Friday, September 28, 2007
Protest Vote On Akcess (AKA Gotta Have Faith)
I was the only member of the Common Council to vote No on the Akcess Acquisition Group's plan to put an office building and hotel/restaurant (Supple Group developers) on the Fox river. It was mostly a protest vote, as the real vote on the office building was when we voted on the "revised term sheet" agreement with Akcess in July. For the Council to turn down the project at this point, said the city attorney, could be a breach of contract. So even though the words "office building" and "hotel/restaurant" appear nowhere in the term sheet, it was the vote on that term sheet that constituted agreement to them.
The office and hotel/restaurant may end up being successful. Jay Supple said that the hotel may include a Montreal Bread Company, a European style deli which his restaurant group is opening in Milwaukee's old third ward. A Montreal Bread Company would represent at least something unique about the development.
I had several problems with the proposal that resulted in the protest no vote:
*We approved the proposal as part of our "Consent Agenda." Consent agenda items, unless they are laid over, get only one reading. Because the office building and hotel/restaurant were actually approved during a term sheet vote in which the project names do not appear, the public never had a meaningful chance to talk to the council about the projects when it mattered. In that sense, this process was as closed and sneaky as the ill-fated "Five Rivers Resort" fiasco.
*As of Tuesday's meeting, the Akcess group says that it has one "letter of intent" from a financial institution to move into the office building (even if that's true, do we really need a bank on the river?). Other pledges, we were told, were waiting for the Council approval of the project (even though it's now agreed to by everyone that the July vote WAS the approval). But even if Akcess succeeds in getting tenants, by their own admission the tenants will largely be drawn from already existing space in town. We are told that when that happens, the owners of the newly open space will be forced to upgrade in order to compete. Interesting theory, but not realistic given the state of the economy and the fact that it's hard to find examples of such a thing anywhere in the country.
*We already have one failed hotel downtown. I think the Supple Group can make a new hotel work, but I simply think we needed more evidence to support the claim that it can. Especially since we do not have a commercial airport in Oshkosh, I am struggling to understand why someone would fly into Outagamie, drive out of a city (Appleton) that has lots of great restaurants and a nightlife, to stay in an expensive hotel in Oshkosh located next to an office building. The hotel will probably have no problem getting guests during EAA, but what will happen during all other times of the year? Let's hope for the best.
*The Department of Community Development went out of its way to argue that this development does not come with the financial risks that plagued the 100 block of North Main St. project. I don't think a convincing case was ever made to that effect, but let's assume for the sake of argument that the Ackess proposal carries no financial risks at all. I argued at the meeting that financial is only one kind of risk a city council needs to be concerned with. The other is "quality of life" risk. If in several years we are left with underutilized buildings on prime riverfront property, that is a real quality of life issue.
One snag that may get in the way of all of this is environmental remediation of the site. Mr. Kinney tried to assure us that this will not be a problem. Like every other part of this project, we just have to have faith that he is right. This is, after all, a classic case of faith based river development.
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.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
$17.2 Million For Nothing
Legislative inaction on the state budget has cost the taxpayers $17.2 million in salaries, fringe benefits, and other costs, according to the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign.
One of the great ironies of the impasse is that, since Wisconsin's governor has virtual dictatorial control over the budget and can use his "Frankenstein Veto" to crunch the numbers however he sees fit to do so, the legislative wrangling is largely hot air. Or worse, it is the most vile kind of "bumper sticker politics" designed to put up a front of loyalty to the monied interests needed during reelection time.
It's hard to imagine a more rotten system.
One of the great ironies of the impasse is that, since Wisconsin's governor has virtual dictatorial control over the budget and can use his "Frankenstein Veto" to crunch the numbers however he sees fit to do so, the legislative wrangling is largely hot air. Or worse, it is the most vile kind of "bumper sticker politics" designed to put up a front of loyalty to the monied interests needed during reelection time.
It's hard to imagine a more rotten system.
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.
Friday, September 21, 2007
Lemberger on Outsourcing
UWO Education Professor/Oshkosh Northwestern community columnist John Lemberger had an excellent piece on outsourcing in yesterday's paper. Money quote:
It is important to understand with the implementation of GATT, NAFTA, and CAFTA, American workers have also outlived our usefulness to corporations. Off-shoring is the modern version of being “sold down the river.” For all the grit and determination of the American worker (we are the most productive in the world), we are simply too expensive. We expect safe workplaces, decent housing, healthcare and pensions. In China there are plenty of workers who have had these expectations beaten out of them.
It is important to understand with the implementation of GATT, NAFTA, and CAFTA, American workers have also outlived our usefulness to corporations. Off-shoring is the modern version of being “sold down the river.” For all the grit and determination of the American worker (we are the most productive in the world), we are simply too expensive. We expect safe workplaces, decent housing, healthcare and pensions. In China there are plenty of workers who have had these expectations beaten out of them.
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.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Palmeri on Friday WPR "Week in Review"
I will be the "liberal" guy opposite UW Madison History Professor John Sharpless (the "conservative" guy) on Friday's WPR "Week In Review" with Joy Cardin from 8 - 9 a.m.
John Sharpless earned 49% of the vote against incumbent Tammy Baldwin in the year 2000 election to represent Wisconsin's 2nd congressional district.
You can call in to the show at 1-800-642-1234 (263-1890 if you are in Madison).
John Sharpless earned 49% of the vote against incumbent Tammy Baldwin in the year 2000 election to represent Wisconsin's 2nd congressional district.
You can call in to the show at 1-800-642-1234 (263-1890 if you are in Madison).
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.
Rock 'n Roll Founders
I must say that YouTube is helping to make my "Rhetoric of Rock Music" course more enjoyable this semester. This week in class we've been talking about some of the rhythym and blues artists that really were the founding fathers and mothers of rock and roll. Most of them were performing and recording well before Elvis Presley or Bill Hailey and the Comets, and include
the great Louis Jordan
Big Joe Turner
Ruth Brown
Louis Prima
the great Louis Jordan
Big Joe Turner
Ruth Brown
Louis Prima
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.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
The Shock Doctrine
Culture critic Naomi Klein's latest work argues that the "free" market has a "secret history" in which natural disasters, terrorist attacks and other horrific events serve to "soften" populations so that they will accept the "economic shock therapy" treatment of unrestrained Capitalism advocated by the late economist Milton Friedman and his followers. Klein's cover story for the latest issue of Harper's (not online yet) summarizes her latest book on "disaster capitalism." She's also produced a short film (see YouTube clip below) with Alfonso Cuaron ("Children of Men") to accompany the book.I think Klein exaggerates the impact of Friedman's ideas on global economic policy, but her work is useful in debunking the popular myth that market forces are "natural."
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.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
One For The Chief, or Academia at its Worst, Part III
I wasn't planning to comment on the recent decision of UC-Irvine Chancellor Michael Drake to rescind an offer to prominent liberal law professor Erwin Chemerinsky to become the founding Dean of the campus' new law school. But then I saw that The Chief started a blog post on Chemerinsky with this sentence: "Here's a story I give Tony Palmeri about a 100% chance of saying something about in the next few days." I guess by saying something we have a win-win: I get to alert T2T readers to yet another example of academia at its worst while The Chief gets to be correct in the prediction.The Chemerinsky case is similar to Norman Finkelstein's in that outside influence was the key factor in determining the chancellor's hesitation to side with a leftish public intellectual no matter how outstanding his credentials. An article in Saturday's LA Times quotes an Orange County Republican party leader as saying that the GOP had organized 20 prominent Republicans against Chemerinsky, calling him a "longtime partisan gunslinger" and "too polarizing" for the job. Chancellor Drake also received pressure from conservative justices on the California Supreme Court.
Chemerinsky has been opposed by conservatives for much of his legal career, but he gained the ire of the most vile elements of the wingnut faction when he acted on behalf of Guantanamo detainees. Read his account here. In an effort to pacify his right wing critics, Chemerinsky actually asked Viet Dinh to sit on his UC-Irvine Law School Board of Advisors. Mr. Dinh is the chief (not to be confused with The Chief) architect of the USA PATRIOT Act.
The Saturday article in the LA Times says that negotiations are ongoing to restore the job offer to Chemerinsky, but it appears as if he will be offered the position only if he agrees to silence himself: "Drake has insisted that Chemerinsky didn't lose the dean's position because of his politics, saying that it was only because he expressed himself in a polarizing way. Any deal would therefore require Chemerinsky to 'successfully transition from being a very outspoken advocate on many causes to being a dean of the stature that we expect in a start-up law school,' said [attorney Tom] Malcom, a prominent Orange County Republican who was going to be a member of Chemerinsky's advisory board." (Malcom has been a participant in the talks to bring back Chemerinsky.).
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.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Council Approves Climate Protection Agreement
Last night the Oshkosh Common Council approved the U.S. Conference of Mayors Climate Protection Agreement. We become the 668th city to sign on nationally and the 15th in Wisconsin.
Soon Mayor Frank Tower will be naming an environmental committee which will be charged, in part, with looking at ways to green Oshkosh based on elements of the agreement.
Mayor Tower deserves praise for his leadership in getting the agreement on the council agenda. Many thanks also to citizens Steve Barney, Andy Robson, and former councilor Shirley Mattox for their activism on behalf of the agreement and for speaking out on it at last night's meeting.
Soon Mayor Frank Tower will be naming an environmental committee which will be charged, in part, with looking at ways to green Oshkosh based on elements of the agreement.
Mayor Tower deserves praise for his leadership in getting the agreement on the council agenda. Many thanks also to citizens Steve Barney, Andy Robson, and former councilor Shirley Mattox for their activism on behalf of the agreement and for speaking out on it at last night's meeting.
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.
Monday, September 10, 2007
Once Worth Seeing Twice
Lori and I got a chance to see the critically acclaimed "Once" over the weekend. It's a simple, touching love story/musical without a predictable Hollywood-type ending. The songs are magnificent. Between Once and "Hairspray," this has been a pretty good year for film and music.
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.
Wednesday, September 05, 2007
Academia at its Worst, Part 2
Part 1 included a discussion of Norman Finkelstein's predicament at DePaul. After denying him tenure, the DePaul administration canceled his 2007-2oo8 courses (his contract allowed him to come back for one more year of teaching) and tried to place him on administrative leave. As noted in the Chronicle, Finkelstein threatened acts of civil disobedience if he could not teach his classes.
Today, DePaul and Finkelstein reached an agreement under which he will leave. The terms of the agreement have not been released, but here's the kicker: as part of the agreement, DePaul has said in writing that, "Professor Finkelstein is a prolific scholar and an outstanding teacher."
Faculty at most institutions of higher education are judged for tenure on three criteria: teaching, scholarship, and service. To deny tenure to someone whom the university itself refers to as a "prolific scholar and outstanding teacher" demonstrates the extent to which DePaul allowed itself to be intimidated by forces outside the university calling for Finkelstein's ouster.
Through its shameful handling of the Finkelstein case, DePaul has certainly earned a place on the AAUP's list of censured administrations. I hope to see them on that list soon.
Today, DePaul and Finkelstein reached an agreement under which he will leave. The terms of the agreement have not been released, but here's the kicker: as part of the agreement, DePaul has said in writing that, "Professor Finkelstein is a prolific scholar and an outstanding teacher."
Faculty at most institutions of higher education are judged for tenure on three criteria: teaching, scholarship, and service. To deny tenure to someone whom the university itself refers to as a "prolific scholar and outstanding teacher" demonstrates the extent to which DePaul allowed itself to be intimidated by forces outside the university calling for Finkelstein's ouster.
Through its shameful handling of the Finkelstein case, DePaul has certainly earned a place on the AAUP's list of censured administrations. I hope to see them on that list soon.
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.
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
Store Memorial
Thanks to Oshkosh citizen JH for passing this on:
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.
