That headline is a actual quote from Gladstone City (MI) City Manager Brant Kucera in today's Oshkosh Northwestern. "This guy" is Five Rivers Resort developer Tom Doig.Yesterday the newspaper revealed that city officials want Doig to prove by May 31 that his long-term financing is "secured." I interpret that as meaning that Mr. Doig has until May 31 to get 4 members of the Council to vote for the "direct pay" option that would satisfy Doig's potential financiers but place the city at greater risk.
If the City Council votes at its March 14th meeting to grant Doig the extension, they should amend the resolution to include language rejecting any direct pay option. It is not enough to have such language in "term sheets" because city officials have now made it clear that the term sheets are not worth the paper they are printed on. We now know that when they don't want to abide by term sheet requirements, they feel empowered to go into illegal closed meetings to work out changes.
Gladstone City was smart not to be a guinea pig for Five Rivers. Thankfully for the Gladstoneians, their local government was not secrecy obsessed and it placed the needs of the citizens above the developer.
Here in Oshkosh the picture is turned upside down. We are dangerously close to being turned into guinea pigs for this guy.
20 comments:
I have relatives in Gladstone, and they didn't hear much about this project. It apparently didn't get a whole lot of press while it was being pitched and would not have succeeded even if the EPA had not stepped in. Gladstone is a small community that would not be able to front the kind of money that a project the size of Five Rivers demands. And without the money, it doesn't happen. There aren't enough in outside investors willing to participate without significant financial backing from the community. If this council and community see this thing through, it could be the biggest mistake ever. Red flags should be going up all over the place since he missed his original deadline of January to have the financing in place. Now he wants to extend to May, and break ground just before winter? Am I the only one that sees this as a problem?
I would love to speak out against this at the next council meeting. I just don't want to be seen as "grandstanding, or politicking", as other candidates have done. I would like to encourage all that are against or in favor of this project, attend this meeting and speak your mind regarding this issue. It is important for the council to hear how we as taxpayers feel about spending our money on a project that has had such a shaky start.
The city needs to look at alternatives to this project and ensure that it is the right one. Ask yourself one other question, if you were in the market for a house, would you look at ONLY one?
Thanks for reading and I hope to see many attending the next council meeting.
Kent Monte
I may not be quite as clear on this issue as I should be but, some days back there was a situation where some council members spoke about topics that were discussed in the closed session? I always beleived that was quite a misstep, perhaps even against the law?
I always had the impression that breaking confidentiality like that opened a board or governing body up to legitimate lawsuits.
If anyone representing the public trust has broken confidentiality laws will there be consequences other than just fanning the flames of conflict further? Will Mr. Kraft perhaps issue a comment on this? And why would he not have properly warned the council for which he serves? I am actually quite confused on that point.
I can't help but notice the absence of the usual Sunday Smackdown here on T2T.
The first peaceful Sunday in a looong time.
Lady O'Grady,
To answer your question, I don't think that it is against any law for them to open their mouth after closed session. Unless there is some local ordinance restricting it. I found some information but it was not easy. It is from the League of Wisconsin Municipalities and states;
What action can a governmental body take against a member who discloses confidential information obtained during a closed session?
If a member discloses confidential information obtained during a closed session, it is not a violation of the open meetings law. However, such behavior is understandably a matter of concern for governmental bodies and governing bodies can prohibit and establish consequences for such behavior. Some municipalities have local rules or ordinances which prohibit the use or disclosure of confidential information by municipal officials. Possible penalties include a fine or public censure. Another potential consequence for violation of these local restrictions is criminal prosecution under Wis. Stat. sec. 946.12 for misconduct in public office.
I hope that this helps. My question is this, if it was so important to be in closed session and not include the public, why can they now talk about it? If they can talk about it now, it should have been an open session.
Anyway, if the rest of the council doesn't mind, I guess there is nothing we can do.
I wonder if Bill Castle would find this as disturbing as the confidentiality agreements that didn't hold water legally anyway.
Happy Sunday,
K Monte
Well, thank you for going to all the trouble. Though overall the information does not seem to be terribly reassuring in the sense that things seem to be so entirely at the discretion of the council, even a little arbitrary. As if they are saying "now we choose follow the guidelines, now we will dispose of them".
