I will simply explain what he has incorrectly assumed.

Yesterday afternoon, it was pointed out that there may be an election violation with an advertisement on the ONW website front page. After confirming with the City Attorney and the SEB that although it COULD be considered a violation it would be difficult to prove that 50 hits came directly from that link. Rather than take a chance, I set up a biography on this site to allow the ONW to link to it rather than the city site. Feel free to check the link and see that it is still active and working fine.

Now anyone that has ever worked on Blogger knows that when you create a post, they will show up chronologically on the site. To avoid the bio being the last thing posted there is a feature that allows the administrator to change the date of the post. In this case, I picked 1/1/07 because it was easy. It is actually surprising that it worked. I failed to realize until Hall pointed it out that this site wasn't even active then, but after all, it is a cover up...

What has happened here is nothing more than correcting a mistake. An error was made and when it was pointed out it was corrected. There is no big conspiracy theory and we are not trying to hide behind dates and times. Perhaps Jef Hall needs to find a life and worry more about his own politics than some washed up council candidate that got his ass kicked in the primary.

I hope he feels good about himself this morning... I hope the Democrats are proud to have him for a leader.

By the way, Jef Hall is on the committee to elect Jessica King to the council. Do we really want a representative that associates with the likes of him? I know I don't.

Council Meeting 3/27

Well, it has been an eventful day but I don't really want to go into it here. Perhaps I will address it in a later post. Let's talk about the council meeting...

Last night I attended the council meeting and was curious to see what would take place regarding the reconsideration of the three resolutions dealing with Ganther and the former Mercy Hospital. It was surprising that the council defeated the attempt to bring it back. In all likely hood, it would have passed anyway. So what was the big deal of taking another look with fresh eyes and new perspective? Apparently Ms. Scheuermann didn't feel that the public needed any answers from the developers because all of her "tough questions" had been answered. Let me ask Ms. Scheuermann, Why did Jackson Kinney omit that information from the council 2 weeks ago? Will this adventure end in a similar fashion as the first time? How involved is Mr. Ganther this time? Is he a full partner or is he a hired contractor? Will he have access to the money that the city is granting him? Will he pay the back taxes on the building? Will CRL if Ganther doesn't?

I am sure that there are more questions but we will never get the answers because there are 4 members of the council that are "rubber stamps" and will approve anything. Perhaps Scheuermann and Castle should have abstained in the first place. Both have had a personal relationship with Ganther and could be seen as biased when his company is involved.

Next was the dumpster days. I will only say that I disapprove of this because there are other neighborhoods that could benefit from this type of event and to spend block grant money on the same neighborhood 2 years in a row is too much.

What is up with Breathe free? That statement from them was nothing more than an adult temper tantrum. They didn't get their way and the Hilton is allowed to have smoking so they are pissed. Then I couldn't believe that the council wasted more than a half hour talking about something that they couldn't change anyway. Is there that much influence by this special interest group that they felt a need to baby them? Is there really a concern that the Hilton won a legal stipulation granting them an exemption for smoking? Let me put it in simple language and maybe even Breathe Free will understand.

If a private function is allowed to have smoking (they admitted that they don't disagree with this exception). Why should the food sales from these events be included in the total sales? Most hotels allow a "happy hour" during the dinner time that includes FREE food and open bar for guests to buy drinks. Seems to me that is a good way to keep the food sales down. The Hilton is NOT a conventional restaurant so they should not be treated as one.

In closing, I would like to extend KUDOS to the council for NOT being a rubber stamp and only granting a 1% increase to the City Manager rather than follow the status quo of just giving the 2% raise that has become somewhat automatic. There were those that feel he deserved more... I would like to say to them, "JUSTIFY IT". If you can justify his increase greater than what he got, then I will shut up and accept it. If not, don't complain about what he got.