Friday, August 31, 2007
Academia at its Worst
My September Media Rant for the Valley Scene takes on the myth of the liberal university in the context of some recent terminations of "radical" professors at the University of Colorado and DePaul. The text of the rant can be found below and in this link.
Academia at its Worst
The myth of the “liberal” university is as widespread and false as the myth of the “liberal” media. A liberal university (like a liberal media) would be a safe space for dissent and would welcome thinking that challenges established power. Today, universities act like corporate media in treating dissent as “bad for business.” The University of Colorado’s recent termination of Ward Churchill, along with DePaul University’s decision to deny tenure to Norman Finkelstein and Mehrene Larudee, make “liberal university” sound like the punch line to a bad joke.
Shortly after September 11, 2001 professor Churchill wrote an essay called “Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens.” In it, he referred to World Trade Center corporate employees as “little Eichmanns,” suggesting that the people who died in the attacks were the moral equivalents of Nazi officials “just following orders” when sending Jews to the death camps. Nearly 6 years later, in July of this year, the Colorado Board of Regents voted 8-1 to approve UC Boulder president Hank Brown’s recommendation that Churchill be fired.
Hank Brown and the Colorado Board of Regents insist Churchill’s firing had nothing to do with his controversial statements, but with research misconduct uncovered by a university committee. They claim instances of plagiarism, falsification, and fabrication can be found in Churchill’s scholarly writings. Though admitting that the extensive review of Churchill’s writings (his work has been examined more thoroughly than probably any scholar in the history of academia) would not have taken place were it not for the media backlash against his 9/11 statements, Brown still claims with a straight face that he received fair treatment.
For his part, Churchill told the Chronicle of Higher Education that the Board had engaged in a “carefully managed illusion of due process.” His view is supported by the American Civil Liberties Union and the local chapter of the American Association of University Professors, each of which laments the chilling effect the Churchill decision will have on the off-campus speech of professors. The Chronicle also cited Churchill supporter Eric Cheyfitz, a professor of American Studies at Cornell who argues that the Committee making accusations against Churchill itself engaged in research misconduct in a variety of ways including the reliance on scholars who have had longstanding disagreements with him.
The situation was exploited by the conservative American Council of Trustees and Alumni, along with Bill O’Reilly, David Horowitz, and other right wing media complaining that “Ward Churchill is everywhere” in academia. The University of Colorado administration did not enjoy the negative public relations and, rather than take a stand for the principles of academic freedom and protection of free expression, made what was essentially a business decision to terminate an individual whose words offended those forces in the legislature and media that could do the campus harm.
Professor Norman Finkelstein’s tenure denial at DePaul University presents an even more shocking case of the abandonment of liberal values in the academy. Finkelstein, the son of Holocaust victims, has produced a huge body of scholarly and popular writings that show, among other things, how the Holocaust has been exploited for political gain and how the United States and Israel act in ways that contradict their stated calls for peace in the middle east. The late Raul Hilberg, much admired founder of the field of Holocaust Studies, praised Finkelstein’s scholarship as vital and rigorous.
Finkelstein’s work naturally attracts vehement condemnation, the most vocal and strident from Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz. Finkelstein’s 2005 book Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History, provides evidence that parts of Dershowitz’s 2003 The Case for Israel were plagiarized. Dershowitz proceeded to distribute a dossier of materials to individuals involved in the DePaul tenure decision, identifying “Norman Finkelstein's most egregious academic sins, and especially his outright lies, misquotations, and distortions."
The department and college personnel committee, both of which found Dershowitz’s criticisms of Finkelstein’s scholarship to be baseless, granted positive recommendations for tenure. But the Dean of the College along with university president Dennis Holtschneider parroted Dershowitz’s accusations of Finkelstein’s “unprofessional personal attacks” and voted to deny. Holtschneider’s tenure denial letter, available on the web, provides little evidence that he had independently read any of Finkelstein’s work.
Finkelstein told the Chronicle: "DePaul is in a growth mode, and they see me as an albatross because they're getting all this negative publicity because of me. And they want to get rid of me. And now the question is, what's going to prevail? The principles of fairness, the principles of academic freedom, or power and money in the form of a mailed fist?" The DePaul Administration abandoned fairness and academic freedom principles not only for Finkelstein, but also for professor Mehrene Larudee. She was called an outstanding teacher and scholar at every level of review but denied tenure by Holtschneider. Her sin? Publicly supporting Finkelstein.
Universities at their best represent open and safe spaces for free thinking that challenges widely accepted opinions. At their worst, they act like corporate media and stifle dissent in the interest of the bottom line. As regards the treatment of Churchill and Finkelstein, we’ve seen academia at its worst.
Academia at its Worst
The myth of the “liberal” university is as widespread and false as the myth of the “liberal” media. A liberal university (like a liberal media) would be a safe space for dissent and would welcome thinking that challenges established power. Today, universities act like corporate media in treating dissent as “bad for business.” The University of Colorado’s recent termination of Ward Churchill, along with DePaul University’s decision to deny tenure to Norman Finkelstein and Mehrene Larudee, make “liberal university” sound like the punch line to a bad joke.
Shortly after September 11, 2001 professor Churchill wrote an essay called “Some People Push Back: On the Justice of Roosting Chickens.” In it, he referred to World Trade Center corporate employees as “little Eichmanns,” suggesting that the people who died in the attacks were the moral equivalents of Nazi officials “just following orders” when sending Jews to the death camps. Nearly 6 years later, in July of this year, the Colorado Board of Regents voted 8-1 to approve UC Boulder president Hank Brown’s recommendation that Churchill be fired.
Hank Brown and the Colorado Board of Regents insist Churchill’s firing had nothing to do with his controversial statements, but with research misconduct uncovered by a university committee. They claim instances of plagiarism, falsification, and fabrication can be found in Churchill’s scholarly writings. Though admitting that the extensive review of Churchill’s writings (his work has been examined more thoroughly than probably any scholar in the history of academia) would not have taken place were it not for the media backlash against his 9/11 statements, Brown still claims with a straight face that he received fair treatment.
For his part, Churchill told the Chronicle of Higher Education that the Board had engaged in a “carefully managed illusion of due process.” His view is supported by the American Civil Liberties Union and the local chapter of the American Association of University Professors, each of which laments the chilling effect the Churchill decision will have on the off-campus speech of professors. The Chronicle also cited Churchill supporter Eric Cheyfitz, a professor of American Studies at Cornell who argues that the Committee making accusations against Churchill itself engaged in research misconduct in a variety of ways including the reliance on scholars who have had longstanding disagreements with him.
The situation was exploited by the conservative American Council of Trustees and Alumni, along with Bill O’Reilly, David Horowitz, and other right wing media complaining that “Ward Churchill is everywhere” in academia. The University of Colorado administration did not enjoy the negative public relations and, rather than take a stand for the principles of academic freedom and protection of free expression, made what was essentially a business decision to terminate an individual whose words offended those forces in the legislature and media that could do the campus harm.
Professor Norman Finkelstein’s tenure denial at DePaul University presents an even more shocking case of the abandonment of liberal values in the academy. Finkelstein, the son of Holocaust victims, has produced a huge body of scholarly and popular writings that show, among other things, how the Holocaust has been exploited for political gain and how the United States and Israel act in ways that contradict their stated calls for peace in the middle east. The late Raul Hilberg, much admired founder of the field of Holocaust Studies, praised Finkelstein’s scholarship as vital and rigorous.
Finkelstein’s work naturally attracts vehement condemnation, the most vocal and strident from Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz. Finkelstein’s 2005 book Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History, provides evidence that parts of Dershowitz’s 2003 The Case for Israel were plagiarized. Dershowitz proceeded to distribute a dossier of materials to individuals involved in the DePaul tenure decision, identifying “Norman Finkelstein's most egregious academic sins, and especially his outright lies, misquotations, and distortions."
The department and college personnel committee, both of which found Dershowitz’s criticisms of Finkelstein’s scholarship to be baseless, granted positive recommendations for tenure. But the Dean of the College along with university president Dennis Holtschneider parroted Dershowitz’s accusations of Finkelstein’s “unprofessional personal attacks” and voted to deny. Holtschneider’s tenure denial letter, available on the web, provides little evidence that he had independently read any of Finkelstein’s work.
Finkelstein told the Chronicle: "DePaul is in a growth mode, and they see me as an albatross because they're getting all this negative publicity because of me. And they want to get rid of me. And now the question is, what's going to prevail? The principles of fairness, the principles of academic freedom, or power and money in the form of a mailed fist?" The DePaul Administration abandoned fairness and academic freedom principles not only for Finkelstein, but also for professor Mehrene Larudee. She was called an outstanding teacher and scholar at every level of review but denied tenure by Holtschneider. Her sin? Publicly supporting Finkelstein.
Universities at their best represent open and safe spaces for free thinking that challenges widely accepted opinions. At their worst, they act like corporate media and stifle dissent in the interest of the bottom line. As regards the treatment of Churchill and Finkelstein, we’ve seen academia at its worst.
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.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
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.
*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.
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.
Monday, August 27, 2007
Response to Attack Editorial
The Northwestern published my response to their Aug. 19 attack editorial today, leaving out the word "attack" in the first line. Yesterday the paper wrote an editorial in favor of placing a change of government referendum on the November ballot, but it is not online yet. Here's the letter I sent responding to the attack editorial.
To the Editor:
The Northwestern’s attack editorial of August 19 did not accurately summarize my reasons for voting against Mayor Tower’s appointment of former Oshkosh B’Gosh executive David Omachinski to sit on the Redevelopment Authority.
From1993-2002 Mr. Omachinski was Vice-President of Finance, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer at B’Gosh. On his resume’ he lists as one of his accomplishments: “Successfully developed and carried out 5 year plan to migrate all domestic manufacturing to offshore sources.” Oshkosh B’Gosh continued to use our city’s name even as they sent all the manufacturing jobs to the third world. During Mr. Omachinski’s reign as Chief Financial Officer the company should have changed its name to “Honduras B’Gosh.”
I also opposed the appointment because we simply need to see more diversity on the Redevelopment Authority. Industry, finance, and big business are currently very well represented on the Oshkosh Redevelopment Authority. Instead of throwing a tantrum when the Council dares to say No to a CFO, the Northwestern should urge the creation of an Authority that is truly representative of the entire community. A truly representative Redevelopment Authority is more likely to pursue policies that benefit all of the taxpayers, including victims of outsourcing.
Tony Palmeri
Oshkosh Common Council
To the Editor:
The Northwestern’s attack editorial of August 19 did not accurately summarize my reasons for voting against Mayor Tower’s appointment of former Oshkosh B’Gosh executive David Omachinski to sit on the Redevelopment Authority.
From1993-2002 Mr. Omachinski was Vice-President of Finance, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer at B’Gosh. On his resume’ he lists as one of his accomplishments: “Successfully developed and carried out 5 year plan to migrate all domestic manufacturing to offshore sources.” Oshkosh B’Gosh continued to use our city’s name even as they sent all the manufacturing jobs to the third world. During Mr. Omachinski’s reign as Chief Financial Officer the company should have changed its name to “Honduras B’Gosh.”
I also opposed the appointment because we simply need to see more diversity on the Redevelopment Authority. Industry, finance, and big business are currently very well represented on the Oshkosh Redevelopment Authority. Instead of throwing a tantrum when the Council dares to say No to a CFO, the Northwestern should urge the creation of an Authority that is truly representative of the entire community. A truly representative Redevelopment Authority is more likely to pursue policies that benefit all of the taxpayers, including victims of outsourcing.
Tony Palmeri
Oshkosh Common Council
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.
Thursday, August 23, 2007
All Those Years Ago
I'm back to blogging after bad weather knocked out my phone and Internet service for a few days.
Kudos to the Oshkosh Northwestern for going back to the archives and linking articles related to the search for a city manager in 1996. You can find the materials in the community forum here. I think a consensus has developed that all those years ago it would have made much sense to get the form of government question settled before moving on with a manager search.
