Earlier this evening I was told that certain council candidates who have spoken with Five Rivers developer Tom Doig about his proposed project, are "sitting on" information Mr. Doig shared with them, saying they can't share it with people in the general public because they promised Mr. Doig it would remain confidential. If this is, in fact, true, then it is a big concern to me and I think it should be to every taxpayer in Oshkosh.
We are talking about millions of dollars in taxpayer money and these council candidates who want our votes, by promising confidentiality, seem to be saying to us by their silence that they feel more of an allegiance to a possible developer who is asking for a handout than to the people they say they want to serve and protect the tax dollars for. These are also some of the same people who felt that the closed session meeting of Feb. 14 should have been done in the open. There seems to be a disconnect there. They are either willing to put the taxpayers first or they're not.
I was also told by one council candidate that Tom Doig did not ask for the recent closed session meeting; that, instead, it was community development director Jackson Kinney who pushed for it. This is both troublesome and problematic. It's also a little unbelievable.
But this is not the first time I have heard of Jackson Kinney trying to stop Tom Doig from making information public. Mr. Doig himself told me he had wanted to put certain information out there for the public but that Jackson Kinney stifled it. I asked Bryan Bain, Frank Tower and Burk Tower about this at the last Fifth Tuesday Forum and not one of them was able to answer my question. They said they'd find out though. I hope to hear the answer soon.
I also have a hard time believing that Mr. Doig so desperately wants a public forum on his project. If that is true, why is he "swearing" certain existing council members and candidates to secrecy - even having at least one councilor (Paul Esslinger) sign a confidentiality agreement, which under state statutes he can't require of sitting council members, I'm told. But if Mr. Doig truly does want a public meeting and Mr. Kinney is resisting, there is a simple enough fix. Mr. Doig simply needs to tell Jackson Kinney that the meetings are going to be held in public and with Q & A sessions being shared with the public or he is taking his multi-million dollar dream development elsewhere. This is not that complicated. In some ways it makes one wonder (but then again, not really) who's in the driver's seat here. Let's not forget it was Mr. Kinney who offered TIF money to Mr. Doig - Doig told me himself that he did not initiate the discussion about it.
We also learned at the Fifth Tuesday Forum that Mr. Kinney is speaking to banks for developer Doig. Why? Exactly whose payroll is Jackson Kinney on and why is he speaking to bankers for a developer instead of the developer talking to banks himself?
Council candidate Kent Monte has said on his blog that he spoke with Tom Doig. That conversation has taken place since Doig missed the January financing deadline and since this month's closed session meeting. Did Mr. Doig share with Mr. Monte or perhaps the council itself in the infamous closed session meeting why his financing is not in order after months and months of tying up our staff and working on this? Has he explained to anyone why he is so opposed to the "pay as you go" option? I can venture an educated guess and the two are probably tied very closely together: I bet it's because his potential financiers are not going to go for the "pay as you go" option. They'd rather have all the risk on the city and its taxpayers. That risk can be avoided or at least greatly reduced with the "pay as you go" option rather than "direct pay." To do anything less than "pay as you go" is dangerous and the council that votes on this project would be well-advised to not do it. Jackson Kinney himself recommended the "pay as you go" option in the early stages of term sheet options being presented. But it would not surprise me if (a) this is part of the reason financing seems to be somewhat of a stumbling block for Doig and his partners, and (b) we eventually see Mr. Kinney change his tune and recommend that the council approve the project with a "direct pay" option. Better to do the project under any conditions than not do it at all, right? Wrong!
The council needs to be smart about this project. Look at all the evidence to suggest that these types of projects are not the financial windfalls they are projected to be. There are far too many questions still unanswered and far too many risks. No one seems to be too concerned, if at all, about money when it comes right down to it: not the redevelopment authority, not the plan commission and not the council - at least that we've seen so far. The only ones concerned about money seem to be the developers and how much they can get from us and with the least risk possible for themselves. If that's not the case, then maybe some conversation and honest answers in public will start to dispel some of the mystery and skepticism. Until then, one can't help but feel we're being sold down the river again - this time down Five Rivers.
Friday, February 24, 2006
Hentz: Five Rivers Info Owed To Taxpayers, Citizens
Note: This piece by Cheryl Hentz appears on the Eye on Oshkosh site (registration required).