More on Campaign Finance

Yesterdays report by the ONW made me glad that I am no longer in the race for Council. I don't think that I could have competed against those types of dollars being spent. Jessica King is really running away with expenditures. With more than $6000 already spent, and the potential for $2000 more, she may be buying a seat.

Meredith is following in a distant second. That is unusual for an incumbant needing to spend that much money to get re-elected. Most times, a new candidate will spend money to gain name recognition in a short time. Meredith doesn't have that handicap. She has been on the council for 2 years and is no stranger to the public. For her to have to spend that much money is a sign of her vulnerability.

The next point of interest actually lies with Mr. Neilsen and the fact that he is reporting that he hasn't spent ANY money. How is that even possible? Were the signs that we see all over town free? I will stop today and look to see if there is a "paid for by" on it and who actually paid for it. I had heard that he did a phone bank prior to the primary but I haven't been able to confirm that. Did anyone get a call? I would like to hear from someone who did.

Mr. Bain has shown that the bid for re-election is not free but has also shown restraint from spending an obscene amount of money. He has carried himself very well in the forums that I have seen and is showing that he is worthy of another term. He definately does not fit the bill of being a "rubber stamp". He educates himself and votes what he feels is best for the city as a whole without showing favor to special interest.

Mr. Cornell is also showing that spending money isn't a priority for election. He is second in spending of the non incumbants but like I said before, it is about gaining name recognition when you are a first time candidate.

And finally we have Tony Palmeri. He has remained exempt and still garners quite a support of voters. All I can say about that is, how does he do it?

Campaign Finances

The other night, I received a phone call from someone that was questioning a post that I had posted on my other site prior to the primary election. I had thought and for the most part hoped that the issue had died.

Well, it is back and I agreed to the person that I would post this to clear things up. In the original post, I wasn't clear and my message was very poor. I was discussing the incumbants and the connection of one of them to Ben Ganther. Well, it could have been assumed that I was referring to Bryan Bain. Not true or the case. Mr. Bain did not nor has he ever had a connection to Ganther.

My point was to connect Ganther to Scheuermann. She was the incumbant that has taken money from Ben Ganther during her 2005 campaign for council. She has previously denied the contribution, even as late as Wed. night to Dan Rylance. Well, on Thursday, I went to City Hall and looked at the campaign finance reports for Scheuermann for Council and found that on January 8, 2005, Ben Ganther donated $100 to the campaign.

I had previously apologized to Mr. Bain for my post then and I will again here. He was not meant to be connected and should not be now.

I hope this clarifies things...

Council Meeting 3/13

After watching last nights council meeting (yes, I still watch from home) I was wondering about the approval of the DAG for the old Mercy Hospital building. While I agree that the building is an eyesore, I am not sure that I agree with the approval of another $2.7 million for it's renovation. My instinct would have been to lay it over for 2 weeks so that more of the questions could be answered. There was obvious confusion with the terms of the money and how it would be paid out. Those questions, I feel, were left unanswered. Today, I learned that the group that is taking over the property was part of the original group that was working with Ganther from the start of this project. This information was conveniently left out of the information that the council was using to approve the resolutions last night. Now, the questions are begging to be asked; Was this intentional by Jackson Kinney to not include the connection? Would this have changed the outcome of the vote? Would it have prompted the council to lay it over for more information to be presented? And now that this information is coming out, will it be brought back to reverse the decision? I guess we will wait and see. I would keep an eye on the ONW for additional information. They will probably run a story in the next couple of days. Update: The article can be found here.

I was also curious about the "no bid" for equipment again (survey department). This has started to be a pattern to buy equipment without taking bids. Granted, they were speaking the truth when they said that this company was the only supplier in this region. There are others, but Sheboygan is closest.

The rest of the meeting was quick and otherwise painless. I was intrigued by a post that I saw earlier today on the ONW Election thread. It was from a poster only known as "chzhead", he asked; "With the increased number of executive sessions that have focused on the performance of the City Manager, one could be led to assume that his performance is lacking.

