On Tuesday night the Common Council made a selection from 15 applicants to fill the seat vacated by Mayor Esslinger on April 7th. Among the applicants was County Board Supervisor Jef Hall who, for the last 2 days, has been blogging on the "legality" of a conversation that took place during a 5 minute recess on Tuesday.
The question that begs to be asked is: Was there anything that took place illegal? The answer is No. Hall alleges that the conversation constituted a "negative quorum" and that any type of discussion should have taken place in front of the microphone. The City Attorney pointed out in an article by the ONW this morning that in order for a negative quorum to exist, there would need to be enough members present to block a vote. In this case, there would have to be 3 members involved where there were only 2.
Realistically, there was absolutely no reason to have applications for this position. There was no reason that the council needed to have this meeting. Previously, when a member did not fulfil their term for whatever reason, the Mayor appointed a replacement without any of this process and the council confirmed that appointment. The application process was meant to be fair AND open in the spirit of keeping the public involved. This conversation was not illegal nor did it have any effect on the outcome of the vote. Buchholz had 3 votes confirming his selection regardless of what Poeschl voted.
[Addition: For clarification... Buchholz had enough votes to advance for a second vote. It is also clear that even if he had chosen another name, it would not have changed the "top 2" candidates with Hintz receiving 2 nominations and Buchholz 3. After the field was narrowed and some confusion on the next step, Buchholz was selected unanimously by the 6 members. Any discussion on or off camera could not have swayed the outcome.]
There were also comments made regarding an email sent by Buchholz prior to the meeting. This email was never presented to the public nor it's contents discussed beyond that all of the council members received it and some admitted to it influencing their decision to select him. There was nothing illegal nor unethical regarding such communication between the candidate and the council. Hall even suggests that the council members communicated outside the meeting about the email.
So one would need to ask themselves; is this really about a demand for openness? Or is the Chair of the Winnebago Democratic Party and a Board Supervisor simply throwing stones at some local politicians that he does not agree with politically?
Let me know what you think...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
"Bucholz had 3 votes confirming his selection regardless of what Poeschl voted."
What are you talking about? Three votes can't confirm anything in this case, Mr. Monte. Whether Mr. Hall is right or wrong, the fact that this covnersation took place should make it pretty clear that Mr. Poeschl has trouble thinking for himself. And that flies in the face of why people voted for him.
The Northwestern article the day of the meeting specifically said the winner needed four votes:
"During Tuesday's meeting, each candidate will be asked to give a brief presentation. There will be time for councilors to question candidates and also for the public to comment.
From there, a first ballot will be taken with the top two vote getters proceeding as finalists. A 4-2 vote by council will be needed to pick the successful candidate."
Please excuse me if I'm wrong, but isn't the council meeting a publically noticed meeting where council members can speak about the things on the agenda? So what if Palmeri and Poeschl talked? ALL of them talked about the appointment!
Yawn.
Post a Comment