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.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
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.
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?
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?
Saturday, March 17, 2007
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...
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...
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
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.
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.
Thursday, March 8, 2007
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.
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.
Thursday, March 1, 2007
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)