Even future deal-makers may now wonder if getting a requested closed session will be enough, since the council may after the fact say "oh, nevermind, that wasn't really a closed session after all."
It is hard to see how these many shades of gray are meeting anyone's needs at all.
As to other members of the council not minding, I would suspect that they do mind, perhaps quite a bit, but are choosing to present a (falsely)united front.
Thank you again for the research.
The way the law works here in Wisconsin is that matters discussed in executive sessions must remain confidential until such time as the matter being discussed is resolved so the eed for confidentiality no longer exists (such as in a bargaining situation). Then they can be disclosed publicly.
The open meetings law does not cover this. If you know of another source, feel free to post it.
The way the law works here in Wisconsin is that matters discussed in executive sessions must remain confidential until such time as the matter being discussed is resolved so the need for confidentiality no longer exists (such as in a bargaining situation). Then they can be disclosed publicly.
And your source for this information is????
Ask anyone in local government and they can tell you. Once the issue has been resolved or has come full circle, the information can be released. That is why Jackson Kinney released his memo to the city council members last week concerning the executive session. The directives the city council set forth have been put on a calendar and the information now made public.
If that is true, then why could 2 of the councilors talk to a reporter several days prior to Kinneys memo?
I got the memo too. If that was all that was discussed, it should have been done in open session.
K Monte
PS, I would like to know what law you are citing for the open/closed meeting violation. If it is simply your opinion, you should say so otherwise, cite your source.
Thank you.
EXAMPLES OF EXECUTIVE SESSION MINUTES HAVING BEEN RELEASED
Do an internet search for executive or closed session meeting minutes and you'll find all kinds of them. Here are just a few. Keep in mind some bodies do not even keep minutes in the true sense of the word. But you can find plenty to support the argument of disclosure being permissible after the fact.
FOX VALLEY TECHNICAL COLLEGE DISTRICT BOARD Executive Session Meeting Minutes March 15, 2005 CALL TO ORDERThe Fox Valley Technical College District Board held an Executive Session meeting on Tuesday, March 15, 2005, in Waupaca Room A of the Best Western Grand Seasons Hotel located at 110 Grand Seasons Drive in Waupaca, Wisconsin. Chairperson Sally Mielke called the meeting to order at 5:55 p.m. ATTENDANCEPresent: Board Members: Kitty Alaily, Brad Gehring, Barbara Hanson, Sally Mielke, Roger Nguyen, Steve Patz, Jack Rhodes, Donald Waldvogel, Bruce Yakley Absent: None Others Present: Dr. David Buettner-President; Jill McEwen-Vice President of Human Resource Services Recorder: Rebecca Rainford The Board of Trustees adjourned into executive session pursuant to Section 19.85(1)(e), Wis. Stats., for the purpose of meeting and discussing items related to collective bargaining matters. It was moved by Roger Nguyen to reconvene in open session pursuant to Section 19.85(2), Wis. Stats., for the purpose of taking up the remainder of the agenda of the Board and any other business as may be properly brought before the Board. A voice vote was taken and the motion passed. The time was 6:32 p.m. Donald Waldvogel, Secretary
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (scroll down for executive session minutes)
Page 1
NORTH CENTRAL WISCONSIN REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE September 23, 2005 Minutes________________________________________________________________________MEMBERS PRESENTSTAFF PRESENTGEORGE BORNEMANN DENNIS LAWRENCE WILBUR FRITZERHARD HUETTL MAURICE MATHEWSTHOMAS RUDOLPH MEMBERS EXCUSEDOTHERS PRESENTROBERT HAYWARD ROBERT CURRAN VIRGINIA HEINEMANN WILBUR PETROSKEY GENE SIMON
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 2
1.) ROLL CALLThe meeting was called to order at 9:30 A.M., and the roll call was as presented. 2.) AUDIENCE COMMENTNone. 3.) APPROVAL, ADDITIONS, OR CORRECTIONS TO THE AGENDA AS MAILEDOn the motion of MR. MATHEWS, second by MR. RUDOLPH, the agenda was approved. 4.) APPROVAL, ADDITIONS, OR CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 8, 2004 MEETING On the motion of MR. BORNEMANN, second by MR. MATHEWS, the minutes of the previous meeting were approved. 