The Commission voted 4-1 with three voting present, sparking confusion about whether 4 yes votes was enough to pass the plan. I'm not sure why there should be confusion. In chapter 2 of the city's municipal codes the voting procedures for boards and commissions are spelled out quite clearly [Article VI, sec. 2-36(H)]:
"A majority of the membership shall constitute a quorum. A lesser number may adjourn. A majority vote of those members present and voting shall be necessary to adopt any motion." With 9 members present, the Commission needed 5 votes to pass the plan.
Ultimately it probably does not matter whether or not the Plan Commission adopts the plan. I'm pretty sure that under state law the Common Council can act on anything brought before the Plan Commission if the latter body does not act within 30 days. So if the Plan Commission simply does nothing at this point I imagine the Council can act on the plan in mid-August.
I received an interesting email from an Oshkosh resident yesterday on the topic of the city proposing to buy the Chamber building:
Earlier this year the Chamber put forth a proposal for the city to buy its building so that the chamber could move into the new riverside development. This public subsidy for the "champions of free enterprise" was good for the taxpayer, the chamber argued. The taxpayers thought otherwise and the idea was dropped.
Fortunately for the chamber and the riverside developers, the chamber building now poses a great threat to public safety and must be purchased by the city to protect the lives of kids and other innocents. This is absolute bs.
Fortunately for the chamber and the riverside developers, the chamber building now poses a great threat to public safety and must be purchased by the city to protect the lives of kids and other innocents. This is absolute bs.
4 comments:
Question: If there were 9 members present at the meeting, how did member #9 vote? If 4 voted YES, 1 voted NO and 3 voted PRESENT I get 8 members: 4+1+3=8
Excellent observation. The motion would still fail even if it turns out that only 8 members were present, since a majority vote is defined as more than half.(At least I think so!).
Chambers usually do a lot of "cheerleading" for their communities - what is good for local business is often good for the quality of life as a whole. For all citizens, not just two-bit tycoons and developers. Improvement projects, support for new business, events that bringing tourists and make life fun often have heavy Chamber involvement. It seems therefore that local government (realizing this) does work to support or ease Chamber life at times. I'm not talking about "trickle down here - but genuine community spirit among business persons and recognition of that by elected officials. Interaction like that often seems fair and deserved.
Another thing - there's only so many people who are willing to sit on the Plan Commission. Just as there's usually a relatively small group of people who are civicly active and are The Deciders in local government. I looked at your Plan Comission names - the fact that I had heard all of them in other contexts kinda proves that point [also that I have no life right?]A reasonable person will see there's going to be a lot cross-over among various group memberships So it's good ethics discussions are taking place this regularly, that Oshies are really sensitized to "how this will look". Some communities that does not happen like that, it does not even get discussed. As inconvenient as that may seem at times it is a step forward and might show a change in public consciousness.
But what does not seem readily apparent, or even logical, is why was this current Chamber structure allowed to fall into such a state? Isn't that an embarassment for the Chamber members? And, doesn't that kind of seem incongruous with the Chamber As Spokesmodel thang? A building that is condemned and needs to be bought by the city doesn't really show much commitment to community pride at all. There also seesm to be the possiblity that the Chamber ALLOWED/ENCOURAGED the deterioration with the thought of forcing the municipal hand to act in it's favor (greasing the way for a new building). That's a pretty machiavellian cheerleader, one that would not inspire a lot of faith and goodwill.It's hard to beleive no one on the Chamber was concerned about how that would be perceived by the public.
So, while these individuals may decide that a "present" vote is appropriate, they might be reasonably expected to come up with a few answers to other questions. (Like "What were you thinking?")
I take up space here because if these thoughts occur to me it can be assumed it is occurring in the minds of people who actually live there and must live with, and pay for, the consequences to their fellow citizens' decisions.There does seem publicity coming out of Oshkosh that hints at rank opportunism among some business persons there. Publicity that does not occur so often in this part of the state.
Everyone might be "present" but is everything "accounted for"?
Jody,
The Chamber wants to move out their current building not because the building has deteriorated (it's a structurally sound building), but because they claim it no longer meets their space needs. If the Council approves the construction of a new office building on the Fox river, chances are good the Chamber would move into that.
Meanwhile, city planners wants to tear down the Chamber building so as to realign an intersection.
Post a Comment