I teach Communication Studies (First Amendment, Classical Rhetoric, Civic Engagement, Rhetoric of Rock Music) at UW Oshkosh. Served two terms on Oshkosh City Council. Originally from Brooklyn, NY.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
34 comments:
Once, to a person who understands TIFs far better than I do, I questioned the wisdom of a planned development in a community in my area. My main reason at the time was that I was positively reeling, after having just sat through the developer's powerpoint presentation, from the sheer ugliness of the thing. Acres of crappy rectangles smashed together like pale blue aluminum pull-apart buns with front porches or something. Hideous. NOT a neighborhood.
A city employee who shall remain nameless said to me later "We (city employees )spend HOURS and HOURS of our time working with these developers. You would be amazed. It really gets to be a problem as far as getting other work done, that's a real issue. BUT even if the developer loses his ass, the city still gets it's money, so in the long run it doesn't matter to us."
I was not able to ask further about that. Do you understand that remark?
Also - I thought that was a funny way to handle community development. Worthless Ugly Stuff sitting there like that - you'd think they WOULD care if the developer lost ANY of his anatomy.
I see that Ms. Hentz failed to mention that her friend Meredith Scheuermann was the other council member that met with and signed a confidentiality agreement with the developer before the council voted on it.
Covering your friends butt again Cheryl??
Oh and by the way, metting with and signing a confidentiality agreement with the developer is not illegal.
Tony,
I hate TIFs, I think they are a way to screw the community. I think the resort was a half-assed idea, not well planned and designed to bankrupt us. Aside from that I wonder why a journalist of Cheryl's caliber would take pot shots at councilers and candidates about information being "sat on." I think if she wants to know, as a journalist, she should pick up the phone and dial. The National Enquirer does a better job of investigative reporting. Tony, could you do some leg work for your loyal readers?
"why is he "swearing" certain existing council members and candidates to secrecy - even having at least one councilor (Paul Esslinger) sign a confidentiality agreement...I'm told." Has this been verified or is this an extension of the feud Cheryl is having with Paul? That seems a little libelous based on "I'm told."
Instead of supposition about what Doig said to who, why doesn't Cheryl have him on her show instead of taking shots at people for not spilling their guts to her? Tony, I also wonder at your motives by putting it on your website for God any nut from out of town to comment on. I understand people need to know, but it seems like information should be verified first before throwing accusations. That leads me to wonder why you, a journalist of many years with a strong reputation for fairness and finding the truth would post this without verification. I hold out hope that YOUR journalistic integrity is still intact.
I don't perceive Cheryl's opinion piece as being pot shots. In fact she says very clearly that she tried to get answers at Mr. Bain's Fifth Tuesday Forum.
I believe that Mr. Doig has been invited to appear on "Eye on Oshkosh." I'm not sure when that appearance is scheduled to take place. (And note also that Cheryl has talked to Doig--she says "Let's not forget it was Mr. Kinney who offered TIF money to Mr. Doig - Doig told me himself that he did not initiate the discussion about it.").
I would prefer that Cheryl not use anonymous sources (e.g. "I was told . . ."; "I was also told by one council candidate . . ."), but she would hardly be the first writer to do that and she won't be the last.
My own view is that we are getting to "crunch time" on Five Rivers and it is vital that all concerned citizens do what they can to crack the web of secrecy in which the project has become wrapped. I believe that Chery's piece helps to crack that web and that's why I reposted it. --Tony
Tony, why would you have to repost it? cheryl had already posted on her site, then made it so that if you want to see it you have to register. Could this be because, she did not corroborate her facts and sources? Cracking the web of secrecacy and comment like we're coming down to crunch time, is NO excuse for this type of "reporting". Your willingness Tony, to support this shabby work is as much a reflection on you as it is on the original writer (if you will.).
Your reporting and supoort for stories should be based on not only the whole truth but a sense of fairness to all parties. This is not the first time Cheryl has stooped to this shabby reporting tactic, nor will it be the last. You Tony, can do and should do better. You are a teacher, a mentor and have always stated you believe in honest debate. Let's start to see some.
To Anonymous at 8:50 a.m.,
You are so intent on creating a smokescreen over a friendship on any level with Meredith Scheuerman that you are blind to the real issue.
It's also very telling how you weren't complaining about my friendship with Brian Poeschl or my former friendships with Melanie Bloechl or Paul Esslinger. Talk about having your judgment clouded. Be these things as they may, let's get back to the real issue here.