5.) DISCUSSION/BUSINESS5.1 Executive Director’s ReportMR. LAWRENCE provided updates on a variety of items. He informed the Committee that the EDA grant was approved and it was slightly higher than the average grant. He went on to review some of the issues regarding some EDA rule changes. His next update was on the GROW Grant that was discussed at the previous meeting. It had been awarded, but there were no other details at this time. This grant is a joint project with the workforce development organization and UW – Stevens Point. He the provided an overview of a Wisconsin Department of Commerce Initaitive to consolidate revolving loan funds into larger “regional” loan pools. The reason for this is the inactivity of many small local loan funds. Two final items related to internal operations. One was that the 2000 Ford Taurus was sold and a new 2005 Ford Taurus purchased through the state contract. He stated he had spoke with MR. HUETTL prior and the money was budgeted. The final item was that there were interviews being held on Friday the 30thfor a Assistant Planner position. This was a refill of a vacant position. 5.2 Current Financial ReportMR. LAWRENCE distributed copies of the current financial report. The report lists over $627,000 in cash and over $74,000 in outstanding
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 3
receivables, for a total of $702,065. He also added that all open projects would be billed prior to the end of the year and that the year-end accounts receivable would reflect that action. Payables total about $27,000, which leaves a current financial position of $675,065. At the last meeting the position was $642,414. Overall, the organization continues to be in a strong financial position. On the motion of MR. MATHEWS, second by MR. RUDOLPH, the financial report was accepted. All were in favor. 5.3 Designation of 2005 Fund Balance Reserve AccountsMR. LAWRENCE reminded the Committee that last year we implemented a policy to officially restrict funds following the Audit completion. The 2004 Audit identified $679,860 in unrestricted funds. The recommendation was to establish seven accounts, these were Vehicle Replacement $5,000 (for four years), Copier Replacement $5,000 (for four years, Future Move $5,000, Long Term Sick & Vacation Payout $34,500, 2006 Budget Set-Aside $50,000 (for possible shortfall), Cash Flow Management $150,000, and Reserve $300,000. On motion of MR. BORNEMANN, second by MR. FRITZ, the recommended Fund Balance Reserve Accounts were designated. All were in favor. 5.4 Increase Commissioner Per DiemMR. LAWRENCE stated that he had spoken with some of the other regional planning commissions and they pay $50 to $60 Per Diems. He then checked NCWRPC records and there has not been an increase since the early 1990’s. Therefore he was recommending an increase from the current $40 to $50 beginning in 2006. On motion of MR. MATHEWS, second by MR. RUDOLPH, The 2006 Per Diem increase was approved. All were in favor. 5.5 Executive SessionMR. LAWRENCE distributed a packet of information regarding several personnel issues. At that time a motion was made by MR. RUDOLPH, second by MR. BORNEMANN, for the Committee to go into Executive Session. All were in favor by a roll call vote. On a motion by MR. BORNEMANN, second by MR. RUDOLPH, Health Insurance was continued to a part-time employee. All were in favor.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 4
On a motion by MR. BORNEMANN, second by MR. FRITZ, a request from an employee to move from full-time to part-time status was accepted. All were in favor. On a motion by MR. RUDOLPH, second by MR. MATHEWS, the Recommended salary increases were approved, including a 3 percent cost of living for all current full-time staff. All were in favor. On a motion by MR. RUDOLPH, second by MR. FRITZ, the Executive Director’s salary adjustment request was approved. All were in favor. Actions following Executive Session The Executive Committee reconvened into open session on a motion by MR. RUDOLPH, second by MR. MATHEWS. All were in favor by a roll call vote. On a motion by MR. RUDOLPH, second by MR. BORNEMANN, all actions taken in closed session were approved. All were in favor. 6.) ADJOURNMENTOn a motion by MR. MATHEWS, seconded by MR. RUDOLPH, the Executive Committee Meeting was adjourned at 10:50 A.M. ________________________________________________________________________ The meeting was advertised and open to the public. It was located at the Best Western Midway Hotel in the Basil Room, Wausau. NORTH CENTRAL WISCONSIN REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION Minutes Approved: _________________________________ Chair, Vice-Chair or Secretary-Treasurer/Date
WAUWATOSA SCHOOL DISTRICT
Superintendent’sOffice ? 12121 W. NorthAve. ? Wauwatosa,WI 53226
(414) 773-1010 ? FAX: 773-1019
MINUTES – SPECIAL SCHOOL BOARD MEETING
JANUARY 7, 2005
The special meeting of the Wauwatosa School Board was called to order by School Board President Tim Taff at
7:37 a.m. on Friday, January 7, in Conference Room A of the Fisher Building, 12121 W. North Ave. Board
members Eileen Donohoo, Katherine Metzger, Lois Weber and Tim Taff were present.