Kudos to the Oshkosh Northwestern for going back to the archives and linking articles related to the search for a city manager in 1996. You can find the materials in the community forum here. I think a consensus has developed that all those years ago it would have made much sense to get the form of government question settled before moving on with a manager search.
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.
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:
Yes_______
No________
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.
Monday, August 20, 2007
The Road Ahead
As noted in this Oshkosh Northwestern summary, effective October 13th Richard Wollangk will retire as City Manager.
The Northwestern summary says that "an interim manager will be appointed as a national search gets underway for a new manager." An interim manager will indeed be appointed, but the Council has not yet decided to start a national search for a new manager.
If the Council were to start a national search for a new manager, I am quite sure that such a move would provoke a citizen movement to change the form of government.
As we learned in 1996, it makes little sense to begin a search for a city manager until citizens have made their voice heard on the form of government. As a result, at the next Council meeting (August 28) I am going to ask the Council to approve the placement of language on a special November referendum ballot that would ask citizens it they want to discontinue the City Manager form of government and move to the strong Mayor form outlined in chapter 62 of the Wisconsin State Statutes.
If the citizens reject a change in government, then the Council should move full steam ahead with a search for a new manager. But to begin that search without first having a change of government referendum--which would mean only that citizens themselves would prepare a referendum question for the April ballot--would make it very difficult to attract qualified city manager candidates and place us right back in the position we were 10 years ago.
Tomorrow (Tuesday) I will present a possible referendum language to the city attorney. When I get feedback on the appropriateness of the language, I will post it on this blog.
The Northwestern summary says that "an interim manager will be appointed as a national search gets underway for a new manager." An interim manager will indeed be appointed, but the Council has not yet decided to start a national search for a new manager.
If the Council were to start a national search for a new manager, I am quite sure that such a move would provoke a citizen movement to change the form of government.
As we learned in 1996, it makes little sense to begin a search for a city manager until citizens have made their voice heard on the form of government. As a result, at the next Council meeting (August 28) I am going to ask the Council to approve the placement of language on a special November referendum ballot that would ask citizens it they want to discontinue the City Manager form of government and move to the strong Mayor form outlined in chapter 62 of the Wisconsin State Statutes.
If the citizens reject a change in government, then the Council should move full steam ahead with a search for a new manager. But to begin that search without first having a change of government referendum--which would mean only that citizens themselves would prepare a referendum question for the April ballot--would make it very difficult to attract qualified city manager candidates and place us right back in the position we were 10 years ago.
Tomorrow (Tuesday) I will present a possible referendum language to the city attorney. When I get feedback on the appropriateness of the language, I will post it on this blog.
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.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Palmeri On Your Radio
I'll be on the Friday, Aug. 17 Wisconsin Public Radio "Week in Review" from 8 - 9 a.m. Also on the show will be Marathon County Republican Kevin Hermening. We were on the show together in June of 2006.
Whatever happened to Joe Jackson?
Here's one of my all time favorite tunes:
Whatever happened to Joe Jackson?
Here's one of my all time favorite tunes:
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.
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Tuesday's Meeting
Here's some highlights from last night's Common Council meeting.
*Before we got to citizen statements, Councilor Bain read this statement:
There has been a lot of discussion concerning my participation in the deliberations regarding the City Manager. Unfortunately, some issues have become unclear, and I would like to clarify some concerns that have been raised.
I want to make it clear that it was my decision to leave the July 30th closed session. My decision was based on the advice of the council’s attorney. I was advised not to participate due to public statements I made regarding city leadership. Given that advice, I felt at that time the best decision possible was to leave the meeting. I was not kicked out, and there are no laws that prevent me from attending and participating."
I will, however, be participating in tomorrow’s closed session, where I have been informed that the council will review a possible alternative resolution.
Hopefully Bryan's statement will put an end to the phone calls asking "why you kicked Mr. Bain out of the meeting."
*The Council was asked to approve the appointment of former Oshkosh B'Gosh Executive David Omachinski to serve on the Redevelopment Authority. Normally mayoral appointments in our form of government are rubber stamped by the council, but on this occasion Dennis McHugh, Paul Esslinger and I voted "No" and the resolution to appoint was thus defeated on a 3-3 tie (Jess King was not at the meeting.). Here is a draft of comments I made before voting no (some of my remarks were extemporaneous so this is not an exact transcript of what I said):
The resolution asks us to approve the appointment of David Omachinksi to the Redevelopment Authority. I do not know Mr. Omachinski, but in our packets we have his resume'; based on what I see in it I will have to vote no.
Mr. Omachinski served in a variety of Executive positions at Oshkosh B’gosh from 1993-2005. From 1993-2002 he was Vice-President of Finance, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of the company. On his resume he lists as one of his accomplishments: Successfully developed and carried out 5 year plan to migrate all domestic manufacturing to offshore sources. As a result, he improved gross profit margin over 800 basis points.” In 1996 Oshkosh B’Gosh was still the 3rd largest employer in the city of Oshkosh. By the time Mr. Omachinski was done with his 5 year plan we have lost every single manufacturing job. Every one. And where did those jobs go?
A report issued in late 2003 by the National Labor Committee detailed the horrors at a textile plant in El Salvador. Here’s what they found: "Each worker had to sew 34 pairs of Oshkosh children's pants a day, while being paid just 19 cents for each pair they sewed. Workers' wages come to less than 9/10ths of one percent of the retail price."
At the same plant, the NLC found: supervisors scream and curse at the workers; women not working fast enough are made to stand in the corner; workers needed permission to drink water or go to the bathroom; women had to submit to forced pregnancy tests when hired and three months later and if testing positive were immediately fired; limited access to health care; U.S. corporate codes of conduct were never explained and meaningless; workers constantly intimidated in an atmosphere of blatant repression of the legal rights to freedom of association and to organize. The management of the plant made a direct threat to the workers:
"If a union comes into the factory, it is going to die. If a union is ever organized here, we are going to leave the country and shut down the factory."
I understand that Mr. Omachinski was just doing his job. He did it, and we know that in the garment industry, it can be a very nasty world.
As a Common Council, we have the power to say no to this appointment. The state statutes governing redevelopment authorities says:
In making appointments of commissioners, the appointing power shall give due consideration to the general interest of the appointee in a redevelopment, slum clearance or urban renewal program and shall, insofar as is possible, designate representatives from the general public, labor, industry, finance or business group, and civic organizations.
Our current redevelopment authority is well represented by individuals from industry and business groups. We should have a representative from labor on the authority, and I think the mayor should appoint someone from that area.
Oshkosh News covers my comments here.
*A woman concerned about noise and lighting at Titan Stadium delivered a passionate presentation during citizen statements. Mr. Bain and Mayor Tower heard her concerns at the Fifth Tuesday Forum and are in the process of getting some answers for her.
*Mr. Esslinger asked the city manager some questions about the 100 block financing and how it might relate to the Akcess development in terms of guarantees provided to make up for shortfalls. The answers provided were vague and will have to be revisited.
*The Council approved recommendations by Mr. Bain to make motions to Table and motions to Suspend Rules debatable. The recommendations passed on a 4-2 vote (Palmeri and McHugh voting No). I voted no because (1) I think debating these motions will make our meetings even longer than is already the case; and (2) a councilor uncertain about why a motion to table or suspend rules was made should simply, in my opinion, vote no.
*We had a budget workshop after the meeting which was too long for me to summarize here. One thing I did point out which I think bears repeating here is that in an annual financial report that we were provided, pp. 108-109 break down employment in the city in terms of manufacturing, non-manufacturing, and government jobs. The source of the information is the Chamber of Commerce, which (I am not making this up) list the Miles Kimball Company as having 1,250 manufacturing jobs in the community. I imagine that some manufacturing might go on there, though would not know it from the company's recruitment language, which says: Employment opportunities may exist in the key areas of merchandising, creative, inventory planning, customer service, marketing, information systems, printing, finance, fulfillment and human resources.
We should be thankful that Miles Kimball employs over 1,200 people, but calling them all manufacturing jobs reminds me of the Bush Administration's attempt to call fast food workers "manufacturers" (they do, after all, "make" the burgers, right?).
*Before we got to citizen statements, Councilor Bain read this statement:
There has been a lot of discussion concerning my participation in the deliberations regarding the City Manager. Unfortunately, some issues have become unclear, and I would like to clarify some concerns that have been raised.
I want to make it clear that it was my decision to leave the July 30th closed session. My decision was based on the advice of the council’s attorney. I was advised not to participate due to public statements I made regarding city leadership. Given that advice, I felt at that time the best decision possible was to leave the meeting. I was not kicked out, and there are no laws that prevent me from attending and participating."
I will, however, be participating in tomorrow’s closed session, where I have been informed that the council will review a possible alternative resolution.
Hopefully Bryan's statement will put an end to the phone calls asking "why you kicked Mr. Bain out of the meeting."
*The Council was asked to approve the appointment of former Oshkosh B'Gosh Executive David Omachinski to serve on the Redevelopment Authority. Normally mayoral appointments in our form of government are rubber stamped by the council, but on this occasion Dennis McHugh, Paul Esslinger and I voted "No" and the resolution to appoint was thus defeated on a 3-3 tie (Jess King was not at the meeting.). Here is a draft of comments I made before voting no (some of my remarks were extemporaneous so this is not an exact transcript of what I said):
The resolution asks us to approve the appointment of David Omachinksi to the Redevelopment Authority. I do not know Mr. Omachinski, but in our packets we have his resume'; based on what I see in it I will have to vote no.
Mr. Omachinski served in a variety of Executive positions at Oshkosh B’gosh from 1993-2005. From 1993-2002 he was Vice-President of Finance, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of the company. On his resume he lists as one of his accomplishments: Successfully developed and carried out 5 year plan to migrate all domestic manufacturing to offshore sources. As a result, he improved gross profit margin over 800 basis points.” In 1996 Oshkosh B’Gosh was still the 3rd largest employer in the city of Oshkosh. By the time Mr. Omachinski was done with his 5 year plan we have lost every single manufacturing job. Every one. And where did those jobs go?
A report issued in late 2003 by the National Labor Committee detailed the horrors at a textile plant in El Salvador. Here’s what they found: "Each worker had to sew 34 pairs of Oshkosh children's pants a day, while being paid just 19 cents for each pair they sewed. Workers' wages come to less than 9/10ths of one percent of the retail price."
At the same plant, the NLC found: supervisors scream and curse at the workers; women not working fast enough are made to stand in the corner; workers needed permission to drink water or go to the bathroom; women had to submit to forced pregnancy tests when hired and three months later and if testing positive were immediately fired; limited access to health care; U.S. corporate codes of conduct were never explained and meaningless; workers constantly intimidated in an atmosphere of blatant repression of the legal rights to freedom of association and to organize. The management of the plant made a direct threat to the workers:
"If a union comes into the factory, it is going to die. If a union is ever organized here, we are going to leave the country and shut down the factory."
I understand that Mr. Omachinski was just doing his job. He did it, and we know that in the garment industry, it can be a very nasty world.
As a Common Council, we have the power to say no to this appointment. The state statutes governing redevelopment authorities says:
In making appointments of commissioners, the appointing power shall give due consideration to the general interest of the appointee in a redevelopment, slum clearance or urban renewal program and shall, insofar as is possible, designate representatives from the general public, labor, industry, finance or business group, and civic organizations.
Our current redevelopment authority is well represented by individuals from industry and business groups. We should have a representative from labor on the authority, and I think the mayor should appoint someone from that area.
Oshkosh News covers my comments here.
*A woman concerned about noise and lighting at Titan Stadium delivered a passionate presentation during citizen statements. Mr. Bain and Mayor Tower heard her concerns at the Fifth Tuesday Forum and are in the process of getting some answers for her.
*Mr. Esslinger asked the city manager some questions about the 100 block financing and how it might relate to the Akcess development in terms of guarantees provided to make up for shortfalls. The answers provided were vague and will have to be revisited.