Point #1: I would have been unaware of ANY councilors signing a confidentiality agreement with Five Rivers developer Tom Doig except that Paul Esslinger told me about this situation himself when it happened last year. I did not say that Esslinger committed a crime or broke the law by signing such an agreement, however. Just the opposite, in fact. I said that under state statutes, I was told that Mr. Doig cannot require such an agreement of a council member. The agreement is basically null and void because of the position councilors hold. So while you're busy trying to stand up for Paul Esslinger why don't you actually read the words and understand what has been said before banging out such nonsense on your keyboard and giving away your obvious bias (and identity) in the process?
Point #2: Paul Esslinger's signing a confidentiality agreement with Doig is a matter of at least some public knowledge. It was even brought up by Frank Tower at the last Fifth Tuesday Forum. He mentioned no other councilors by name as having signed one, though all may have been asked and others may have signed such a document. Had you been there you would have heard what Mr. Tower said.
To Anonymous at 8:53 a.m.,
I took no potshots at anyone. I didn't even identify one of the individuals. I simply said I have a problem with them for saying one thing but then appearing to do another by virtue of their silence after speaking with Tom Doig. It is a fair assessment, especially when they have complained about a closed session meeting that kept information from the public.
I must question the importance of such "secret" information, however. I doubt Tom Doig is naive enough to entrust confidential data with people on the phone or in person, unless it is part of an executive council meeting where confidentially is guaranteed. Truth be known, absent an executive session, I believe Mr. Doig shares with people only what he expects might be made public by someone - no more, no less.
For your information, I contacted Mr. Doig several weeks ago and he has committed to coming on the show. Send me your questions and we will be happy to ask them during the hour-long discussion.
One other point: You are as confused as your ramblings. First you refer to me as a journalist with caliber, then you say the National Enquirer does a better job of investigative reporting. Your confusion is further evident by your reference to my "I'm told" comment. The "I'm told" comment did not refer to my being told by some anonymous person that Esslinger signed the agreement, but rather to the fact that Frank Tower told us in the meeting that such agreements with elected officials are not valid under the law. Understand? So your comments about libel are as ridiculous and convoluted as the rest of what you have said.
I am not sure where you get the idea that I have made any suppositions about what Tom Doig said to someone privately. I have made an educated guess about his financing and where I see it going in the future. And I said those who are "in the know" about something should come forward if they truly want to serve the people of this community rather than do Mr. Doig's bidding. And if Mr. Doig did not ask that things be kept secret, then the person who told me they were asked to do so was less than honest. Either way it raises questions, I think.
To Anonymous at 2:20 p.m., your comments have already been addressed. But you clearly do not understand the concept of corroboration. Let's see if we can't help you out. To corroborate means to make things more certain; to confirm. The persons I referenced in my original posting told me themselves exactly what happened to them. Who else could corroborate things for me, except maybe Tom Doig himself? But unless you are suggesting that Paul Esslinger or this other person lied, I don't think that's necessary. But again, it is clear by your ridiculous comments that you don't have a clue about reporting or journalism. Better for you to stick with another line of work, if you can find one.
And the reason the piece on my site is "cloaked" is to prevent people like you from making comments and assertions that show nothing other than how far in the sand your head really is and how biased you are.
Finally to Tony, thank you for your words. It's so easy to spot the cowards. They post comments and take true potshots at me here, because they're able to do so anonymously. Anonymous comments are not always a bad thing and sometimes are necessary. But their intent and lack of credibility here is clear. If they truly had the courage of their convictions they'd sign their name. Meanwhile they are attempting the old "divide and conquer" trick. Thanks for showing you're too smart to fall for their ploys and that you do recognize honesty, integrity and decent journalism when it presents itself.
The person who wrote that Cheryl Hentz has stooped to shabby reporting tactics fails to say what tactics he or she means. I read the original story and the comments by Tony and Cheryl and they make sense.
I also noticed that one person presented Cheryl's comment here out of context. By using ... it shows something else was said that they removed, but in removing it they presented a different meaning from her original comment. That's not too responsible and awfully careless.
I would make one other casual observation. These people in the Hentz attack mode have a problem with her not identifying someone or getting corroboation as they call it, but they won't make themselves known so we can determine their own credibility. I should think people would have a problem with that.
To her credit Ms. Hentz wrote that "at least one" councilor signed an agreement with Tom Doig...It would have been wrong for her to say more had if she didn't know for a fact they had but she left open the possibility that more might have...It looks to me like there are just a few people with an axe to grind and every time Ms. Hentz says or writes something they are going to jump on her...Unfortunately they can't see the forest for the trees.
