Last Night's Meeting

The morning after the May 26th Common Council meeting, Lori and I took off for a long road trip that took us to Indianapolis; Oklahoma City; Carlsbad, NM; El Paso, TX (where we spent the most time); Albuquerque, NM; Santa Rosa, NM (home of the famous Blue Hole); Tulsa, OK; Joplin, MO; and Cuba City, MO (home of the world's largest rocking chair). Much of our time was spent driving on historic Route 66, formerly "America's Main St." before the building of the bland interstates. I was pleasantly surprised by El Paso--from reading the mainstream American press you'd think the place is overrun by the undocumented and drug criminals coming in from Juarez. To the contrary, it is a remarkably diverse city with a magnificent landscape and fabulous weather. The main problem with El Paso (which is the same problem with about 99% of American cities) is that it is not very pedestrian friendly. They have a car-friendly culture featuring lots of ugly strip malls. Sound familiar?

We did not get back into town until very late on Saturday night, and I'm only now starting to get caught up on emails, news, etc. Thankfully I was able to find the time to get ready for last night's council meeting. Just a few reflections on it:

*In spite of the numerous attempts to discredit, malign, and mock the process used to fill the vacancy left by Paul Esslinger's election as mayor, I thought Harold Bucholtz proved last night that he was a great choice. He came prepared, asked good questions, and seemed completely citizen-centered. Most important, Harold's clearly not in any "camp" and shows signs of being a truly independent voice.

*We voted to take back the liquor licenses of The Granary and Howard Johnson's. As much as I sympathize with the owners of both places, I just don't feel we can allow inactive licenses while we have a waiting list of 27. Three councilors voted in favor of letting Howard Johnson's keep the license, but they offered no argument to support their vote so it's still a mystery.

*It took a long time, but we finally approved a set of citywide goals for city manager Rohloff. The process that got us to this point needs some refining, but I think everyone can agree that the process was more open and transparent than has ever been the case. Mr. Rohloff will be evaluated again in August, and as deputy mayor I'm responsible for facilitating that process. Suggestions are welcome.

*We voted unanimously to establish a one-time fee for recycling carts as opposed to keeping them in the Capital Improvements Budget. The consensus seems to be that the most important thing at this point is education. The Public Works Department should be moving on that soon.

*About a dozen members of the Oshkosh Cycling Club showed up to urge the city to move forward on a bike plan. Steve Barney established that the Parks Advisory Board was supposed to have a bike subcommittee, but has not had such a subcommittee in place for at least the last 13 years. I'm not sure but I get the feeling that the current council has on it a biker-friendly majority, so hopefully we can make some real progress on the issue this year.

*Burk Tower and I had somewhat of a dialogue on the issue of the powers of the mayor and when it is appropriate for a council to revisit items approved by a prior council. On the mayoral power issue, I cited this 2000 article from the Northwestern which established that while the mayor on paper is equal to the other 6 councilors, in fact s/he has traditionally taken a more activist role. Usually that role is taken for granted; Esslinger taking that role seems to result in an unusually high amount of hissy fitting from the establishment and establishment wannabees.

On the issue of revisiting issues, I took the position that that's what elections are about. Voters often choose candidates based on whether or not they will revisit a policy that they see as particularly noxious. In this case, the issue is the parking lot on Main St. I am leaning toward support for that project, but have no problem at all with it being revisited. (I am leaning toward support for it because, as many will recall, I tried to amend the 2009 budget to delay the parking lot for a year. When my amendment failed, I thought that meant that we would be going forward with the parking lot. To not go forward at this point is going to require more compelling argument than what I've heard so far.).