*The Council approved recommendations by Mr. Bain to make motions to Table and motions to Suspend Rules debatable. The recommendations passed on a 4-2 vote (Palmeri and McHugh voting No). I voted no because (1) I think debating these motions will make our meetings even longer than is already the case; and (2) a councilor uncertain about why a motion to table or suspend rules was made should simply, in my opinion, vote no.
*We had a budget workshop after the meeting which was too long for me to summarize here. One thing I did point out which I think bears repeating here is that in an annual financial report that we were provided, pp. 108-109 break down employment in the city in terms of manufacturing, non-manufacturing, and government jobs. The source of the information is the Chamber of Commerce, which (I am not making this up) list the Miles Kimball Company as having 1,250 manufacturing jobs in the community. I imagine that some manufacturing might go on there, though would not know it from the company's recruitment language, which says: Employment opportunities may exist in the key areas of merchandising, creative, inventory planning, customer service, marketing, information systems, printing, finance, fulfillment and human resources.
We should be thankful that Miles Kimball employs over 1,200 people, but calling them all manufacturing jobs reminds me of the Bush Administration's attempt to call fast food workers "manufacturers" (they do, after all, "make" the burgers, right?).
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.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
R.I.P: Phil "The Scooter" Rizzuto
New York Yankees' Hall of Fame shortstop and broadcaster Phil Rizzuto died today at the age of 89. I grew up watching Yankee games on WPIX TV in New York (often on a rabbit eared antenna television that required a pair of pliers to change the channel), and Rizzuto was by far my favorite broadcaster.Rizzuto was an Italian-Catholic guy from Brooklyn and maybe I identified with him for that reason alone, but I think it was more than that. He had an engaging, youthful wackiness about him that many of us lose when we become "serious" adults. If your favorite uncle was a sports broadcaster, he'd probably sound a bit like Phil Rizzuto. Here's his 1994 induction speech at Cooperstown.
Thanks for the memories, Phil. I'm sure I'm not the only person who lost interest inYankee broadcasts after you retired.
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.
Northwestern Should Apologize For 100 Block Role
The Oshkosh Northwestern Editorial Board's outrage over the 100 block and call for future transparency is amusing given that the paper in 2001 played a key role in preventing the public from learning the intricacies of the Ganther/Niebauer/Kinney financing scheme. My recollection is this:
In late March of 2001 the Common Council held a closed meeting in which two proposals for the 100 block were considered: an office complex and a mixed use development (the Ganther/Niebauer proposal). Before the Council met on April 10th, there was no announcement that the Ganther proposal had been selected, nor did the Oshkosh Northwestern do any digging to find out what the Council had done behind closed doors. That means that during the critical two week period between the time the Council met in closed session and the time they would meet in public to approve the 100 block proposal, no serious attempt was made to investigate the nature of the financing plan.
On the day of the April 10th meeting, when it became clear to some government watchers that the Council should delay a vote since a questionable deal was being rushed through, this is what the Oshkosh Northwestern editorial board wrote:
"While we are sure the Common Council will want to peer into all of the nooks and crannies of the proposals, which is prudent, it cannot afford protracted, frivolous deliberations."
As it turned out, only Councilors Melanie Bloechl and Kevin McGee had any interest in peering into the nooks and crannies of the proposals, and as I recall Bloechl called to delay a vote to allow for more public input. The call was not listened to. Thus the Ganther/Niebauer/Kinney financing scheme was put into place with little input from the public and no resistance from the Northwestern.
Today's Northwestern editorial talks about lessons learned from the 100 block fiasco, but it is not clear that the editorialists have yet learned any. Last week's paper included an absolutely inane editorial on TIF financing that contributed little to our understanding of that important topic, and today's editorial refers to the Akcess Waterfront proposal as a "far more confident" and "fiscally supported" effort than Five Rivers or the 100 block. Exactly how is it that a development can be labeled "far more confident" when its centerpiece--an office building--will house already existing local businesses, the majority of whom have yet to even make a commitment to locate there? The Waterfront proposal might be more fiscally supported, but only if we have faith that what we are being told about master developer agreements and pay-go TIFs is accurate.
Based on the track record of the city officals responsible for cutting such deals, and the Northwestern's track record of after-the-fact outrage, it's not clear that the Waterfront proposal deserves to be treated with enthusiasm at this point.
The Northwestern's call for transparency in future projects is much appreciated. However, in order for their call to be credible they should do two things:
*Apologize for their role in creating the conditions that led to the 100 block fiasco.
*Engage in more in-depth and serious reporting on TIF, master developer agreements, and other redevelopment tools.
In late March of 2001 the Common Council held a closed meeting in which two proposals for the 100 block were considered: an office complex and a mixed use development (the Ganther/Niebauer proposal). Before the Council met on April 10th, there was no announcement that the Ganther proposal had been selected, nor did the Oshkosh Northwestern do any digging to find out what the Council had done behind closed doors. That means that during the critical two week period between the time the Council met in closed session and the time they would meet in public to approve the 100 block proposal, no serious attempt was made to investigate the nature of the financing plan.
On the day of the April 10th meeting, when it became clear to some government watchers that the Council should delay a vote since a questionable deal was being rushed through, this is what the Oshkosh Northwestern editorial board wrote:
"While we are sure the Common Council will want to peer into all of the nooks and crannies of the proposals, which is prudent, it cannot afford protracted, frivolous deliberations."
As it turned out, only Councilors Melanie Bloechl and Kevin McGee had any interest in peering into the nooks and crannies of the proposals, and as I recall Bloechl called to delay a vote to allow for more public input. The call was not listened to. Thus the Ganther/Niebauer/Kinney financing scheme was put into place with little input from the public and no resistance from the Northwestern.
Today's Northwestern editorial talks about lessons learned from the 100 block fiasco, but it is not clear that the editorialists have yet learned any. Last week's paper included an absolutely inane editorial on TIF financing that contributed little to our understanding of that important topic, and today's editorial refers to the Akcess Waterfront proposal as a "far more confident" and "fiscally supported" effort than Five Rivers or the 100 block. Exactly how is it that a development can be labeled "far more confident" when its centerpiece--an office building--will house already existing local businesses, the majority of whom have yet to even make a commitment to locate there? The Waterfront proposal might be more fiscally supported, but only if we have faith that what we are being told about master developer agreements and pay-go TIFs is accurate.
Based on the track record of the city officals responsible for cutting such deals, and the Northwestern's track record of after-the-fact outrage, it's not clear that the Waterfront proposal deserves to be treated with enthusiasm at this point.
The Northwestern's call for transparency in future projects is much appreciated. However, in order for their call to be credible they should do two things:
*Apologize for their role in creating the conditions that led to the 100 block fiasco.
*Engage in more in-depth and serious reporting on TIF, master developer agreements, and other redevelopment tools.
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.
Monday, August 13, 2007
The Real Problem With Workshops
As reported in the Northwestern, Councilor Bain is proposing a new ordinance that would dedicate the first Tuesday of each month to workshop sessions. Currently workshops are held after council meetings, and often do not start until 10 p.m. or later.
I think the late start of workshop sessions has been a problem, but there are bigger problems with the workshops that the ordinance does not address. The workshops, I have noticed, actually are ways to circumvent citizen input. They do this in two ways.
First, citizens generally have not been allowed to speak at workshops. The common pattern has been for the Mayor and/or Council to invite guests (e.g. the Convention and Visitors Bureau, the DOT, etc.) who usually give a presentation and are then questioned by the Council. The only recent workshop I can recall that allowed citizen input was the second workshop we had on the Convention Center.
Second and equally troubling is the fact that the Council often gives "direction" to the city staff at the workshops which have the force of resolutions. For example, when the Department of Community Development originally proposed a TIF financing model for the Convention Center, they did it at the "direction" of the Council in workshop session. Many other examples could be provided.
Whether we have workshop meetings on the first Tuesdays, keep them where they currently are, or create another alternative, we have to do something to make sure they feature genuine citizen input. Moreover, we have to make sure that the Council is not using the workshops as a way to provide direction to the staff without having to actually vote on those directions.
I think the late start of workshop sessions has been a problem, but there are bigger problems with the workshops that the ordinance does not address. The workshops, I have noticed, actually are ways to circumvent citizen input. They do this in two ways.
First, citizens generally have not been allowed to speak at workshops. The common pattern has been for the Mayor and/or Council to invite guests (e.g. the Convention and Visitors Bureau, the DOT, etc.) who usually give a presentation and are then questioned by the Council. The only recent workshop I can recall that allowed citizen input was the second workshop we had on the Convention Center.
Second and equally troubling is the fact that the Council often gives "direction" to the city staff at the workshops which have the force of resolutions. For example, when the Department of Community Development originally proposed a TIF financing model for the Convention Center, they did it at the "direction" of the Council in workshop session. Many other examples could be provided.
Whether we have workshop meetings on the first Tuesdays, keep them where they currently are, or create another alternative, we have to do something to make sure they feature genuine citizen input. Moreover, we have to make sure that the Council is not using the workshops as a way to provide direction to the staff without having to actually vote on those directions.
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.
Thursday, August 02, 2007
Media Rant: Looking For Love In The Immigration Debate
Lori and I are off to Kansas City and a few other towns and so I won't be posting again until late next week.
The August issue of the Valley Scene (not available on-line) features a few pieces on immigration. I'll leave you with my contribution: Looking For Love In The Immigration Debate.
The August issue of the Valley Scene (not available on-line) features a few pieces on immigration. I'll leave you with my contribution: Looking For Love In The Immigration Debate.
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.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Racine, Haunted City
Labor activist Roger Bybee has a great piece in the July issue of The Progressive, "Racine, haunted city: look what happens when industry flees." The similarities between the Racine and Oshkosh experiences is painfully clear, especially as regards questionable economic development plans in response to deindustrialization. Some excerpts:
Inner-city Racine bears a haunted look, with its vacant factories and dilapidated houses. It is surrounded by a suburban ring of anonymous strip malls and relatively well-off white suburbs (the city itself is 20 percent African American and 14 percent Latino) and a harbor filled with luxury boats (owned primarily by wealthy outsiders) on the Lake Michigan side. The downtown has a Potemkin-village feel to it, with a front of neatly restored brick buildings hiding the squalor of the surrounding areas . . .
With the corrosion of the city's industrial base, Racine officials dreamed up one economic salvation scheme after another. Despite luring affluent boat owners from the Chicago and Milwaukee suburbs, the big publicly subsidized harbor project failed to produce the trickle-down effects predicted by its promoters. The latest idea, hailed in The New York Times, is that former factory workers will somehow find prosperity as Racine tries to convert itself into an artists' colony, replete with a new $11 million Racine Art Museum and about a dozen galleries on Sixth Street.
But twelve galleries and a museum will not fill the crater left by the loss of 13,500 factory jobs. Racine's unemployment rate consistently remains the state's highest, and many former industrial workers have been permanently demoted to low-wage, low-benefit jobs in the service sector from which they have little chance of rising. For example, after Chrysler wiped out 5,500 jobs in 1988, $7 million in public funds was spent on retraining the workers over three years. Yet after the retraining, 60 percent earned less than $28,000 (in 2006 dollars) and fully 20 percent remained jobless, according to a study by the University of Wisconsin-Parkside.
Racine is not the same city my grandparents came to or I grew up in. It is a victim of corporate globalization. But part of the fighting spirit remains.
Hey, here's an idea to revive Racine: build some class A office space on the waterfront and be okay with 95% of the tenants coming from already existing office space in the city. And they should definitely create more TIF districts (they currently have 9 active TIFs compared to 17 in Oshkosh).