Tim Taff announced the purpose of the executive session was to consult with legal counsel and conduct a hearing
regarding the possible expulsion of a student from the Wauwatosa School District, pursuant to Section 120.13,
Wisconsin Statutes.
Katherine Metzger moved and Eileen Donohoo seconded to proceed to closed session. On roll call vote, the
motion was approved unanimously.
According to Section 19.85 (1) (f), Wisconsin Statutes and Section 120.13, Wisconsin Statutes, the Board
adjourned into executive session to conduct a hearing concerning the possible expulsion. Following the
presentation, pursuant to Section 19.85 (1) (a) and (g), Wisconsin Statutes, the Board deliberated concerning the
possible expulsion of the student.
Following deliberations, the hearing was reconvened, pursuant to Section 19.85 (1) (f), Wisconsin Statutes, to
take action on the affected pupil’s status.
Katherine Metzger made the following motion, which was seconded by Eileen Donohoo:
Student be expelled from the Schools of the Wauwatosa School District beginning January 7, 2005 and continuing
through the last day of the 2004-2005 school year.
During the period of expulsion, Student shall not be on District property or attend any school activities either on
or off District property. Failure to observe this condition of the expulsion will result in Student being considered
a trespasser on District premises, and appropriate action may be taken on behalf of the District under such
circumstances.
Student may apply for probationary readmission to the District effective January 17, 2005 under conditions set
forth in the Order of Expulsion dated January 7, 2005. Failure to comply with any of the conditions set forth in
the Order of Expulsion at any time during the period of probationary readmission will result in the
implementation of the remaining period of expulsion as ordered by the Board.
On roll call vote, the recommendation was accepted unanimously.
At 8:30 a.m., Eileen Donohoo moved to adjourn and Katherine Metzger seconded. On voice vote, the meeting was
declared adjourned.
___________________________________
Lois Weber
School Board Secretary
KIEL AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT
Kiel, Wisconsin
Executive Session
March 22, 2004
President Cynthia Schmahl called the March 22, 2004, executive session to order at 6:17 p.m.
Members Present Mary Adleman Bonnie Mayer
Kevin Bonde Cynthia Schmahl
Russell Bonde Carol Sitzman
Dan Dietrich
Administrators Present Phil Ertl
Discussion On Motion of Member Adleman, seconded by Member R. Bonde, the Board adjourned into executive session at 6:18 p.m., to conduct the superintendent’s evaluation under Wis. Stats. 19.85(1)(c). Roll call vote
Sitzman--Yes, K. Bonde--Yes, Dietrich--Yes, R. Bonde--Yes, Mayer--Yes, Adleman--Yes, Schmahl--Yes
Adjourn On Motion of Member Mayer, seconded by Member Adleman, the Board adjourned into open session at 7:16 p.m. Roll call vote.
Adleman--Yes, R. Bonde--Yes, K. Bonde--Yes, Sitzman--Yes, Dietrich--Yes, Mayer--Yes, Schmahl--Yes
_______________________________________
Recorded by Bonnie Mayer, Clerk
_______________________________________
Transcribed by Sheila Lefeber, District Secretary
Since you're so upset by this Mr. Monte can we look forward to your filing a complaint with the district attorney's office about it?
