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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Okay Kent........scenenio
You have just finished a year on the job, you did the best you could, the challenges from your boss kept changing & leadership priorties changed like the wind. Your boss decides that inspite of the improvements you fostered you get a 1% raise. Everyone else @ Oshkosh Truck receives a 2.5% raise.
Do you think it is right?
Won't you think you deserved what your co-workers received.
Couldn't this be viewed as a form of discrimination?
"Won't you think you deserved what your co-workers received."
Typical Union mentality!
He may be the lowest paid because his performance is also the lowest.
You should EARN your pay, not just be ENTITLED due to your title or length of service.
Good move Council!
1% sends a clear message!
11:03 Did you even BOTHER to read the 7:42's post or were you in such a hurry to blast union members you had to jump the gun? When the priorities constantly change depending on the political wind it is hardly fair to an employee (through a 1% raise) that it was their fault for the priorities of the council to keep changing.
He EARNED MORE than a 1% raise!
There some department heads that needed their wages frozen.
The message sent is Oshkosh City Councilors are inept and out of touch. Councilors made Mr. Wollangk
their scrap-goat and a political chess piece. If this evalation process was NOT televised right before an election you would have a completely different result.
Can we change the compensation the councilors earned? Their compensation should be returned to th taxpayers! If Mr. Wollangk only earned a 1% raise they should get NOTHING! Constantly changing expectations and priorties for the city manager is the result of a council with no leadership. Our CURRENT Council has just that. NO LEADERSHIP!
Let's clean house as much as we can and elect as many NEW faces as we can. We have an excellent slate of candidates without returning any of the current councilors to serve. We could conceiveable change 4 faces. Let's do IT!
We have seen what the current council can do. If we want improvements within City Hall we have to start with the poeple WE the Taxpayers elect.
The winds of change are blowing. Let's open the doors at City Hall. clean house and usher in the changes we want and what this city needs. 4 NEW FACES
Taxpayers need to recognize desperate councilors making political moves to get re-elected.
That is want we viewed Tuesday night. Two incumbents and one wanna-be-Mayor fighting for political survival at the expense of a hard-working City Manager who deserves the same increase in pay the council approved for other non-union employees.
To the person who posted the Sather column.
Can you submit just the link please? I don't want to post the whole article without credit to the publication.
Thanks.
As we come down to the wire I agree LET"S DO SOME SPRING CLEANING AT CITY HALL!
Neilsen, Cornell, King would give us at least 3 new faces. F.Tower would finish the new look for 2007. Although not a new face to the council he would certainly be the better choice. We need more representation not less, so a vote for another UWO candidate hurts the city and the university.
Post a Comment