Inner-city Racine bears a haunted look, with its vacant factories and dilapidated houses. It is surrounded by a suburban ring of anonymous strip malls and relatively well-off white suburbs (the city itself is 20 percent African American and 14 percent Latino) and a harbor filled with luxury boats (owned primarily by wealthy outsiders) on the Lake Michigan side. The downtown has a Potemkin-village feel to it, with a front of neatly restored brick buildings hiding the squalor of the surrounding areas . . .
With the corrosion of the city's industrial base, Racine officials dreamed up one economic salvation scheme after another. Despite luring affluent boat owners from the Chicago and Milwaukee suburbs, the big publicly subsidized harbor project failed to produce the trickle-down effects predicted by its promoters. The latest idea, hailed in The New York Times, is that former factory workers will somehow find prosperity as Racine tries to convert itself into an artists' colony, replete with a new $11 million Racine Art Museum and about a dozen galleries on Sixth Street.
But twelve galleries and a museum will not fill the crater left by the loss of 13,500 factory jobs. Racine's unemployment rate consistently remains the state's highest, and many former industrial workers have been permanently demoted to low-wage, low-benefit jobs in the service sector from which they have little chance of rising. For example, after Chrysler wiped out 5,500 jobs in 1988, $7 million in public funds was spent on retraining the workers over three years. Yet after the retraining, 60 percent earned less than $28,000 (in 2006 dollars) and fully 20 percent remained jobless, according to a study by the University of Wisconsin-Parkside.
Racine is not the same city my grandparents came to or I grew up in. It is a victim of corporate globalization. But part of the fighting spirit remains.
Hey, here's an idea to revive Racine: build some class A office space on the waterfront and be okay with 95% of the tenants coming from already existing office space in the city. And they should definitely create more TIF districts (they currently have 9 active TIFs compared to 17 in Oshkosh).
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.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Last Tuesday's Meeting
Another long meeting (including workshops and an executive session we were not out of city hall until 1:45 a.m.) which would have been even longer had we had enough votes to do the right thing and reconsider the Akcess term sheet. If in addition we'd had more people come to speak about the smoking resolution (I was expecting 10-20 but I think we only had 4 or 5) we could have conceivably been there until 3 a.m. Oh well, at least we have air conditioning and a vending machine (though the latter broke down on Tuesday night!).
Some high and low lights of the evening:
*Some gentlemen came forward to say that they had been treated unfairly in a competitive bidding process. There seemed to be enough confusion as to how the bid was awarded so that the council felt comfortable asking administration to start the bidding process over again. I suspect that at some point we will have to take a closer look at the competitive bidding process--some controversial waiving of bids and confusion like we saw on Tuesday night suggests that it might be time to [at the very least] educate the council and the public about the law regarding bids.
*I was the only councilor to vote against an intergovernmental agreement with the town of Nekimi. Nothing against the town and city officials that negotiated the agreement, but it didn't set well as I read it. Such agreements always seem to be developer driven, and while they come with the rhetoric of "managing sprawl," they are in fact blueprints for how to engage in sprawl development with as little citizen complaint as possible.
I also find it odd that we would sign an intergovernmental agreement only between the city and town, when the last few years have shown us that county and school district are implicated in virtually everything we do. Yes, I know that the law does not require school district and county participation, but given the nature of the modern interaction between city, town, county, and school district(s) it would seem sensible to expand our understanding of "intergovernmental." I didn't say this at the meeting, but it occurred to me later that we really ought to be calling on urban planning specialists from UW Oshkosh or the UW Exension to serve at least in advisory roles as these deals are being hammered out.
I also cannot understand why the city would sign a 40-year agreement with a town when our own city comprehensive plan is reviewed every 10 years. County-town agreements are extremely difficult to change once they are signed, and so if in the next review of the comprehensive plan we come to the conclusion that the town agreement is not working, we are stuck. I think provisions should be placed in town/city agreements that make them subject to renegotiation at the time the comprehensive plan comes up for review. That way we we are not locking two generations of citizens and government officials into something that may not turn out to be helpful.
Finally, I cited Dr. Kevin McGee's 2000 paper on "County spending and the implicit subsidy to 'urban sprawl'" to suggest that the issue of "double whammy" taxation (i.e. city residents paying for town services that city dwellers themselves do not receive to the level that their rate of taxation would seem to require) needs to be dealt with in town/city agreements.
I thought other councilors seemed interested in what I had to say, but no one else offered any opposition or verbal support for the agreement and so it passed easily. Sprawl on, Wayne.
Smoking Ordinance Revision: I ended up voting against amending the ordinance. I said that the issue provided us with a conflict between the needs of small business and the needs of small-d democracy. As regards small business, there is no doubt that after 90 days "Joe's Dry Dock" (the establishment asking for the revision) will be able to allow smoking. However, in his first 90 days Joe is effectively at a competitive disadvantage with every other bar and tavern that allows smoking. I think everyone can sympathize with his predicament.
For better or worse, however, the smoking ordinance was put in place by a vote of the people in a referendum and I think it has to be something truly extraordinary and urgent for the council to amend it. A tavern owner having to wait 90 days before allowing smoking does not, in my judgement, provide enough strong rationale to amend an ordinance put in place by referendum.
The council voted against amending the smoking ordinance and so it will remain as is until the legislature and governor decide to pass a state wide ban.
Cottonwood Tree Ban: Mr. McHugh's ordinance failed by a 1-6 vote and received further trashing in today's Northwestern.
Roundabouts. Oshkosh News has a good summary of the discussion that led to the passing of this resolution. One thing the summary does not say is that I said that one of the possible benefits of the roundabout (though not the main reason I voted for it) is that we can get some public art placed in the circle. I think that might do much to enhance the aesthetics of the Jackson/Murdock area which is currently not the most attractive place in town.
Chamber of Commerce Building. I called this a "defining vote" for this council, as in my view most prior city councils would have had at least 4 and possibly as many as 6 votes to purchase the chamber of commerce building. On this council, the purchase failed by a vote of 0-7, though some of the councilors seem to think that we might purchase the building in the future. In voting against such measures, is this council "anti-progress?" Nope, we just seem more willing to be skeptical of the Department of Community Development's definition of progress.
Akcess Reconsideration. The vote to reconsider failed on a 3-4 vote (Esslinger, McHugh, Palmeri voting to reconsider), meaning that McHugh could not engage in a public discussion of the Akcess term sheet and its possible similarities to the disastrous 100 north Main St. project. I found this vote disappointing and I do believe the council will live to regret it when it becomes clear (perhaps years from now) that there are problems in the term sheet that could have and should have been discovered before a shovel breaks ground. I hope I'm wrong.
On the convention center workshop, my entire purpose in asking for a second workshop was to allow for more citizen input. Because the workshop started so late, we did not get much input. Still, I was encouraged to see that just about every councilor expressed discomfort with TIF financing of the project. I don't think in the history of Oshkosh politics since the 1970s has there ever been a council as suspicious of TIFs as this one. Hopefully by early next year we will have some quality information on how our existing TIFs are actually performing.
The Oshkosh Northwestern has a summary of where we are as regards meeting in closed session to discuss the city manager's performance.
Some high and low lights of the evening:
*Some gentlemen came forward to say that they had been treated unfairly in a competitive bidding process. There seemed to be enough confusion as to how the bid was awarded so that the council felt comfortable asking administration to start the bidding process over again. I suspect that at some point we will have to take a closer look at the competitive bidding process--some controversial waiving of bids and confusion like we saw on Tuesday night suggests that it might be time to [at the very least] educate the council and the public about the law regarding bids.
*I was the only councilor to vote against an intergovernmental agreement with the town of Nekimi. Nothing against the town and city officials that negotiated the agreement, but it didn't set well as I read it. Such agreements always seem to be developer driven, and while they come with the rhetoric of "managing sprawl," they are in fact blueprints for how to engage in sprawl development with as little citizen complaint as possible.
I also find it odd that we would sign an intergovernmental agreement only between the city and town, when the last few years have shown us that county and school district are implicated in virtually everything we do. Yes, I know that the law does not require school district and county participation, but given the nature of the modern interaction between city, town, county, and school district(s) it would seem sensible to expand our understanding of "intergovernmental." I didn't say this at the meeting, but it occurred to me later that we really ought to be calling on urban planning specialists from UW Oshkosh or the UW Exension to serve at least in advisory roles as these deals are being hammered out.
I also cannot understand why the city would sign a 40-year agreement with a town when our own city comprehensive plan is reviewed every 10 years. County-town agreements are extremely difficult to change once they are signed, and so if in the next review of the comprehensive plan we come to the conclusion that the town agreement is not working, we are stuck. I think provisions should be placed in town/city agreements that make them subject to renegotiation at the time the comprehensive plan comes up for review. That way we we are not locking two generations of citizens and government officials into something that may not turn out to be helpful.
Finally, I cited Dr. Kevin McGee's 2000 paper on "County spending and the implicit subsidy to 'urban sprawl'" to suggest that the issue of "double whammy" taxation (i.e. city residents paying for town services that city dwellers themselves do not receive to the level that their rate of taxation would seem to require) needs to be dealt with in town/city agreements.
I thought other councilors seemed interested in what I had to say, but no one else offered any opposition or verbal support for the agreement and so it passed easily. Sprawl on, Wayne.
Smoking Ordinance Revision: I ended up voting against amending the ordinance. I said that the issue provided us with a conflict between the needs of small business and the needs of small-d democracy. As regards small business, there is no doubt that after 90 days "Joe's Dry Dock" (the establishment asking for the revision) will be able to allow smoking. However, in his first 90 days Joe is effectively at a competitive disadvantage with every other bar and tavern that allows smoking. I think everyone can sympathize with his predicament.
For better or worse, however, the smoking ordinance was put in place by a vote of the people in a referendum and I think it has to be something truly extraordinary and urgent for the council to amend it. A tavern owner having to wait 90 days before allowing smoking does not, in my judgement, provide enough strong rationale to amend an ordinance put in place by referendum.
The council voted against amending the smoking ordinance and so it will remain as is until the legislature and governor decide to pass a state wide ban.
Cottonwood Tree Ban: Mr. McHugh's ordinance failed by a 1-6 vote and received further trashing in today's Northwestern.
Roundabouts. Oshkosh News has a good summary of the discussion that led to the passing of this resolution. One thing the summary does not say is that I said that one of the possible benefits of the roundabout (though not the main reason I voted for it) is that we can get some public art placed in the circle. I think that might do much to enhance the aesthetics of the Jackson/Murdock area which is currently not the most attractive place in town.
Chamber of Commerce Building. I called this a "defining vote" for this council, as in my view most prior city councils would have had at least 4 and possibly as many as 6 votes to purchase the chamber of commerce building. On this council, the purchase failed by a vote of 0-7, though some of the councilors seem to think that we might purchase the building in the future. In voting against such measures, is this council "anti-progress?" Nope, we just seem more willing to be skeptical of the Department of Community Development's definition of progress.
Akcess Reconsideration. The vote to reconsider failed on a 3-4 vote (Esslinger, McHugh, Palmeri voting to reconsider), meaning that McHugh could not engage in a public discussion of the Akcess term sheet and its possible similarities to the disastrous 100 north Main St. project. I found this vote disappointing and I do believe the council will live to regret it when it becomes clear (perhaps years from now) that there are problems in the term sheet that could have and should have been discovered before a shovel breaks ground. I hope I'm wrong.
On the convention center workshop, my entire purpose in asking for a second workshop was to allow for more citizen input. Because the workshop started so late, we did not get much input. Still, I was encouraged to see that just about every councilor expressed discomfort with TIF financing of the project. I don't think in the history of Oshkosh politics since the 1970s has there ever been a council as suspicious of TIFs as this one. Hopefully by early next year we will have some quality information on how our existing TIFs are actually performing.
The Oshkosh Northwestern has a summary of where we are as regards meeting in closed session to discuss the city manager's performance.
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.