Why doesn't Paul "Man of the People" Esslinger let us know what he found out when he signed a confidentiality agreement. Pretty suspect that he didn't go to the secret meeting because of his love of open government, but never mentioned the signed agreement. What a joke.
typical politician
WOW, you people are brilliant!
Someone signs a confidentiality agreement to learn more about something that is going to impact the city, which he should be doing, and then you want him to discuss what he's learned putting himself in danger of a lawsuit.
Some of you are real rocket scientists!
Why doesn't Cheryl the "journalist" talk to her good friend Meredith about what Mr. Doig had to say?
Ms. Hentz forgot to mention in her latest rantings that Meredith signed a confidentiality agreement with Mr. Doig also.
It would behoove you to read all the postings in this thread before opening mouth and inserting foot. Ms. Hentz said she did not have any first hand knowledge of Mrs. Scheuermann or anyone else signing such an agreement. Why are you so overly sensitive about this? Ms. Hentz did not say Mr. Esslinger did anything wrong. But since you have some knowledge of Mrs. Scheuermann signing an agreement like Mr. Esslinger did, why don't you sign your name so we can evaluate whether you're credible or just a big-mouth trying to make Ms. Hentz look like she's not.
If these confidentialty agreements can't be enforced because of some state law, Esslinger would not be in jeopardy of being sued.
Esslinger claims to be the champion of open government but signs a document like this. So his big speech a few weeks ago about open meetings and so forth was what? More grandstanding to get a few sound bytes on the radio and quotes in the paper?
One or two of the anonymouses act like jealous children because Ms. Hentz and Ms. Scheuermann are friends. Judging from their antics I'd say Hentz is better off with Scheuermann than the likes of them.
Esslinger also DIDN'T go to the closed meeting of the council the other night because he didn't think it was appropriate. You see Sherlock, he does believe in open government.
And as far as Meredith meeting with Mr. Doig and signing a confidentiality agreement, Ms. Hentz DID know that happened, but somehow forgot to mention that.
You people keep saying it but you offer no proof. Either offer up your proof, corroborate if you will, or stop boring people with your political ploys and juvenile behavior. Get it Sherlock?
No siree, he didn't go there and he didn't go to the ALF-CIO forum. Guess he doesn't believe in letting people hear his views when running for office either huh. What a guy.
To Mr. and Mrs. Anonymous,
As others have already stated, in order to be taken seriously you need to present proof right here and now that I had first-hand knowledge of Meredith Scheuermann signing a confidentiality agreement with Tom Doig. No third person, or "he said, she said" nonsense. Actual proof of my having such first-hand knowledge.
If you have it, step up to the plate, put your money where your mouth is and show us all how credible and truthful you are. If you can't do it then you are a bald-faced liar, a slander and a libeler.
I can guarantee you you're the latter because there is no proof that I had first-hand knowledge of anyone other than Paul Esslinger signing such an agreement. How? He told me. And he or Tom Doig must have told others too or it would not have been mentioned by Frank Tower in a public meeting.
So it's time to put up or shut up.
We're all waiting, "Perry Mason." Prove your case.
Ms Hentz, rather than asking others to do your leg work..how about you the journalist doing your own COMPLETE story work. If you have now been given information that Mrs. Scheuerman has signed this secrecacy agreement, why wouldn't you just pick up the phone and ask her yourself? Then you have FIRST hand knowledge you so eagerly pursue?That is how it's done isn't it? No need to cloud the issue any further.
Why is there all this chatter about friendship? Journalists aren't suppose to have friends. (just look at Stew Rieckman) It seems quite obvious Ms. Hentz hasn't any either. But when you are in search of your next Pulitzer who needs friends or facts right!
Ah yes, the old "you do it, it's not my responsibility" line. Everyone else should carry water for the likes of you, huh? Well, the burden of proof always falls on the accuser. Not only do you know little to nothing about journalism or writing, you also lack a basic understanding of the law. And you continue losing credibility every time you type something new.
By the way, do I have friends or don't I? You keep talking in such circles it's hard to understand what you're actually trying to say.
If you come up with something new that actually warrants a response, I'll be back. In the meantime, I'm off to toil away on my Pulitzer-winning work. At least some of us in this city are still fortunate enough to work.
