On Tuesday night the Oshkosh Common Council voted to go into closed session to discuss Five Rivers Resort financing. Only Councilor Paul Esslinger, to his credit, voted no and refused to attend the closed session. I asked the Mayor in open session whether citizens who tried to attend the closed meeting would be removed by the police if necessary, and he said yes. Approximately seven citizens did indeed try to attend the closed session, but we did leave when the mayor asked us to so there was no need to bring in the police.
I think you'd have to search far and wide to find such a clear cut example of an open meetings law violation. The Council discussion of this matter in open session revealed that most of the seven were conflicted about whether they would be doing the right thing by going into closed session, a revelation that in and of itself should have prevented them from closing the meeting. Rarely has a city attorney given a governing body such bad advice; Mr. Kraft went through his familiar song and dance of interpreting the law to meet the needs of city hall, along with the tired canard of the Attorney General's views being "only opinions."
On Polly Briley's blog, someone just reported a rumor (scroll down) that the Oshkosh Northwestern will be filing a complaint against the Council. If that's true, it will mean that the Council will be facing at least two complaints (Cheryl Hentz and I plan to file one as soon as we get time). All the Council had to do was postpone the meeting and ask Kraft to get a formal opinion from Lautenschlager on the matter. But they apparently would rather be subject to the laborious investigation that will now be the result of the complaints. Anything for a developer, I guess.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
You handled things very well last night and planted enough doubt that our City Council should have postponed the meeting but they did not and may have to answer for it. I have said it before and I will say it again, I don't trust this deal and if it has to happen behind closed doors, it appears that I may be right. The taxpayers need to remember, this is $6.4 MILLION up front and another $9.4 MILLION in TIF credit. Do you really want to take a chance like that when we can't participate?
Me either.
Kent Monte
Is your complaint going to the DA? If so do not expect much. He would not touch the no bid bathrooms at the Leach.
This is different and he will have to do something about it or refer it to another DA's office. His jurisdiction over open meetings violations is very clear.
Tony? Complaining about something? Weird.
anonymous having issues with Tony demanding accountability, legitimacy and accountability.... even weirder...............
lawfulness....... but also double accountability.............
"Demanding" implies something more than "blogging about," don't you think? Just as "must crash" implies something more than skulking off to the safe confines of the internet when asked politely to leave. Tony is nothing but empty rhetoric and last night demonstrated that. If he really wanted to effect change he would find methods to reach out beyond the small, reactionary segment of Oshkosh that already eats up his every empty word. He who claims to be a voice of the people and wears a blue collar on TV cannot truly be representative of such while constantly stickin' it to mainstream media (upon which the majority still rely) and while using his PhD language skills to distort an argument in his favor.
Let's see if you mean this, Tony. Take the City of Oshkosh to court. Arm yourself with your Attorney General's opinion and your cadre of fellow bloggers, spend the taxpayer dollars you claim to care so much about, and see if last night's meeting was, indeed, against the law. Put YOUR money where your mouth is.
you must be in favor of the city spending millions of our dollars without our being able to watch. you must be really glad to see this moving forward.
"Put your money where your mouth is" (PYMWYMI) anonymous has a good point. In fact I think we should rewrite the First Amendment. That part that says we have a right to "petition the government for a redress of grievances" should say "petition the government for a redress of grievances as long as you put YOUR money where your mouth is."
You think PYMWYMI anonymous will ever see the irony of him/her calling other people "reactionary?" I don't think so. --TP
Tony,
Will YOU ever see the irony of calling other people reactionary?
Petition! That's what I said! Go all out! Use every channel available and necessary for you to redress this grievance you have with our government. You let them shut the door in your face last night. Is that what you stand for?
PYMWYMI
To anonymous at 5:41 p.m.,
You are misunderstood about the events to come here.
First, I don't think Tony said he was going to take the city to court. He said he and I were filing a complaint over last night's closed meeting. That complaint will be filed with the DA's office and if we get nowhere there we'll take it to the state Attorney General's office. To do so costs us nothing, the city nothing (other than some people having to spend time answering the DA or AG as to why they did what they did) and the taxpayers nothing.
It is a person's responsibility to speak up when they see a crime being committed or a law broken like this meeting last night probably was. What is your excuse for sitting back on your haunches and just accepting everything this council does and whatever the city staff tells them is right? What makes you believe they are so right and Tony Palmeri is so wrong? Just because the city attorney has a law degree and says so? After all, to coin his phrase, his is "only one attorney's legal opinion."
It is always amazing to me how Warren Kraft defers to the state AG's office rulings and counsel when it's covenient for him ro the coucncil to and the rest of the time he basically thumbs his nose at the office, uses his "phrase for every law-breaking occasion" and says their opinion is just that - an opinion. Thank God some of us have a spine and brain and aren't afraid to use them. It would be a shame if we all played "follow the leader" like six of our seven city council members and citizens like you.
You worry about this costing the city taxpayers something? As I said earlier, it will not, but even if it did, it would pall in comparison to the nearly $16 million we're spending on the Five Rivers project itself.
This council continues to acquiesce to the developer and our own city staff, and is not asking enough tough questions or taking the steps necessary to ensure that taxpayer interests are protected.
You said to Tony "Put YOUR money where your mouth is?" In case you hadn't noticed, we've been putting enough of our own money into this project through staff salaries and whatever upfront costs and TIF money are eventually involved. I think we've paid enough freight on this so far without having to spend money on a private attorney to make sure our elected officials follow the law.