Monday, July 23, 2007
A Cheap But Funny Shot
All seven members of the Common Council and City Manager Wollangk received a letter dated July 20 from "Impatient Taxpayer." S/he wrote:
Tune in Tuesday Nights 6 p.m. for the "Tony Palmeri Show" with featured guests, Paul Esslinger, Dennis McHugh, Jessica King and Bryan Bain. Tonight's topics will be: sewers, ducks, geese, floating docks, and street lights. Each of these people will get three chances to explain what they are trying to explain, and if you don't get it, then they will do it all over again at the next meeting. They will repeat questions and all will get to talk, otherwise it will look like they are not doing their jobs.
Mr. Bain brought up a good point, about repeating, or talking to(sic) much, which surprised me, because he is usually the one that is always talking and forever trying to explain himself. Then low and behold if you people didn't have the guts to talk for half an hour about talking too much.
Stop putting on a show and make a decision; you're on the Oshkosh Council, not 60 minutes.
Sincerely,
Impatient Taxpayer
I think that's funny, but I don't think Bryan or any other member of the Council has been talking too much. Believe me, if it was the "Tony Palmeri Show" the meetings would be going on much longer as I frequently find myself wanting to question the other Councilors but almost always hold back due to time issues. I'm sure every other Councilor does the same.
I think the meetings have been longer this year for some good reasons:
*Councilors are coming to the meetings prepared to discuss all the agenda items INCLUDING the "Consent Agenda" which traditionally does not get as much discussion. For example, we had a proposal a few weeks ago to annex into the city property that will become a tax-exempt church. Normally proposals like that get passed with no discussion, but I thought it valuable to introduce a discussion of the wisdom of annexing into the city property that will obtain city services covered by property taxes and yet not pay for them. Other councilors have introduced discussions on consent agenda items, and I think that's good.
*I could be wrong, but it does seem that more citizens than usual are speaking on proposed resolutions and ordinances. We all say we want more citizen input, so that too is good.
*It is true that this council does ask many questions and sometimes they are repetitive. We probably do need to be more mindful of that.
*Finally, I think most members of the Council feel compelled to offer rationales for their votes, sometimes lengthy rationales. I personally like to hear why and how a councilor has come to a decision, so I am not bothered by those statements even if they are lengthy. (Probably as more councilors see their statements held up for scorn on YouTube or mocked as "lecturing" they might say less--I think that would be unfortunate.).
I plan to continue to say what I think needs to be said (and ask what I think needs to be asked) while being respectful of time and the need to move the meetings along. I'm quite sure every other councilor would say the same.
Tune in Tuesday Nights 6 p.m. for the "Tony Palmeri Show" with featured guests, Paul Esslinger, Dennis McHugh, Jessica King and Bryan Bain. Tonight's topics will be: sewers, ducks, geese, floating docks, and street lights. Each of these people will get three chances to explain what they are trying to explain, and if you don't get it, then they will do it all over again at the next meeting. They will repeat questions and all will get to talk, otherwise it will look like they are not doing their jobs.
Mr. Bain brought up a good point, about repeating, or talking to(sic) much, which surprised me, because he is usually the one that is always talking and forever trying to explain himself. Then low and behold if you people didn't have the guts to talk for half an hour about talking too much.
Stop putting on a show and make a decision; you're on the Oshkosh Council, not 60 minutes.
Sincerely,
Impatient Taxpayer
I think that's funny, but I don't think Bryan or any other member of the Council has been talking too much. Believe me, if it was the "Tony Palmeri Show" the meetings would be going on much longer as I frequently find myself wanting to question the other Councilors but almost always hold back due to time issues. I'm sure every other Councilor does the same.
I think the meetings have been longer this year for some good reasons:
*Councilors are coming to the meetings prepared to discuss all the agenda items INCLUDING the "Consent Agenda" which traditionally does not get as much discussion. For example, we had a proposal a few weeks ago to annex into the city property that will become a tax-exempt church. Normally proposals like that get passed with no discussion, but I thought it valuable to introduce a discussion of the wisdom of annexing into the city property that will obtain city services covered by property taxes and yet not pay for them. Other councilors have introduced discussions on consent agenda items, and I think that's good.
*I could be wrong, but it does seem that more citizens than usual are speaking on proposed resolutions and ordinances. We all say we want more citizen input, so that too is good.
*It is true that this council does ask many questions and sometimes they are repetitive. We probably do need to be more mindful of that.
*Finally, I think most members of the Council feel compelled to offer rationales for their votes, sometimes lengthy rationales. I personally like to hear why and how a councilor has come to a decision, so I am not bothered by those statements even if they are lengthy. (Probably as more councilors see their statements held up for scorn on YouTube or mocked as "lecturing" they might say less--I think that would be unfortunate.).
I plan to continue to say what I think needs to be said (and ask what I think needs to be asked) while being respectful of time and the need to move the meetings along. I'm quite sure every other councilor would say the same.
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.
Convention Center Workshop: Public Comment Allowed
After Tuesday night's Common Council business meeting, there will be two workshops: one dealing with the water utility and one dealing with the Oshkosh Convention Center. The public will be allowed to speak during the Convention Center workshop.
I STRONGLY URGE YOU TO ATTEND THE WORKSHOP AND MAKE YOUR VIEWS HEARD.
Unfortunately, because our business meeting will probably be quite lengthy (we are dealing with items that will require much time to deliberate, especially the proposal to amend the smoking ordinance, the proposal to approve roundabouts for the Jackson/Murdock intersection, the proposal to buy the chamber of commerce building, and the proposal to reconsider the Akcess term sheet agreement), the workshop probably won't start until well into the evening.
Please do email me (tpalmeri@ci.oshkosh.wi.us) or call (235-1116) if you wish to be heard on any of these topics but cannot make the meeting.
I STRONGLY URGE YOU TO ATTEND THE WORKSHOP AND MAKE YOUR VIEWS HEARD.
Unfortunately, because our business meeting will probably be quite lengthy (we are dealing with items that will require much time to deliberate, especially the proposal to amend the smoking ordinance, the proposal to approve roundabouts for the Jackson/Murdock intersection, the proposal to buy the chamber of commerce building, and the proposal to reconsider the Akcess term sheet agreement), the workshop probably won't start until well into the evening.
Please do email me (tpalmeri@ci.oshkosh.wi.us) or call (235-1116) if you wish to be heard on any of these topics but cannot make the meeting.
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.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Council Update
Here's some Common Council happenings:
1. We had a special meeting tonight to discuss the creation of new boards and commissions. We reached consensus on the following:
*Mayor Tower will approach former Oshkosh mayors about their willingness to be involved in a Commission on Poverty. After their involvement is secured, more time will be spent trying to give focus to the Commission.
*My ideas for a Budget Committee and Street Repair Commission may become part of a revived Citizens' Advisory Committee (The CAC was disbanded some time ago when it stopped being the body that made recommendations on how to disperse Community Development Block Grant funding. Councilor Esslinger believes that the CAC should once again have that role, but no decision on that was made at the special meeting.).
*My other proposal was for the development of an Economic Development Commission. By consensus we decided that we should first hold an Economic Development Summit (Mayor Tower's idea). One possible outcome of that Summit could be the development of a formal Commission.
*Bryan Bain proposed two new bodies that received much favorable feedback: a Waterways Committee and and "Oshkosh Council" that would bring together officials from the Council, School Board, County Board, and other governmental units. The Waterways Committee was especially well received because the current responsibility for water currently rests with an over burdened Parks Department.
*IMPORTANT: It turns out the the city already has an "Energy and Environment Advisory Board" on the books. This is the perfect vehicle from which to bring forth proposals for Sustainable Oshkosh. Nine citizens will be appointed to the Board. If you are interested in serving, please contact me or Mayor Tower (ftower@ci.oshkosh.wi.us) immediately.
2. Councilor Dennis McHugh, who voted in the majority to amend the Akcess Acquisition Group waterfront term sheet, is apparently going to ask that the resolution be reconsidered at next Tuesday's meeting. My assumption is that McHugh would have voted differently if, at the time of the vote, he had knowledge of the 100 block fiasco.
3. McHugh has also called for a closed executive session after next Tuesday's meeting to discuss the city manager's performance. Here too, it is probably the handling of the 100 block situation that led to the call. As noted by Cheryl Hentz, the handling of that situation fits a pattern that continues to frustrate councilors who cannot do their (our) jobs without complete information delivered in a timely fashion, while at the same time angering a public that made it clear in the last election that transparency and openness should be the rule and not the exception in city hall.
Should be an interesting next couple of weeks as the council wrestles with how to ensure accountability in city hall. Stay tuned.
1. We had a special meeting tonight to discuss the creation of new boards and commissions. We reached consensus on the following:
*Mayor Tower will approach former Oshkosh mayors about their willingness to be involved in a Commission on Poverty. After their involvement is secured, more time will be spent trying to give focus to the Commission.
*My ideas for a Budget Committee and Street Repair Commission may become part of a revived Citizens' Advisory Committee (The CAC was disbanded some time ago when it stopped being the body that made recommendations on how to disperse Community Development Block Grant funding. Councilor Esslinger believes that the CAC should once again have that role, but no decision on that was made at the special meeting.).
*My other proposal was for the development of an Economic Development Commission. By consensus we decided that we should first hold an Economic Development Summit (Mayor Tower's idea). One possible outcome of that Summit could be the development of a formal Commission.
*Bryan Bain proposed two new bodies that received much favorable feedback: a Waterways Committee and and "Oshkosh Council" that would bring together officials from the Council, School Board, County Board, and other governmental units. The Waterways Committee was especially well received because the current responsibility for water currently rests with an over burdened Parks Department.
*IMPORTANT: It turns out the the city already has an "Energy and Environment Advisory Board" on the books. This is the perfect vehicle from which to bring forth proposals for Sustainable Oshkosh. Nine citizens will be appointed to the Board. If you are interested in serving, please contact me or Mayor Tower (ftower@ci.oshkosh.wi.us) immediately.
2. Councilor Dennis McHugh, who voted in the majority to amend the Akcess Acquisition Group waterfront term sheet, is apparently going to ask that the resolution be reconsidered at next Tuesday's meeting. My assumption is that McHugh would have voted differently if, at the time of the vote, he had knowledge of the 100 block fiasco.
3. McHugh has also called for a closed executive session after next Tuesday's meeting to discuss the city manager's performance. Here too, it is probably the handling of the 100 block situation that led to the call. As noted by Cheryl Hentz, the handling of that situation fits a pattern that continues to frustrate councilors who cannot do their (our) jobs without complete information delivered in a timely fashion, while at the same time angering a public that made it clear in the last election that transparency and openness should be the rule and not the exception in city hall.
Should be an interesting next couple of weeks as the council wrestles with how to ensure accountability in city hall. Stay tuned.
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.
Thursday, July 12, 2007
The Business As Usual Test, Part 2
Yesterday I applied the Business As Usual Test (BAUT) to the Convention Center remodeling resolution. Today I'll apply the test to the resolution at Tuesday night's meeting that would have revised the term sheet the city signed with Akcess Acquisition Group to develop the waterfront. As a practical matter, a yes vote on the resolution meant giving the green light to Akcess to proceed with the development of an office complex and probably a hotel/restaurant.
Applying the BAUT, I voted no on the resolution. To review, the three planks of the BAUT are:
*Limited public input
*Limited public buy-in
*Questionable financing and/or development
Let's apply each plank to the Akcess situation.
*Limited public input: The Akcess developers must be given credit for being open and accessible. I pointed out at the meeting that if the developer of the ill-fated Five Rivers Resort were in the room, I would not be able to recognize him even though the city spent two years in negotiations with him. Not so with Fred and Tim Rikkers of Akcess; they have invited public comment and been open to questioning about their plans.
*Limited public buy-in: This is a key problem. Originally, the developers talked about bringing in a grocery store, retail, and possibly a "living learning community" in cooperation with the university. That was replaced with a proposal for an office building after the developers claimed that no grocers would locate on the waterfront. The office building soon became the major project that, according to the developers, must occur before anything else can happen.
