Where do we go from here?

First, let me start by thanking Dick Wollangk for his service over the past 10 years as our City Manager and his elected service prior to that. He has given many years to this community and his effort should not be overlooked. Despite the outcome, he still deserves respect. Over the past couple of years, he has taken quite a bit from members of the community (including criticism from myself) over his performance. Although we don't see eye to eye on how the city should be run, he did give a great deal to do the job.

Now, as I said before, where do we go from here? Now that Mr. Wollangk will retire effective October 13th, we need to know what will happen next. (By the way, how does an "at will" employee get a SEVERANCE package at RETIREMENT that totals $113k?).
Tony talks about the appointment of a yet to be established interim manager while the community hashes out the inevitable task of deciding... Mayor or Manager?

I am seriously torn on the issue. I have said in the past that I don't like the elected Mayor senario. I believe that a City Manager form of government can be strong if the correct person is in the job. We need a strong leader. One that is not afraid to get his hands dirty and ensure that the department heads are doing the job up to standards. One that cannot be afraid to discipline those same department heads or terminate them for sub-par performance. Unfortunately, that may come at a price. Equivilant cities pay >$130k for such a manager. I think that the added expense may be worth it. It also gives the council the ability to screen candidates with resumes and interviews. The media has very little to do with the final choice.

Now we look at the flip side of the coin. If there was an elected Mayor, we have the opportunity to elect, at large, the leader of the city. It no longer has anything to do with the council and the voters (all 21%) will make the decision who will run the city and how it is done. No more reliance on the Common Council to make the daily decisions. No more worrying about the "goals" set by the council. The Mayor will have to "put up or shut up" or risk being ousted in the next election. The flood gates will open. If you think that the Castle/Esslinger race was expensive (over $20k combined) stand back. This will make that one look small. The ONW will take sides, the political parties will get involved (despite the "non partisan" tag) and there will be quite a mud slinging affair between the "sides" that will form. It will be a popularity contest like you have never seen before and we will be lucky if we get a candidate that can find his ass with both hands and a flashlight to run the city. Believe me, that is what happened in Sheboygan for many years. It was run by someone who nobody would challenge and he ran the city down. Now they are scrambling to recover and if you have watched the news, it isn't easy.

I have never been a fan of the Mayor form of government. Especially in a city that doesn't vote and the ones that do vote don't pay attention (how else can you explain polar opposites winning an election?). If Oshkosh is going to see one, this will be the time. I am not sure what choice I will make when I go to the polls... perhaps I will write about it at a later time. From the looks of it, I have 'till November to think about it.

I will run a poll. Tell me what you think.

Is the City Manager Managing?

There has been a great deal of public debate lately regarding whether or not Dick Wollangk should keep his job as the City Manager. Now there is another news story hitting the papers regarding the "personal guarantee" given by Ganther and the 100 block investors. Turns out now that the "guarantee" isn't worth the paper it is written on (someone else's words, not mine). This "oops" is going to cost the city Millions. Millions that we cannot afford. No wonder nobody was taking care of that building. It has been falling apart for more than 2 years but nothing was done about it. Now that is in foreclosure, there isn't a thing the city can do about it.

Now, understand that although the City Manager may sign a document like this, he does not write it. An argument can be made that he has nothing to do with it. I beg to differ with that though. I think that he is ultimately responsible for the actions of his subordinates. If they do something that reflects poorly on the city, then he should take action on it. If he doesn't or fails to do it properly, then he is not effective as a manager and should be relieved of his position.

This isn't the first time that Mr Kinney or Mr Kraft have been in the paper because of actions that are less than healthy for our city. As a matter of fact, they are in the paper for more negative items than positive items. Mr Kinney has the Five Rivers mess that has cost the city a small fortune... Mr Kraft has the PMI contract mistakes, a forced apology to a council member for false information, and now a document for the 100 block that "isn't worth the paper it is written on".

Well Mr Wollangk, it is time to step up to the plate and show the city that you have the stones to do the job. Failure to do so may result in your dismissal by the council. As they say, the fat lady hasn't begun to sing. But you can bet she is warming up...

Open Mouth... Insert Foot

Well, I know that this is no longer news and I am not one bit surprised that I am the first one writting about it. It is all about Brian Bain stepping on his tongue and getting himself removed from the City Manager discussions and not about Paul Esslinger doing something wrong.

Funny, there are a couple of people out there that are all over Paul whenever he does something that they don't like but when their favorite screws up (BIG) they don't say a peep.

I do like Dick Wollangk. He has been open and helpful in both of my bids for office. His door was always open for me to pop in and ask a question. I don't know if he deserves to be fired for what is happening or whether he should be given the chance to get his department heads under control. Either way, the city will benefit from the effort. Mr. Bain has jeopordized this action. He has weakened the council by using his blog and/or the newspaper to voice an opinion of a matter that should be taking place behind closed doors. He has shown extreme bias in regards to the city manager. By doing so, he tainted the discussion to the point that prevents him from doing his duty as our representative. Without his vote, our council could remain deadlocked on any decision that could be reached. Without his vote, he isn't much of a representative is he?

But of course, it isn't Esslinger, McHugh, Palmeri or Monte so who cares right?

Update to Jackson and Murdock Intersection

As I said in my previous post, more to follow... Here is the follow up.

Everyone is up in arms saying that putting a roundabout at the intersection of Jackson and Murdock is a matter of public safety. I have numbers that disprove that theory, at least takes the priority off of THAT intersection.

Would it surprise you to know that Jackson and Murdock is not even in the top 10 of the "dangerous" intersections in Oshkosh? Actually, it isn't even ranked in the top 20! It is ranked 21st and it's neighbor, Wisconsin and Murdock is ranked 17th!

There were only 6 accidents that occurred at this intersection in all of 2006 while the traffic numbers over 29,000 vehicles PER DAY that travel through it. Given that ratio, perhaps it is not such a high priority to do this one first.

The highest accident intersection is 9th and Knapp Streets. It had 16 accidents in 2006 followed by High Avenue and Wisconsin with 14. Then Washburn/Witzel-13, Bowen/Murdock-10 and Koeller/9th-10 round out the top 5. Koeller/9th has posted double digit accidents in ALL of the last 3 years. Wait... low and behold there are 3 within a mile of each other in the top 5. Seems to me, that our focus is a little off with safety of intersections.

This is NOT the first intersection that has been proposed to get a roundabout. The DOT would like to put the same type of intersection at 41/Witzel (one on each side of the highway for each frontage road). My opinion is that to build a roundabout at an expense of more than $600,000 to the city is ludicrous if they do not do anything to address the neighboring intersection of Wisconsin/Murdock that has posted more accidents in each of the last 2 years. This would NOT be productive and MAY actually cause more problems than they set out to fix.

If I understand the new design correctly, KFC would be purchased and the intersection widened to allow for additional turn lanes regardless of whether the roundabout is built or not. I am not sure about that aspect but either way, improvements can be made WITHOUT building an intersection at a significantly higher expense to the city with no real proof that it will improve anything. Accidents will happen at ANY intersection regardless of design. Will the 6 improve enough to justify the expense?

Guess we will find out if the council approves this design tonight...