Do you as a potential council member feel that the clause in his contract to terminate his employment should be exercised?

Why or why not?"

That is a good question. I only wished I had come up with it first. One reply has already been made by Mr. Bain and he has deferred the answer until the executive sessions are no longer a restriction. Good decision and answer. I would imagine Ms. Scheuermann will have a similar response but perhaps this will spark some debate with the challengers to see where they stand in regards to the city manager. Even more so since Mr. Kinney seems to have put the council in an uncomfortable position yet again.

What is your take? Sound off.

LWV Forum

Well, after giving it a day to sink in, I will comment on last nights LWV forum. In case you missed it, the replay times are listed at OCAT online.

I was intrigued by the email question regarding the police department consolidation. Most of the candidates dodged the question and a couple even cited state laws that don't exist as a reason against doing it. I find it to be an idea worth exploring because of logistics and money.

I was also surprised to see a proxy for Scheuermann. I remember last year when a candidate was not able to attend, a proxy was not used. She should have used a better proxy because the message was lost by the reader.

Mr. Cornell certainly is saying the right things, although I am still skeptical of his message because it contradicts what he told me when he took out papers. He is a strong candidate that will have good support on election day.

Ms. King again failed on answering questions. Much of what she said was talking around the issue or about something else entirely. I really have to wonder how much she really knows about the city. I heard something last night about the Democratic Party is planning for her to use the council as a spring board for her to run against Carol Roessler. I doubt that can be confirmed but I can bet it will be denied. With the amount of money she is willing to spend for a council seat, it really makes you wonder what the real motivation is.

Mr. Nielsen was better in this forum than the last one. His answers were more on topic and he seemed less nervous for this one. He came in about a minute or two before the cameras rolled but seemed pretty collected. Maybe that is the secret, not having to anticipate when you arrive early.

And finally Tony Palmeri. His approach was more subdued than the primary forum. I feel that this style was appealing and he was educated on the issues. He was to the point and his message is definitely something I agree with. (on a side note I would like to congratulate him and the others of the "Five Rivers Five" on the recognition they received today.) Tony has my support for what it is worth.

At this point I am going to make an early prediction on the finishing order. This may be premature but I am no longer a candidate and perhaps have become irrelevant anyway, but here goes;

1. Bain
2. Palmeri
3. Cornell
4. King
5. Scheuermann
6. Nielsen

The possibility exists that King can overtake Cornell if she plays her cards right and spends that war chest that she has collected. It is tough to beat a high dollar campaign.

It is still early and a lot can change. April 3rd is still a month away.

Downtown- "Call for Action"

Yesterday I read an article on Oshkosh News about the Downtown that caught my attention. In this article, there were a couple of business owners that are wanting the city to "take action" on a plan to improve the downtown. I was shocked at what they are saying. Don't they realize the millions of dollars that have already been invested on what they are calling "piddly things"? I guess it goes to show that no matter what has or will be done, it will not be good enough to satisfy them. Here is a news flash for those who haven't realized it yet... Downtowns are dead or dying all over the country. The "urban sprawl" has taken over America and the development has moved to the outskirts of cities. Not wanting to single any business out, I need to point out that WalMart focuses on highway developments. They want high volume of traffic and now that most larger cities have "bypasses" that will go around the city to increase safety and decrease travel times, the downtowns will suffer. The two business owners in this article are wanting the council to make downtown Oshkosh a tourist destination. My question is, why is it the councils responsibility to ensure their success? Each business needs to do their own advertising and not rely on the city to boost business. There have been significant measures taken in the past few years to improve the downtown (Leach, Grand, Oprah House Square, 100 block, etc). When will it be enough? Just how much should the taxpayers have to pay to ensure that downtown businesses are successful and not expect them to contribute? Yes, the city should improve the city owned property but the individual businesses should be responsible to improve their own areas and advertising.

