Be it resolved, that the Oshkosh Common Council call for a special ballot on Tuesday, November 6th so that electors may vote on the following:
Yes_______
No________
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Possible Referendum Question
Below is what I sent city attorney Kraft today to request placement on the council's August 28th agenda. He said he would have a response by the end of the day:
Be it resolved, that the Oshkosh Common Council call for a special ballot on Tuesday, November 6th so that electors may vote on the following:
Be it resolved, that the Oshkosh Common Council call for a special ballot on Tuesday, November 6th so that electors may vote on the following:
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)
5 comments:
This is just crazy talk. Looks like you're under the control of the Babblemur lobby.
When I have attended mayoral/govt v. admin/manager govt. debate or forum things it seems there is one anti-mayor idea that gets most traction among the undecideds. Most especially this was apparent when Eau Claire (manager/council since way back) "discussed" a change to mayor. I attended with the perspective of a person who lived in a strong council/weak mayor community at the time.
Okay - the anti-mayors win on the following point, I was going to stay silent on this until I happened to see the "JB" comment in your other post. Because JB is doing what you will hear a lot more of.
Anti-mayors will dredge up stereotypes of corrupt "southern" backwoods mayors who are supported by backroom political enclaves. That mayors have no experience and are "amateurs".They will say the position of mayor is too "political" and that it will create pools of power and corruption by, as JB said, centralizing power.
They will contrast this hellish scenario with imagery of clean, impartial and professional government by a guy who doesn't have "a dog in the hunt", that if anyone can stay above the fray an manager or administrator can. This argument persuades a lot of people, it just does.
You can go on about acountability but the pursuasion level of that only goes so far because people you realize that those who will run for mayor will be among those already on council or school board or chamber - the same old people who are f*cking things up now. White knights do not appear. The mayor will be chosen from the jokers we see before us rightnow. And those people DO have support groups and affiliations, so the "bad mayor and his posse" image is a powerful one.
I am surprised Osh people are opting for a 4 year term in their bid to instate a mayor position. It seems that will give added weight to the concentration of power fears that will be sold by mayor opponents. Pro-mayor people, often frustrated by years of management government seem to idealize the mayor idea beyond what the mayor will often be like,or imagine increased democracy. But democracy does not increase so much when it is the same old people. Also, tons of people do not even vote, but the folks who are active in their communities (the cliques) always do, and they elect their pals, not the shop foreman.
Two years terms are long enough for a mayor to express his/her personality, and if good, get re-elected and continue his/her porjects. And they are short enough for a crappy mayor to do as little damage as possible and not get re-elected. If accoutability is the selling point, then a 2 year term lends maximum accountability to the position.
I personally would NOT want a 4 year strong mayor position in my own community. 4 years IS long enough to build your power base. I saw a crappy mayor in a 2 year weak mayor/strong council position do as much damage as he could, un-doing the legacy of the previous and outstanding mayor who was re-elected 6 times and was never voted out but retired while still enormously popular.
So that's about all I got to say about that.
I read the referendum and youor comments inthe paper as to the need for a referendum. Essentially it is my understanding that you beleive it is necessary to address the issue of city manager government versus mayoral goverance via a referendum before the city seeks a new city manager nationally.
Have'nt we been down this road already. Did we not have that exact referendum once before. In 1996 the city battled through this issue and those that decided to vote elected to retain the city manager system. So your desire to have a referendum to address this issue as a "new" or "fresh" issue is simply not the case.
If a local group of mayor advocates chooses to pass around a petition thorugh out the city and obtains the requisite signatures in order to place this issue on a referendum ballot, sobeit. That is their choice: to rehash history... as long as their are enough people willing to continually tilt at the windmills. This does not necessitate a council driven referendum, though. If a group elects to circulate the petition and garners enough support, we'll travel down this road again (emphasis on "again"). Why must the council be the driving force for repitition?
I have sent emails to all the councilors (except Esslinger, what's up with that?) urging them to vote for the referendum. My view is to take care of it right away, otherwise they go on operating for over a year with no clear picture of what they are working for. Therefore decisions made during that time will lack meaning and we as citizens will not get the best representation.
mac1 is exactly right. The reason, mark, for having this council-driven, is that it can be done quickly so that we can either proceed with a manager search (without the citizen referendum cloud hanging over our heads like last time), or we prepare to elect a mayor and change our form of government. Either way, the city government form is given a new (or renewed) mandate from the people, the question is settled, and while I can't say there won't be hard feelings, it would be hard to argue that everyones wasn't given their fair chance to be heard.
Post a Comment