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.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Free Counter
Copyright 2007
Sounding board and Opinions of politics in Oshkosh, Wisconsin. The views expressed in each post are solely the opinion of the author and should not be attributed to any other person or group.
21 comments:
It's ironic that the guy who finished dead last is now telling us what candidates are doing right and wrong.
Kent, you mention "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." What exactly did he tell you that he is now straying from?
Kent, you come across as bitter. The "Five Rivers Five" title is a slam. But I missed the recognition you're talking about. Can you elaborate?
First, if you think that you are hurting my feelings about the primary, you are mistaken. I have actually come to enjoy being done with campaigning.
Next, Mr. Cornell told me he liked how the council was performing and the only reason he was considering a campaign was because Ms Mattox was not running. Now he is saying that "he believes a change in representation is needed". A direct contradiction in terms.
I am not bitter nor am I upset. I enjoy my free time and that is why my posting is limited.
As for the "Five Rivers Five" you can see the coverage here or here.
The title of "Five Rivers Five" is not an insult. It is also not my title but one that even the five are proud of.
I support Tony and asked for one of his buttons after the forum. I will also put a sign in my yard if he has any left. I think he is the best choice on April 3rd for a seat on the council.
Kent, I agree Tony has the capacity to be a revolutionary council member. I hope he does not climb in bed with the city unions though. He has to remember he works for us, not the city labor.
Why does it have to be "us against them" when it comes to city employees? Tony was very eloquent in writing about how the city and its workers need to work together, instead of against each other, for the good of the city.
Union worker will support union workers!
Tony works for state of Wisconsin (us/TAXPAYERS) and receives the same or better benefits than teachers in the OASD.I believe university professors belong to the teachers union and Union workers usually support of union workers.
My reason for NOT voting for another candidate from the university system.
I will vote Bob Cornell, a "neutral" candidate, an individual who will have plenty of time to research a candidate who is willing to listen to both sides of an issue and has no strings attach. Bob Cornell can represent ALL of Oshkosh not the special interest groups.
The COUNCIL NEEDS Bob Cornell!
Tony works for the taxpayers now!
He is a member of a Union NOW.
Union workers/ brothers stick together!
We is a PUBLIC EMPLOYEE!
We need a councilor NOT associated
with public employees or unions!
We have a huge gaping whole called "public service employees wages and benefits" that needs to be plugged. The gravey train needs to halt.
UWO candidates Bain/ Palmeria are part of the "gravy train" Do we really need another union backed university candidate on the council?
I agree. The 800# gorilla is the wage and benefit package provided to unions. I noticed on cable channel 10, Winnebago County was advertising for County Jail officers, with wages of 19.50 - 25.50 per hour!!
$25.50 per hour is much more than many white collar advanced education careers offer. All this with county benefits too!!
This whole union city, county, state gravey train is just completely out-of-hand.
We need city and county representation thats motivated to standup and demand changes. And if State laws need changing, our local reps need to provide leadership to make that happen.
Sign me
"Discussed in Winnebago County"
Hey OshGuy, we're heard your schtick before. We're sick of the topic. Cast your vote for someone other than Palmeri and move on.
The majority has stated that city employee wages and benefits are not the issue you want them to be. Please find something else to complain about.
19.50 to 25.50 per hour is too much to work in the jail guarding prisoners, some of whom have been charged with felonies? We're not asking these people to be crossing guards or change oil at Jiffy Lube or make change at Wal Mart. We are asking them to control criminals.
Let's do the math. Starting wage is 19.50 and hour. They work a 37.5 hour work week. That's $38,000 per year. Top end is 25.50 per hour, which is 49,725.
The people who get hired for these jobs have a minimum of Associate Degrees, and many of them have Bachelor Degrees. Further, the pay they receive is on par with what others do across the state and across the country. That's what the job pays. Deal with it.
On second thought, you're right. They make too much. Let's forget about the jail altogether. Open the doors and let the pillars of society housed in our correction facilities out. See how much that ends up costing you.
Sometimes I can't believe what I read.
So just what kind of world do you live in?
In my world, city, county, state and federal workers are employed by the taxpayer. I as a taxpayer have every right in the world to voice my opinion on my feelings regarding compensation. You don’t have to agree…but in America, I have the right to voice my opinion.
These people don’t work for the private sector, so they are open to the scrutiny and comments of all taxpayers. I continue to suggest that the entire wage and benefit compensation package for public sector union employees needs drastic adjustments to meet the current economic climate.
People all across the state and country are acutely aware of what the going rate is for jailers, police officers, firefighters, etc. We are in the same ballpark as everyone else. Yet people like you do nothing but bitch about it. I bet you are also one of the same people who complain we need good paying jobs here. But when there are actually some good paying jobs for public sector workers you morph into a Scrooge. Do you actually think people are going to risk their lives for just slightly above minimum wage? Would you? Of course not on both counts. So get your hear out of the sand, get real, and come on do to earth where logic prevails. You are in the minority or have you had your head in the sand so long you missed that one too?
Public sector union workers are the only group of "hourly workers" currently insulated from the economic reality that each and every other private sector worker now sees as reality.