I cannot speak for any other member of the Common Council, but outside of Chamber of Commerce circles the feedback I have received on the office space proposal has been about 5-1 against. The main concern expressed has been that, especially since the developers themselves admit that in all probability 95% of the office tenants will be businesses already in town, the proposal in effect creates more empty space with little likelihood of filling it. Other individuals simply think an office complex is not appropriate for the waterfront for citizen access reasons (i.e. it's really not something the average person has any use for).
At the meeting I said I could support a project that does not have public buy-in if I felt that I could sell it to the public. Unfortunately I do not feel I can sell the office complex to the citizens, at least not with a clear conscience.
*Questionable financing and/or development: I've been uncomfortable with the "Master Developer" designation given Akcess from day one, mostly because it is still not clear to me what oversight powers the City Council has as regards the projects in question. Councilor King asked some excellent questions in this regard at the meeting.
Another red flag that went up for me in the last few months concerns the proposal to buy the Chamber of Commerce building (for half a million bucks) and raze it to align two roads. It's becoming clear that if the office complex is built the Chamber of Commerce stands a strong chance of moving into it, and that will put more pressure on the Council to approve the Plan Commission's recommendation to buy the Chamber building. Other than the 4 members of the Plan Commission who voted for the Chamber building plan, I can find few people in town who want to tear down a structurally sound downtown building.
So while Ackess's more open approach to development is appreciated, in the final analysis the project(s) proposed do not have the amount of buy-in necessary to move forward, the projects themselves are difficult to sell to the public in the absence of buy-in, and the city's development plans continue to be murky (to put it mildly).
My views as expressed above did not prevail, and the resolution passed by a vote of 5-2. If I understood the discussion, there should be a formal vote on the office complex coming up at a future meeting. At this point I can't imagine why someone would vote for the revised term sheet and then vote against the office complex, so as a practical matter it looks like we'd better start developing a strategy to handle the vacated spaces that will emerge as businesses relocate to the riverfront.
Applying the BAUT, I voted no on the resolution. To review, the three planks of the BAUT are:
*Limited public input
*Limited public buy-in
*Questionable financing and/or development
Let's apply each plank to the Akcess situation.
*Limited public input: The Akcess developers must be given credit for being open and accessible. I pointed out at the meeting that if the developer of the ill-fated Five Rivers Resort were in the room, I would not be able to recognize him even though the city spent two years in negotiations with him. Not so with Fred and Tim Rikkers of Akcess; they have invited public comment and been open to questioning about their plans.
*Limited public buy-in: This is a key problem. Originally, the developers talked about bringing in a grocery store, retail, and possibly a "living learning community" in cooperation with the university. That was replaced with a proposal for an office building after the developers claimed that no grocers would locate on the waterfront. The office building soon became the major project that, according to the developers, must occur before anything else can happen.
I cannot speak for any other member of the Common Council, but outside of Chamber of Commerce circles the feedback I have received on the office space proposal has been about 5-1 against. The main concern expressed has been that, especially since the developers themselves admit that in all probability 95% of the office tenants will be businesses already in town, the proposal in effect creates more empty space with little likelihood of filling it. Other individuals simply think an office complex is not appropriate for the waterfront for citizen access reasons (i.e. it's really not something the average person has any use for).
At the meeting I said I could support a project that does not have public buy-in if I felt that I could sell it to the public. Unfortunately I do not feel I can sell the office complex to the citizens, at least not with a clear conscience.
*Questionable financing and/or development: I've been uncomfortable with the "Master Developer" designation given Akcess from day one, mostly because it is still not clear to me what oversight powers the City Council has as regards the projects in question. Councilor King asked some excellent questions in this regard at the meeting.
Another red flag that went up for me in the last few months concerns the proposal to buy the Chamber of Commerce building (for half a million bucks) and raze it to align two roads. It's becoming clear that if the office complex is built the Chamber of Commerce stands a strong chance of moving into it, and that will put more pressure on the Council to approve the Plan Commission's recommendation to buy the Chamber building. Other than the 4 members of the Plan Commission who voted for the Chamber building plan, I can find few people in town who want to tear down a structurally sound downtown building.
So while Ackess's more open approach to development is appreciated, in the final analysis the project(s) proposed do not have the amount of buy-in necessary to move forward, the projects themselves are difficult to sell to the public in the absence of buy-in, and the city's development plans continue to be murky (to put it mildly).
My views as expressed above did not prevail, and the resolution passed by a vote of 5-2. If I understood the discussion, there should be a formal vote on the office complex coming up at a future meeting. At this point I can't imagine why someone would vote for the revised term sheet and then vote against the office complex, so as a practical matter it looks like we'd better start developing a strategy to handle the vacated spaces that will emerge as businesses relocate to the riverfront.
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.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
The Business As Usual Test
At Tuesday night's Common Council meeting I announced that from now on I plan to apply the "Business as Usual Test" to every economic development proposal that comes before us. Challenging or putting an end to business as usual (BAU) was one of the main themes of the campaign season, and pretty much every candidate said that BAU was unacceptable.
At the meeting I characterized business as usual as:
*Limited public input
*Limited public buy-in
*Questionable financing and/or planning
I applied the test to two important resolutions on the agenda, and ended up having to vote against both because neither was sufficiently divorced from BAU.
The first resolution would have directed city staff to prepare a tax incremental financing (TIF) district proposal to pay for the city's contribution toward rebuilding the convention center. I believe that the city has a responsibility to maintain property that it owns, and so I do want to be able to support a credible proposal to renovate the Center. Unfortunately, what we have done so far is business as usual:
*Limited public input: On June 26 the council had a workshop on the convention center that occurred at around 10 p.m. No members of the general public were invited to speak. The only chance the public had to address the Council on this matter (other than via private correspondence) was at the Tuesday night meeting.
*Limited public buy-in: Almost all the public commentary (at least that I have heard) on the Convention Center has been negative. I have been surprised at the number of people I meet out and about who are familiar with Dr. Kevin McGee's op-ed on this matter. Those who identify with McGee's piece seem concerned mostly with the financing of the project. Other people are concerned about the size of the structure (they think it's too small), others think it should be torn down, and others don't accept the argument that a renovated Convention Center will boost the downtown economy.
*Questionable financing and/or planning: Fifteen minutes before the start of last night's meeting, Councilors were given a memo from Community Development Director Jackson Kinney saying that the existing TIF from which money would be borrowed (TIF #15) could be closed this year. However, "If TID #15 were utilized as a donor to proposed new TID #22, it would be anticipated that TID #15 would terminate in 2027."
I pointed out during the meeting that Oshkosh, with 17 active TIF districts in place, is far ahead of other northeast Wisconsin communities (Fond du Lac = 8, Appleton = 6, Green Bay = 12, Neenah = 4, Menasha = 9). One of city manager Wollangk's goals for the year is to prepare a report summarizing progress in the TIF districts. I argued that before any new TIF is created, we should see that report. Why create a new TIF if it turns out that progress in those existing is not sufficient?
Going into the meeting last night, I thought that there were 4 votes for the Convention Center project as proposed. I was pleasantly surprised to see that we challenged BAU, and will hold another workshop at which citizens will be invited to participate and at which city staff will be prepared to discuss alternative financing mechanisms. The Council voted to table the resolution calling for creation of the TIF proposal; I voted against tabling because I don't see TIF as viable for the project and so I thought it would be better just to defeat the resolution.
I'm teaching a summer class and am running out of time. Sometime later today or tomorrow I will apply the Business as Usual Test to the Ackess Waterfront proposal.
At the meeting I characterized business as usual as:
*Limited public input
*Limited public buy-in
*Questionable financing and/or planning
I applied the test to two important resolutions on the agenda, and ended up having to vote against both because neither was sufficiently divorced from BAU.
The first resolution would have directed city staff to prepare a tax incremental financing (TIF) district proposal to pay for the city's contribution toward rebuilding the convention center. I believe that the city has a responsibility to maintain property that it owns, and so I do want to be able to support a credible proposal to renovate the Center. Unfortunately, what we have done so far is business as usual:
*Limited public input: On June 26 the council had a workshop on the convention center that occurred at around 10 p.m. No members of the general public were invited to speak. The only chance the public had to address the Council on this matter (other than via private correspondence) was at the Tuesday night meeting.
*Limited public buy-in: Almost all the public commentary (at least that I have heard) on the Convention Center has been negative. I have been surprised at the number of people I meet out and about who are familiar with Dr. Kevin McGee's op-ed on this matter. Those who identify with McGee's piece seem concerned mostly with the financing of the project. Other people are concerned about the size of the structure (they think it's too small), others think it should be torn down, and others don't accept the argument that a renovated Convention Center will boost the downtown economy.
*Questionable financing and/or planning: Fifteen minutes before the start of last night's meeting, Councilors were given a memo from Community Development Director Jackson Kinney saying that the existing TIF from which money would be borrowed (TIF #15) could be closed this year. However, "If TID #15 were utilized as a donor to proposed new TID #22, it would be anticipated that TID #15 would terminate in 2027."
I pointed out during the meeting that Oshkosh, with 17 active TIF districts in place, is far ahead of other northeast Wisconsin communities (Fond du Lac = 8, Appleton = 6, Green Bay = 12, Neenah = 4, Menasha = 9). One of city manager Wollangk's goals for the year is to prepare a report summarizing progress in the TIF districts. I argued that before any new TIF is created, we should see that report. Why create a new TIF if it turns out that progress in those existing is not sufficient?
Going into the meeting last night, I thought that there were 4 votes for the Convention Center project as proposed. I was pleasantly surprised to see that we challenged BAU, and will hold another workshop at which citizens will be invited to participate and at which city staff will be prepared to discuss alternative financing mechanisms. The Council voted to table the resolution calling for creation of the TIF proposal; I voted against tabling because I don't see TIF as viable for the project and so I thought it would be better just to defeat the resolution.
I'm teaching a summer class and am running out of time. Sometime later today or tomorrow I will apply the Business as Usual Test to the Ackess Waterfront proposal.
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.
Monday, July 09, 2007
Kunstler on Live Earth
I don't always agree with sprawl debunker James Howard Kunstler, but his writing never fails to crack me up. Here he is today blogging about Live Earth:
Am I the only one who wonders whether rock and roll extravaganzas in the service of Great Causes might be exercises in grandiosity and futility? What I wonder especially: is this the only way we know how to respond to the difficulties that life on earth presents -- to engage a corps of professional narcissists to strut and pose in stadiums, affecting to wave their magic wands (or Fender Stratocasters) and make everybody feel better about a given problem (distress on the farm, disease in Africa, global warming....)? Can't we think of other, more meaningful things to do? Or are we stuck in a perpetually delusional rut of Woodstock-style symbolism, out doing a global rain dance instead of really changing our behavior?
I'm not convinced that these big public service rock shows do much harm -- other than perhaps inflating our expectations and using too much electricity -- but this particular one galled me a little.
For one thing, even though global warming is by definition a global problem, the notion of a global community as a permanent fixture of human history is, I think, a mirage. If there is any salient macro implication to the problems I term the long emergency, it is that the world will soon become a bigger place again; the great nations will soon retreat to their own corners of the world as they powerdown by necessity; and all the trade relations, cultural exchanges, and geopolitical conceits that have lately made the Earth seem like a big international hotel give way to much more local issues of sheer survival.
There was so much about the Live Earth show that actually expressed what is worst about the current state of American culture: the obscene posturing of zillionaire celebrities, awarding themselves brownie points for the largeness of their concern -- even while, like Mr. Sting of the band called the Police, they buy-and-sell $20 million Manhattan condos, and burn god-knows-how many tons of Wyoming coal amplifying the bass runs to "Roxanne." And the flip-side of these celebrity pretensions, of course, is the disturbing fealty paid to them by the fans, as members of the public caught up in celebrity-worship are called. Obviously, the whole thing is a kind of self-reinforcing feedback loop spiraling up to ever worse grandiosity on the part of the celebs and ever more pathetic groveling worship of these fake gods by the fans -- until it becomes little more than an object lesson in the tragic limitations of the human condition.