There's a few people that are just downright unhappy and unfulfilled and they want to make themselves feel better by picking on Cheryl (and Tony too it looks like). We've all read the accusations these individuals have hurled around but they make no sense. If Cheryl is so anti Paul and so pro Meredith why did she give him a high five on her blog a few weeks ago for not attending the closed session? Also why are she and Tony filing a complaint with the DAs office about that meeting? Maybe they have already; I've not heard anything one way or the other. But surely you can see if the meeting gets declared illegal Meredith Scheurman would be affected by that ruling. But that has not stopped Cheryl from filing the complaint. You hate mongerers can call it what you want. Most people would call that pretty fair and even handed.
To Cheryl Hentz:
I would like to offer an observation. You made reference to carrying other people's water with regard to someone asking why you didn't just call and ask if Mrs. Scheuerman signed some agreement. If I have read all of the threads (which I do believe I have) Are you not the one that brought this story to light? Were you not the one that was upset with others you proclaimed were not sharing vital information with the taxpayers about conversations about the Five Rivers project? How can you ethically challenge others, when you obviously have information about signes agreements by others than you have already named yourself? How can you ethically as a journalist not finish the story you started? Aren't journalist by nature curious, and detail oriented, and have the determination to get the scoop?
You have gone after alot of people you feel have not been fair to you, even those that, like me question some of your positions. I just feel that these are ethical questions you should ask yourself both as a fair person and journalist. Hopefully you will be able to refrain from the usual retort, but if not, I am sure others will understand my point.
Mitchell Bjork
To Mitchell Bjork:
If you refer to some of the previous things written here you will find the answers to your questions, though one of them made no sense whatsoever. You said you read all the comments but you seem to have missed some of the finer points.
I'm sure we all appreciate your signing a name, but wouldn't shortening it up to just M.B. be easier and shorter to write? It also makes it more personal. After all, that seems to be the name of the game here for some.
"Charlie Horse"
To Charlie Horse,
I must have missed more than just a few of the finer points. I don't seem to understand any of your response to my comments. I also not sure why you would be the one to respond, as the comments and observations where directed to Cheryl Hentz. They say students are immature, guess many haven't been paying much attention to this kinda communication. I can see why!
Thanks any way
Mitch
Yes the level of immaturity displayed by several on here is an embarrassment. Especially those who keep attacking one or two like Cheryl or Tony or those who've made accusations but can't prove what they say. They should turn in their computers. Isn't one of the Ten Commandments "thou shalt not lie?" I thought so.
I read over on Oshkosh News that Paul Esslinger blew off a meeting to discuss city manager goals because he had to go to a cribbage tournament that day. What's up with that? Isn't he always telling us how much he cares. Actions speak louder than words.
On Miles Maguire's Oshkosh News blog under a section on the city manager a week or so ago Melanie Bloechl said: "Those of us that have actually worked in this arena, understand that the Council should be giving direction to the City MANAGER, (hence the name manager)unfortunately this is not the case, and will not be until the good people of Oshkosh wake up and realize that the Council is not doing it's job." Later on in that same posting she said: "Dick has done a respectable job, considering that lack of leadership his bosses have shown."
Yesterday we learned that her close friend Paul Esslinger chose to attend a cribbage tournament a couple weeks ago instead of attending a special city council meeting where goals were discussed and set for the city manager for this year. It is unfortunate that her friend Mr. Esslinger was the only council member not there to help develop that direction she complains the city manager needs.
I thought that "no one is going to silence Tony Palmeri". What ever happened to that. YOU have been pretty quiet on local stuff now that you buddy Paul Esslinger has been outed as someone who signed a confidentiality agreement with Diog and missed an important meeting setting the path of the city through the city manager for a game of cribbage. Well, Tony, what do you have to say for your hero Paul Esslinger now?
It is not a matter of silence. This thing between Cheryl and Paul is too stupid to continue. I am glad Tony let it drop, now maybe others can grow up and get lives of their own. How about discussing real issues like who gets to foot the bill for that overpriced resort no one will be able to afford to stay in. I suppot the dumb thing personally. I look forard to getting a minimum wage job there and supporting my eight kids on six bucks an hour. What a great boon to the economy, that is until it goes belly up like several others.
You absolutely have a negative outlook on life. You obviously cannot see the glass half full. All you see is the glass being half empty.
You feel bad for yourself because you can only get a $6 an hour job with 8 kids, but the rest of us, feel hope and prosperous things ahead for Oshkosh.
Get on the train and realize how great this city really is.
Post a Comment