This insulated group would also face downsizing, pay freezes and push back of healthcare benefits if they were not protected in the cocoon of quid-pro-quo and arbitration.
The public sector unions are just as dangerous to the longevity of the middleclass as bloated corporate CEO's. Both have no regard for the average private sector taxpayers ability to support his family.
The public sector and the private sector are two different entities that on many levels should not be compared together.
What drives the private sector that you speak of is sales of goods. The market determines if your goods sell, which determine your profit level, and the amount you can pay your workers.
Public sector employees are service based employees. They provide services, not goods, and therefore they are not, and should not, be judged on what the private sector market can bear. "Your" inability to sell your wares at an ever increasing price, or the fact that you can't sell your goods at all, should not be the basis for private sector employee wages.
I ask that you look at other service oriented jobs. None of their prices are on the decrease!
This argument does not give license for public employees to have wage and benefit increases without regard to the taxpayer. At the same time, if you want the services to remain at their current levels, then the cost will remain somewhat constant.
Lastly, as I know the benefit package argument is soon to follow, please take note that public employees passed up wage increases in the past in lieu of benefits. If you desire them to give up benefits they currently enjoy, you should probably be prepared to compensate them in regards to the wage increases they never received.
Bottom line is the people who PAY the wages and benefits to the public sector unions have been faced with declining wages and benefits. Wisconsin tax payers alliance reports Wisconsin DUAL income families lag behind the rest of the nation by about $1,700.00 per year. Wisconsin average blue collar non-union wage earners are getting clobbered by no raises and less benefits. The result is that those that pay the city, county and federal union employee wages can no longer afford the services they provide at the rate they provide them.
In the private sector world, the employees would be downsized and replaced by lower wage employees.
There are many people who would perform many of the tasks performed by city and county workers for far less wages...just to get the great benefits.
Thats reality. That would happen if not for arbtration and quid-pro-quo.
In the real world a rising tide lifts all ships, but when the tide lowers, so do the ships.
In a union world, a rising tide lifts all ships, but when the tide lowers, the ships remain high and never lower. That is about as simple as I can make the argument.
It is a sad state of affairs in our world that now pit blue collar worker against blue collar worker. But it appears it has become every man for himself.
OshGuy, you have made this your issue that you are pursuing on multiple fronts. The concern you have voiced belongs only to a small portion of the voting public. The posts you have made on the topic have rarely been answered by elected officials or those running for election. Why is that?
The laws we have that you repeatedly cite are there because the employees are governmental employees, and not those of private sector. They are there to protect everyone involved, not just the public workers. To allow the taxing entities to simply replace the employees with those willing to work for lower wages would hurt the governmental agency, and the taxpayers, in the long run.
First off, you would further eliminate family supporting wages. Just because a large number of jobs in the area have become retail does not mean everyone in the community should make retail-like wages. Secondly, the employees with bachelors, masters and doctorate degrees would be better off working in the private sector, robbing the public sector of qualified people to employ. What would that do to the city/county/school district?
Consider the education levels for many of the jobs public employees hold. Do you really want the bottom of the barrel, quality wise, when it comes to the professionals that work for us? That's what you would get if you simply went out and looked for people to 'perform the tasks for less than we pay now' as you mention above. Our communities would be a disaster.
The laws are there to protect everyone involved.
Yet another example of how unions hold back progress:
"Wollangk said employee hours couldn’t be adjusted because they are set by union contracts.
“Our collections area already opens a half hour before the regular hours to accommodate those who need to stop in before they go to work at eight,” Wollangk said. “Our hours are very difficult because they are all negotiated by union contract.”
To read more, go to:
http://www.wals.lib.wi.us/ocnn/blogs/oshblog/archives/2007/03/customer_servic.html
Fairly obvious don't you think...
"The posts you have made on the topic have rarely been answered by elected officials or those running for election. Why is that?"
Because candidates are afraid to disenfranchise 600 voters (city employees)by playing hardball with union issues. Look at what happened to Monte!
QUESTION:
Do you support initiatives to encourage efficient and effect operations such as improved accountability, consumer friendly image, and consolidation of services, agencies, and/or functions?
Frank Tower - Yes, I support initiatives to encourage efficient and effective operations of the city.
The first area I intend to explore with the council and city is a combined police force between the city and county. While I do not believe anyone can conclude as to whether or not it will offer cost-saving efficiencies, it has the potential given budgets and size.
Atta boy Frank! Consolidation and downsizing.
Great place to start...Many more areas to be investigated.
Vote Tower!
Monte lost by a lot more than 600 votes. Stop looking at excuses for the election outcome. Simply put, this is not the issue you want it to be, union blaster.
Actually, I lost by about 430 votes. And although the union shouldn't be singled out as a main factor, my stance with contracts didn't do me any favors.
There were a lot of contributing factors to my loss in the primary. The woulda, coulda, shoulda just doesn't get the job done. I am now out of the election but that doesn't mean that I am out of politics. I am still very aware of the problems that this city is facing and the impact it could have on me and many others.
Post a Comment