The candidates are doing a good job responding to this challenge. They are saying what they think will get them elected. It doesn't matter in the long run though. They can only do what the budget will allow them to do and the money just isn't there. Has anyone been to downtown Appleton lately? There are several empty store fronts again now that the smoking ban has started to put bars out of business. Be careful what you wish for, you may get it. All those comparisons stopped when Appleton started to struggle and now we have switched to Princeton. It is apples and oranges, we need to focus on what WILL work for Oshkosh. What that may be is anyones guess.

Any solutions? Remember, money is limited.

Council Candidates

Well, it is time to start my life after politics. I feel that I have spent too much time and effort learning and studying this "garbage" to sit back and do nothing with it. Even though I am no longer a candidate, I still have a vested interest in WHO is elected to the council. I think that the "conservative" needs to be represented by a blog as well as the "liberal" that have several.

My first post will be MY opinion of the remaining candidates. You can take it, leave it or argue it. This is what I feel regarding the candidates, but make no mistake, I have not decided where my votes will go on April 3rd. It is up to each candidate to EARN that vote. Hopefully, this forum will give them the chance to earn more than mine.

Now to the candidates, they are listed in the order that they finished in the primary.

1. Bryan Bain- I am really torn with Mr. Bain. He has had my respect since he was elected to the council 2 years ago but his actions as of late are becoming troublesome. During an interview with WOSH, he was asked about his "flip flop" vote on the garbage fee. Mr. Bain almost came unglued on the radio. He became extremely defensive and hostile towards Mr. Burnell. That was out of character for him so I dismissed it until his response to one of my recent posts (on the old blog). After he posted that, he did call me to discuss it. I amended the post and apologized for my "error" and removed the post altogether the next day but the courtesy was not returned. Is this a sign of things to come? I guess we should wait and see.

2. Tony Palmeri- Mr. Palmeri has historically been very conservative when it comes to city politics. I don't see that changing. His message has been very good when it comes to open government and accountability. He believes in many of the same things that I do but he may want to tone the "brashness" down a notch. Right now, I think he will remain a contender.

3. Meredith Scheuermann- Ms. Scheuermann has been a large disappointment since her election 2 years ago. She had run on the platform of "asking the tough questions" but has yet to really ask them. There are several questions that she asked during the Five Rivers mess that seemed tough... too bad they weren't hers (somebody was asking the questions of her). In addition to that, she sent out a flyer that claimed "fiscal responsibility" yet she has no problem spending $280,000 on floating docks when there are several streets in dire need of repair or replacement and could use those dollars.

4. Jessica King- She is bankruptcy attorney and I don't know much about her with the exception that she is new to city politics and doesn't do well answering questions that she isn't allowed to prepare for. We need to watch the televised forums to be sure that she is a viable candidate. Perhaps a bankruptcy attorney is what the city needs if the council and staff continue to spend the money like they have...

5. Bob Cornell- I read on the ONW Election forum posted on 2/18 at 1:16pm (screen name 'positive') where he tells us that he will not continue a conversation with anyone that wishes to remain anonymous. I have a real problem with that. In addition, he and I had a conversation when he took out papers where he admitted that he does not agree with any of my positions and is only running because of a vacant seat. He said that he is happy with the current council and their decisions. Mr. Cornell will NOT have my vote.

6. Mark Nielsen- He is largely unknown. The only thing we do know is his connection to Joe Paulus. He didn't do much prior to the primary so it will be interesting to see how he rebounds from a sixth place finish. We all know that it is possible after Mr. Bain did it 2 years ago. I will be looking forward to hearing more about him over the next several weeks to see what his message really is.

That is a short summary, I will open up the comments (moderated of course) for a limited time to see if everyone can behave themselves. I will remind everyone that I AM NO LONGER A CANDIDATE in this race. Insulting me will get you nowhere. I will delete any inappropriate comments and also point out that I have not discussed the Mayor race, so you don't need to either.

Have a nice day!!