Tuesday's Meeting

I guess the theme of the Tuesday, August 28th meeting was "deja vu all over again," as there seemed to be lots of familiar topics raised (and not just on the change of government referendum). Some high and low lights:

*Bryan Bain's well meaning attempt to establish a workshop meeting via an ordinance change was defeated. The debate on this matter had deja vu qualities to it, as we once again spent time discussing the length of our meetings. No one on the council enjoys starting workshops at a late time, but there was not majority support for solving that problem by adding another meeting.

I did move to amend the ordinance to require that citizen input would be allowed at workshop meetings. The amendment failed. [Note: Later in the evening we had a workshop dealing with the Inspections Division of the Department of Community Development, and I thought it provided a classic example of why we should have citizen input at workshops. I'll write more about this at a later time.]. Oshkosh News covers the workshop vote here.

*Another Bain proposal, this one an ordinance to create an annual permit for all night parking, was held over until the next meeting. The ordinance as presented has an exception for one entire neighborhood of the city (the campus area.). The concern of the administration was that students in that neighborhood might buy an annual permit for parking and then leave town after 9 months, thus taking that permit out of commission for 3 months and preventing its use by someone else. The problem was/is that not everyone in the neighborhood is a student who leaves town after 9 months, and so essentially we would have a situation where people in that neighborhood would continue to have to get a monthly permit even if they do not meet the student stereotype on which the neighborhood exception is based. Hopefully the administration can find a solution before the next meeting. Oshkosh News covers the matter here.

*After much discussion at prior meetings and workshops, the proposal to renovate the Oshkosh Convention Centre passed after a brief discussion of whether or not to take the city manager's advice to use TIF financing. An amendment to use TIF financing failed 3-4 (Palmeri, King, McHugh, and Frank Tower voting against TIF). The vote on the original resolution, to renovate using monies from the Capital Improvements budget, was unanimous. I suspect the vote was unanimous at least in part because we learned that Award Hospitality is in active negotiations to purchase the Park Plaza Hotel. I voted in favor of the renovation mostly because I think the city has a responsibility to maintain buildings that it owns; the idea that we should simply tear down buildings that we have let suffer via deferred maintenance does not sit well. I also believe that if managed well (a very big IF, I know) the Convention Centre CAN add a great deal to the downtown economy.

*My resolution to set a special November election for a change of government referendum failed 2-5, with only Paul Esslinger and I voting for it. I thought, and still think, that resolving the appointed vs. elected executive issue is the key item that needs to be resolved before we can move forward productively. I completely understand the opposition to what I was proposing, but what was frustrating was the lack of coherent suggestions on how to move forward in the absence of a special referendum.

One exception was Burk Tower's opposition, which was useful in terms of articulating a point of view on how to move the city forward; Burk just doesn't think a referendum is necessary and believes we ought to proceed with a manager search no matter what citizens decide to do. I disagree with him strongly, and think that if we follow his suggestion we will simply be repeating the mistakes of 1996, but at least he left little doubt about what direction he thinks we need to go in.

Much of the other opposition was along the lines of "we might need a referendum, just not this one at this time." Or "we need a community discussion." Okay, but if history is a guide we can see where we are headed: discussions will go on endlessly and without direction or not go on at all, the council at some point will have to begin a manager search, citizens convinced a change is needed will attempt to put a referendum on the ballot, and once again we will be right back where we were in 1996.

Jim Simmons during the citizen statements suggested the idea of a "Charter Convention" to arrive at a new form of government. I think it's a good idea, but the fact that it came from Simmons will make it immediately unacceptable to those who support the manager/council form of government. Strong supporters of manager/council need to come out in favor of something like a Charter Convention if it is to have any chance.

I do hope that I am dead wrong on most of this, and that somehow in the next few months a series of discussions will miraculously arrive at "the" referendum question that meets everyone's approval. Don't hold your breath.

*We had 11 people speak during citizen statements, including two people who criticized me virulently for speaking out against David Omachinski's appointment to the redevelopment authority. One gentleman said, in what I guess was a market defense of outsourcing, that Omachinski was "simply an employee following orders." He's not wrong: read Robert Jackall's 1988 Moral Mazes: The World of Corporate Managers, for some great insight into the "bureaucratic ethic" that creates the CEO mentality. Read some Hannah Arendt or Stanley Milgram too.

Other citizens came to say that the neighborhood around the old Mercy Medical Center (not too far from where I live) is seeing an increase in deteriorating properties and criminal activities. It's good to see people speaking out about such matters; my hope is that such speaking out will lead to the creation of strong neighborhood associations capable of organizing blocks and sponsoring collective action.

*During Council Member statements, Councilor King issued what on the agenda was called "Apology to Mr. Omachinski." Several times she referred to herself as a "progressive Democrat" while seeming to blame outsourcing on the American consumer. Our vote against Omachinski was compared to McCarthyism, a charge repeated here. Pat Belongie's letter (scroll down) offered support for my view. She must not be a progressive Democrat.