Tuesday's Meeting(s)

Well, the future will tell if the Common Council made any good decisions yesterday, but I have to say it was one of the longest and most information-filled days we've had. I think I understand the concept of "information overload" much better now. We're in the final week of classes at UW Oshkosh, a stressful time even when extracurricular activities are at a minimum. So I expected to be somewhat cranky at the council meeting, and I guess I did not disappoint myself! (:-).

Seriously, here are some highlights of the day:

*At 3 p.m. the Council met with Karl Nollenberger of the PAR Group (the executive search firm). He summarized for us the content of the applications of the 13 city manager candidates the firm thought should be taken seriously by the council. He also summarized his phone interviews with the candidates and their references. I thought this was a very productive meeting, and I was pleasantly surprised at the level of agreement between the 7 of us as to who were the top candidates. I was against using the search firm, and still think that the council in cooperation with the personnel department could pull this off easily and save some cash, but I have to admit that Karl is really doing an excellent job for us.

For the record, the applications were not very diverse. There were 52 of them, yet just 2 women and 1 racial minority. I believe 17 of the applicants were already in Wisconsin positions. The feeling that you get is that the world of city management is primarily a white, male, middle-aged, somewhat insulated universe. Nothing against middle-aged white guys, since they tell me I fit that demographic myself. Still, it is disappointing that an allegedly "progressive" form of government seems to have trouble attracting as leaders anyone that might make Archie Bunker sit up and take notice.

So we agreed on six finalists (in alphabetical order):

• Kevin Brunner, currently the city manager of Whitewater
  
• Larry Delo, currently the city administrator of DePere
• Bret Jones, currently the city administrator of Gillette, WY
• Jeff Muzzy, currently a consultant for the International City Management Association (and currently in Lebanon).
• Gary Rogers, Jr., currently the city administrator of Waupun
• Mark Rohloff, currently the town administrator in Grand Chute

Let the Google searches begin!

The council will meet next Tuesday at 4 p.m. to work out details of how we want to handle the interviews that will take place on June 6 and 7. One thing we have to work out is a process for getting citizen input. If you any ideas, please email or call us.

The Northwestern and several citizens have asked why acting city manager John Fitzpatrick was not named as one of the finalists. I can only speak for myself: John has done more in the city manager position than anyone could have dreamed. Not only has he ensured that city services continue to be delivered effectively during this transition time, but he has also shown some excellent leadership on potentially contentious issues like the Westhaven golf course and urban deer. While doing that he has managed to bring some high quality new people into the organization (i.e. Chris Strong in transportation and Peggy Steeno in finance). But the candidates chosen as finalists simply have had more time to establish track records in the key areas that we are looking for (e.g. economic and community development, managing a staff, etc.).

We were done with Karl at around 5:15, then went into open session to announce the finalists. We then all left city hall to grab a quick bite (I went back to my home across the street from city hall and had a can of tuna fish, then went to Starbucks to get a coffee because I though the regular meeting would go on very long and I'd need a caffeine boost.).

At the council meeting I ended up voting against quite a few items. Res 08-157 granted a conditional use permit to the university to construct two parking lots on Woodland Ave. No university rep was there to answer questions about it, and I did not have time in the few days before the meeting to contact anyone, so I ended up voting against it. My concern is that the "green campus" seems to be very good at creating parking lots; I wanted to know if perhaps we could do with just one lot on Woodland and turn the other half of the street into a greener walking area or something. All academic now, as it passed 6-1.

I voted for closing TIF District #15, which would put the properties in it back on the tax rolls and distribute monies to the school district, county, and city. Cities throughout the Valley are having to make major cuts in their school districts, so I'm a little surprised that education advocates are not raising hell about "donor TIF" schemes that continue to keep tax revenue from them in the name of "progress." The problem is that TIF is still too mysterious to most people, even the so-called educated.

That was my view, and also Mr. McHugh's to an extent, but 5 councilors voted to keep district #15 open so that monies from it can be used for the Riverwalk project. I support the Riverwalk, but I think this so-called "donor TIF" scheme is not good practice to get into. There will always be public works projects worthy of support, and quite frankly I can't see why we would ever close down a TIF. My view is that if we want to build a riverwalk (or any public works project), we should have whatever it takes to go to the taxpayers and say, "we need this and here is why." That's essentially what we did with the Convention Center. "Donor TIF" is being used in other Wisconsin cities; not surprising since very few people understand TIF and the proposals are almost always made to look like "free money." (I also think that when we propose a public works project--be it the riverwalk or something else--we should have a good idea in advance how it will be financed before we approve it. The idea that we'll just grab whatever pot of money seems to be available at any given time just doesn't seem like wise fiscal policy. It's too Washingtonian or Madisonian (as in the cash strapped, shell-game playing capitals, not as in George and James).

Res 08-163 asked us to approve the Urban Deer Management recommendations. I wanted to vote for this, but then Mr. Bain amended the resolution to include a formal date by which a culling proposal should come before us. I don't believe we need a formal timeline not because I am necessarily against a culling proposal (I still need more information before making a decision on that), but because I felt we need to make sure we have ample time to test whether the non-lethal suggestions that the Humane Society of the United States will make to us have worked. We also need better and more complete research on culling experiences from around the region. I felt that a rigid timeline will pressure us into giving mostly "lip service" to the non-lethal methods and not allow us the time necessary to find out exactly what works and doesn't work in other communities.

Councilors need to know that the moment a culling proposal comes forward it will be met with vocal resistance and we will probably have a very divisive situation on our hands. That's not an argument against eventual culling, but it is an argument against leaving the impression that inviting Sandy Baker of HSUS to Oshkosh is only some kind of "going through the motions" charade while we get ready to cull.

As if that wasn't enough "no" votes for one night, I then voted against Bryan's resolution to thank Universal Studios for bringing "Public Enemies" here. Yeah, I know such resolutions are harmless, but I couldn't get around the fact that Universal received a $4 million tax credit to come to Wisconsin. I'm glad the film came here, but we can't lose sight of the fact that the big film studios are now involved in a "race to the bottom" which is forcing states across the nation to "up the ante" for the privilege of getting films made. Here's Wisconsin, up to its ears in debt, that somehow has millions in tax credits to distribute. (Like TIF, it's usually presented as free money). Meanwhile the small businesses of the city and state--the backbone of the economy--keep having to pay more and more and rarely get a break. All I'm saying is that the common council did not have to thank Universal because the taxpayers have already thanked them--with their pocketbooks.

After the meeting we had a fascinating workshop with Parks Director Tom Stephany to talk about the future of the Leach Amphitheatre. After 4 years, there seems now to be consensus that the facility should be run by a non-profit or the city. Tom's report to the council is not online yet, but when it does arrive you should give it a read. He shows the problems that PMI has had in managing the facility and provides a general outline of how a non-profit entity like the Grand Opera House and/or the Parks Department could run it. What's increbible in the report is that there is very little in it that was not already known in 2004. Unfortunately at that time, neither the council, the committee that chose PMI, nor the local establishment press seemed interested in doing their homework or listening to reason. (Instead at the time we had then-Mayor Harris lecturing us on how the Leach/PMI relationship was going fill all our hotels and restaurants; "cha ching" I think he said.).

Alright, after finals I'll try to be less cranky. Promise.