Nobody has given evidence that a crime was committed. Copying minutes does not make your case. You need to show me where it says that the information being released is a crime. Not just unethical, I believe that we established that long ago. If someone can find something, you bet I will file a complaint. I have put hours into researching this and came up with nothing concrete regarding a violation or punishment for these actions.
I believe in open government and nothing like this should have to be done behind closed doors. (side note: It was not the developers idea to close this session).
K Monte
Mr. Monte, only a few comments ago you questioned why some councilors spoke to the media before Kinney's memo was released. That kind of sounded like a complaint. Some other people wanted to know how it is possible for things that took place in closed sessions to be released. They pointed at this council as someone breaking the law in doing so. The minutes posted show that it not only is possible but is done all the time. You can find examples all over the internet. You are back-peddling on your own words and every time you open your mouth you look less knowledgeable.
Since you believe everything should be done in the open have you filed a complaint or signed on to the one about the closed session meeting last month? Let's see some real action on your part not just a lot of talk on a blog.
I'm fairly new to this whole WWW thing but is it possible the open records laws have anything to do with this at all? I've heard about them and maybe they work together with open meetings laws. It's just a thought.
I will clarify my position on this. It is actually 2 separate issues that are being confused right now. I was in a hurry during my last posting and didn’t get my point across very well. Let me see if I can explain better.
1. A meeting was held in executive session (closed meeting) in which the developer, Tom Doig, addressed the council about the Five Rivers Resort. This meeting is believed to be in violation of the State open meeting law. There is a complaint being drafted by Cheryl Hentz to address this issue. I agree that this meeting should NOT have happened behind closed doors and am willing to put my name on the complaint if invited to. The status of the draft is not known at this time.
2. Early last week a story ran in the Northwestern that quoted 2 of the council members regarding material covered in that closed session. This is the issue that I am currently addressing in my posts. I did extensive research on whether or not executive privilege may have been breached by the council. There is nothing that I could find in writing that would prevent the council from talking to the public after closed session. That is the question being asked now. Did any laws get violated by breaking the silence of the closed session? Were the council members out of line by talking with Alex Hummel regarding Five Rivers? That is the issue at hand.
The fact that the meeting was closed when is shouldn’t have been is not the issue of these questions. The open meeting violation is being addressed by others. I would like to know if there is any law preventing the council from speaking after the meeting. To this point I have found none.
There will be a vote regarding the Five Rivers term sheet at the next meeting on March 14th. This will grant the developer an extension to get his finances in order and break ground in late summer. I would encourage anybody that either supports or opposes this extension to come to the meeting and speak. This is your chance to give your opinion to the council before it is too late.
I hope that this clarifies my position. If not, feel free to comment or question my position.
I have also addressed some of this on tonights (3/6) episode of Eye on Oshkosh at 7pm.
Thanks for reading.
K Monte
I will watch and hopefully get some of my questions answered. Thank you for letting me know when you are on the show. But why do you have to be asked to be part of a complaint? Why not take the initiative and either offer or file one of your own? It seems like the more who voice their opposition might help the cause.
Coming soon...
I took some time today and called Brant Kucera in Gladstone and got some interesting information. I had more questions since that call and sent an email to him. I plan to post on my blog the details of that call and email once all of my information is complete.
Keep an eye on my site; monteforcouncil.blogspot.com
K Monte
Mr. Monte I've paid close attention to your answers during debates, on web sites, tv shows, radio, and in the paper. They have a lot of words strung together but say nothing when it comes right down to it. You have a lot of excuses and reasons why we can't or shouldn't do anything in this city. But you offer nothing in return as to what we should do.
Ex. Part of the reason you've said people don't go downtown is because of the narrowness of the bridges and because there's no easy way to get there. That's the most asinine thing I've ever heard someone say. If there were more reasons to go downtown on a regular basis people would find their way. So do you propose reconstructing a route to downtown to simplify it? That will cost us a pretty penny. But what should we do first, construct an easier way to get there or redevelop and give people reasons to go there? Either way it costs money and you are against development that will build the tax base to afford these things. You can't have it both ways Mr. Monte. We need independent forward-thinking people who are creative. But creatively looking for ways to shoot everything down is not the answer. Neither are you.
Post a Comment