P.S. Would you also suggest to the Five Rivers developers that they put their own money into this and not rely on the taxpayers for any portion of it? I bet they wouldn't think it was such a sure-fire project then, would they? And if the project is so sound, why after all these months has the financing not been lined up? If it's such a solid investment, people should be flocking to invest or loan Tom Doig the money. Get a grip on reality, Anonymous. Please.
Ms Hentz,
I suggested that Tony, by initiating a lawsuit against the city, would cost the taxpayers money. I did not insinuate filing a complaint would do so. Both you and Tony, in the past, have barked about suing the city. My point is: stop barking and bite. The only way to add any validity to "one attorney's opinion" is to see that opinion held up in Court. Otherwise--Warren Kraft, Peg Lautenschlager, Johnnie Cochrane--what they say is all just opinion, although in my jugment, slightly more well-qualified opinion than Tony's. I have an opinion on it as well. Is mine more qualified than Tony's or anyone else's? Who knows. The statute plainly says that when "competitive" OR "bargaining" items are being discussed, the session may be closed. According to the City, that is what was going on. Was it the best PR move for the City and Five Rivers? No. Is Five Rivers a good idea that is going to be successful? I don't know. Are Scheurmann, Castle, Tower, Tower, Bain and Mattox screwing me? I don't think so.
By "money"--and you two are furthering my opinion that you see things rather blindly in terms of money--I meant action. Instead of blogging and meekly poking your head in a closed session, call the six council members you dislike everyday. Get your caldron of supporters to do the same. Run for office.
Oh, wait--you did. And Oshkosh did not vote for you. If you are so right--if the City of Oshkosh is indeed doing such great harm to the citizen taxpayers of this town--then why didn't voters rally around you?
Dear Anonymous,
This is not about lost elections, though you want to try elevating your position by making it seem that way. This is about the law, and for your information, people do NOT need to file a lawsuit in order to see that the law is upheld by their elected leaders or law enforcement officials. Before continuing to spout off about things you clearly don't fully understand or making sarcastic comments to people about election results - good or bad - why don't you do a little research on the Open Meetings Law and how district attorneys have investgiated and handled such offenses in the past.
Finally, since you admittedly have an opinion on things, too, and must think everything is fine with the way business is being conducted, why don't you take your own advice and put your name on a ballot so you can help ensure things remain just as they are. Oh that's right, you don't even have the guts to sign your name to your own convictions.
It's been a long time since I've taken any college classes but I do recall a very profound phrase from my Communication and Human Behavior class:
"You cannot not communicate". Meaning a bunch of stuff really, but pertinent to PYMWYMI - we reveal ourselves much more than we think.
PYMWYMI has run on long enough that it is quite clear that, like so many who "rebut" Tony's statements on this blog, it is far less about WHAT is being said than about WHO is saying it.
There is a strongly goading element to PYMWYMI's rant, playing a tune to which Tony is to dance, if indeed he is man enough. PYMWYMI would like to be the one to set the parameters by which Tony's (and his mindless minions) citizenship is to be judged. Nice work if you can get it, but what job qualifications does PYMWYMI seem to have in order to fill this position?
Who will listen to a man who calls Tony and Co. on their "meekness" while hiding behind Mighty Mighty Anonimity? How shrivelled can you get? We have some serious leadership qualities on display here, boys and girls. Maybe PYMWYMI was even AT the meeting last night but lost his voice and his 'nads at the last minute? Of course that is the merest speculation.
PYMWYMI has probably gotten more attention that he really deserves from Tony's "caldron of supporters".
But PYMWYMI, don't you really mean to say "cadre" of supporters? I think you do.
cadre n.
1.)
A tightly knit group of zealots who are active in advancing the interests of a revolutionary party.
2.)
A member of such a group.
Tony, Cheryl, and everyone else is going to do what they want, following their own consciences, and you're going to have to suck it up. Nice try though.
Ah. The tired way you guys always finish off an argument you know you have lost: no guts to sign my name. Guess what--you guys can do something about that too. Then you would have no one but yourselves to talk to.
We'll see who's lost when a ruling comes in on the complaints. It's not just Tony and Cheryl. The NW is said to be filing a complaint too. Maybe it's you who doesn't get it.
Chastising you for not signing your name is hardly an admission of defeat. It is a statement of the obvious and one that you dont seem to be too comfortable with. You could always sign your name and help relieve that discomfort. But you are too much of a scaredy-cat.
Regarding costing the city money... Remember when citizen Matze received the AG's opinion regarding the waiving of the bathroom bid? Did his actions save the city money?? One will never know for sure, but I find it highly suspicious that suddenly CR Meyer found that they "had efficiencies" (or whatever their reason was) and found that they ended up doing the project for less. Then they refunded tens of thousands of dollars to the city. Would that have happened without the controversy??
Look PYMWYMI,
We Cauldron-mates enjoy talking to each other. I for one would not miss your gratuitously destructive attitude - do you really think that some day Tony will respond to your hate and re-make himself just to please you?
You must have someone you like, some friend somewhere. Do you enjoy watching them get crapped on? If that stopped would you miss it?
If any of us cauldron inhabitants have conversed with you under other circumstances and have treated you decently and then you come here and act like this - well, just let me be the first to thank you for this experience and for gracing us all with your presence.
I suspect Tony keeps the anonymous posting option open for novices, for people who don't want to sign up with Blogger, maybe a student who wants to comment without identifying him/herself to a professor - stuff like that. I never liked it when I was a kid in school and the teacher shut down a priviledge, punishing the whole class because of one student.
That's pretty much where you're at. That is the "remedy" you are suggesting. Somethin' to be proud of, eh?
Post a Comment