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.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
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?
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?
Saturday, September 22, 2007
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?
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?
Sunday, September 2, 2007
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?)
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?)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)