Looming behind the spectacle like some Macy's Thanksgiving Day balloon, is the puffy figure of Al Gore, who has managed to turn his journalistic accomplishment into something uncomfortably like a Nuremberg rally. I say this perhaps incautiously, not because I believe that Al Gore is a bad person, but because it could get to the point here in America, not far down the line, when a desperate public will beg some political leader to push them around, to tell them what to do, to direct their behavior in some purposeful way to save their asses. And these prancing, preening rock and roll celebrities may be paving the way, so to speak, for some corn pone American fascist to strut his stuff for an American audience worried about the growing darkness, and the falling needle on their car's gas gauge.
The last thing we need now is the carefully packaged postures of concern from "stars." Al Gore could do a lot more good militating to get regular hourly passenger train service running between Nashville and Atlanta, or stomping his state, from Memphis to Chattanooga for swapping sales tax on regular merchandise for a higher tax on gasoline. Or, he could just put aside his pretensions for being a kind of global Wizard of Oz and just cut the shit and run for president of the US, where he might actually make a difference.
Am I the only one who wonders whether rock and roll extravaganzas in the service of Great Causes might be exercises in grandiosity and futility? What I wonder especially: is this the only way we know how to respond to the difficulties that life on earth presents -- to engage a corps of professional narcissists to strut and pose in stadiums, affecting to wave their magic wands (or Fender Stratocasters) and make everybody feel better about a given problem (distress on the farm, disease in Africa, global warming....)? Can't we think of other, more meaningful things to do? Or are we stuck in a perpetually delusional rut of Woodstock-style symbolism, out doing a global rain dance instead of really changing our behavior?
I'm not convinced that these big public service rock shows do much harm -- other than perhaps inflating our expectations and using too much electricity -- but this particular one galled me a little.
For one thing, even though global warming is by definition a global problem, the notion of a global community as a permanent fixture of human history is, I think, a mirage. If there is any salient macro implication to the problems I term the long emergency, it is that the world will soon become a bigger place again; the great nations will soon retreat to their own corners of the world as they powerdown by necessity; and all the trade relations, cultural exchanges, and geopolitical conceits that have lately made the Earth seem like a big international hotel give way to much more local issues of sheer survival.
There was so much about the Live Earth show that actually expressed what is worst about the current state of American culture: the obscene posturing of zillionaire celebrities, awarding themselves brownie points for the largeness of their concern -- even while, like Mr. Sting of the band called the Police, they buy-and-sell $20 million Manhattan condos, and burn god-knows-how many tons of Wyoming coal amplifying the bass runs to "Roxanne." And the flip-side of these celebrity pretensions, of course, is the disturbing fealty paid to them by the fans, as members of the public caught up in celebrity-worship are called. Obviously, the whole thing is a kind of self-reinforcing feedback loop spiraling up to ever worse grandiosity on the part of the celebs and ever more pathetic groveling worship of these fake gods by the fans -- until it becomes little more than an object lesson in the tragic limitations of the human condition.
Looming behind the spectacle like some Macy's Thanksgiving Day balloon, is the puffy figure of Al Gore, who has managed to turn his journalistic accomplishment into something uncomfortably like a Nuremberg rally. I say this perhaps incautiously, not because I believe that Al Gore is a bad person, but because it could get to the point here in America, not far down the line, when a desperate public will beg some political leader to push them around, to tell them what to do, to direct their behavior in some purposeful way to save their asses. And these prancing, preening rock and roll celebrities may be paving the way, so to speak, for some corn pone American fascist to strut his stuff for an American audience worried about the growing darkness, and the falling needle on their car's gas gauge.
The last thing we need now is the carefully packaged postures of concern from "stars." Al Gore could do a lot more good militating to get regular hourly passenger train service running between Nashville and Atlanta, or stomping his state, from Memphis to Chattanooga for swapping sales tax on regular merchandise for a higher tax on gasoline. Or, he could just put aside his pretensions for being a kind of global Wizard of Oz and just cut the shit and run for president of the US, where he might actually make a difference.
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.
Friday, July 06, 2007
Kraft Opinion On Plan Commission Vote
City Attorney Warren Kraft, in response to an inquiry from Department of Community Development Administrative Assistant Darlene Brandt, has opined that the Plan Commission's 4-1-3 vote to recommend purchase of the Chamber of Commerce building represents a positive recommendation.
Much of Mr. Kraft's analysis turns on the issue of how an abstention should be treated in the final vote tally. He also confirms the the Common Council can act on the matter regardless of the meaning of the Plan Commission vote.
The full text of Kraft's reasoning can be found in the paragraphs below.
Good afternoon, Darlene
You posed several questions arising Tuesday night about a Plan Commission recommendation to the Council concerning the acquisition of the Chamber of Commerce building. For reasons explained below, the 4-1-3 vote is a positive recommendation. Therefore, you would draft the resolution for the scheduled July 24th agenda in this fashion--PLAN COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Approved, 4-1-3 abstentions.
You are correct, when you told the Plan Commission member, that the Commission is only advisory when this type of question comes before it. Sec. 62.23(5), Wis. Stats., says certain matters such as property acquisition are referred to the commission "for its consideration and report before final action is taken by the council" The statute further says that the council can take action even if the commission does not make a report within the specified amount of time (30 days). So, regardless of the determination as to what impact the 4-1-3 vote has on the Plan Commission recommendation to the Council, the matter is still referred to the Council for its consideration.
The question turns on what does "present and voting" mean when it comes to abstentions and the reasons for abstaining from the vote. There are situations where, when one is required by law to abstain, the votes "present" are not counted in the tally. And, there are circumstances, when one is not required by law or perceived to be required by law, where some jurisdictions count those votes against affirmative action and others that follow parliamentary rules which hold that abstentions are a nullity or no vote. The answer in Wisconsin depends on the particular situation and before which body the vote is taken. [Please note that this discussion does not apply to the Oshkosh Common Council. There is a specific statute, Sec. 64.07(3), Stats., says, "A majority of the members of the council shall constitute a quorum, and a majority vote of all the members of the council shall be necessary to adopt any ordinance or resolution." The sentence does not use the terms "present" or "present and voting." A "majority vote of all members" means four affirmative votes of the seven Council members without regard to any abstentions or absences, is necessary unless state law requires a super majority.]There is a hierarchy one must follow when determining the necessary number of votes to approve an item. First, one reviews the state law that authorized the creation of the body (if there is one.) Next, one looks to the local ordinance that put the body into place. Thirdly, one studies whatever rules or bylaws which the body created to govern its procedures. Finally, if there is no direction in these sources, one resorts to whatever set of parliamentary procedures have been adopted for the body or Robert's Rules of Order by default. Customarily, we also consult other legal resources, such as the League of Wisconsin Municipalities or the International Municipal Lawyers Association for guidance.
There are two more considerations: if there is a conflict between one voting rule and another similar rule, the rule from the "higher" body of law governs the conflict. And, if a court decision either considers the question head-on or discusses it in dicta (meaning language not necessary for the court's ultimate decision), the result may influence the answer. In this particular situation, a court decision provides this guidance.
In general, there is no set number of affirmative votes in the statute governing the Plan Commission with some exceptions. Example: The adoption of the "Smart Growth" master plan or any part, amendment, or addition, shall be by resolution carried by the affirmative votes of not less than a majority of all the members of the city plan commission. That means, with the nine-member Commission, there needs to be five affirmative votes for adoption regardless of how many commissioners are absent or voting to abstain. (This presumes a quorum of the body is present to conduct business) So, the next step in the analysis is to determine what the local ordinance says.
Sec. 2-36, of the City of Oshkosh Municipal Code, creates the general provisions that apply to all boards, commissions and committees which are officially created, unless another more specific rule expressly applies. Of note, subparagraph (H) reads: 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. (my emphasis.) Sec. 2-52 creates the Plan Commission and details only its membership and its duties; there is no reference to voting requirements, so the general provision of Sec. 2-36 would apply.
You noted that the Commission has adopted its own bylaws to govern its procedures. This is permissive under the last sentence of Sec. 2-36(D). The longstanding bylaws indicate that a majority vote of those members present (without the phrase "and voting") is needed to approve any measure. There are those parliamentarians who argue that there could be situations where members of the body do not vote, such as are absent from the room when the vote is taken, that could reduce the number of affirmative votes needed for passage. However, we do not reach this question because, based on information publicly reported concerning conflicts of interest, the state appeals court decision should apply. For the same reason, resort to general parliamentary principles is also not needed.
I would note, however, that two parliamentary guides contain language that would also support this conclusion, that an abstention is not counted in the voting tally. In the 10th edition of ROBERT's RULES OR ORDER Newly Revised) (c) 2000, one reads: The chair should not call for abstentions in taking a vote, since the number of members who respond to such a call is meaningless. To abstain means not to vote at all, and a member who makes no response if abstentions are called abstains just as much as one who responds to that effect. (see page 394) RONR (10th ed.), p. 43, l. 25-30.
In another guide, paragraph 7.11.2 reads, "An abstention is not a vote." The next paragraph, 7.11.2.1, reads, "When responding to a roll call vote with 'here' or 'present,' a member only indicates his/her presence, which may be useful in establishing the presence of a quorum at the time the vote was taken. The member is not regarded as having voted. NOTE: If the vote requirements for passage is a majority (or some proportion) of the members present, or of the total membership, an abstention has the effect of voting 'no' in that it reduces the pool of possible 'yes' votes." A Guide to Parliamentary Procedures for Local Governments in Wisconsin, p. 59, by Larry E. Larmer, Division of Continuing Studies, UW-Madison, (c) 1999.
Additionally, there are two League of Wisconsin Municipalities opinions which tend to offer conflicting advice, primarily because the more recent one relies on two court decisions cited below. Asked in 1979 for his opinion on the topic, Burt Natkins, Legal Council, League of Wisconsin Municipalities, wrote, "I support the opinions of this office which reasonably concluded that an abstention should not be counted as either an affirmative or a negative vote, but, in essence, should be deemed a nullity." GOVERNING BODIES # 262 (April 29, 1979)
However, last fall, the League offered a revised comment which included the following discourse, referencing both state appellate court and district court decisions:
The lack of clear guidance in this area means that there is room for disagreement and, also, that municipalities have the opportunity to think about these questions and answer them in a way that makes sense for their community. ...
Abstentions: Of all the situations that arise, abstentions seem to present the most difficulty and uncertainty. As explained above, the court in Hall held that it is not enough to merely have a quorum present but, rather, a quorum must actually vote. In Hall, the members voted but the court disqualified their votes because the members would have been required to abstain by law.
It is unclear from Hall whether an abstention would count as a vote for purposes of determining whether a quorum is present. In the past, the League has opined that Hall requires that the ayes and noes add up to a quorum. But as the League opinion acknowledges, this conclusion has the potential to lead to strange results. For example, if three members of a five-member village board are present, a quorum exists. Assuming a majority-of-a-quorum vote requirement, if two members vote yes and one votes no, the proposal is adopted. However, if two vote yes, and the third member abstains, the proposal is not adopted. It seems improper that the third member can defeat the proposal by abstaining, but not by voting no.
However, the opinion points out that an odd result occurs if the contrary rule is used and abstentions are counted in determining whether a quorum is present. For example, such a rule would mean that a five-member village board could pass a measure with one aye, two abstentions and two absent.
Hall was decided in 1879 but has not been overruled or modified since that time and, in fact, has been relied on by other courts in more recent decisions. However, it was decided before the legislature repealed the special charters of municipalities and set forth a general charter for cities and villages in chapters 61 and 62 of the Wisconsin Statutes. Under the general charters, specifically secs. 62.11(3)(e) and 61.32, municipal governing bodies are free to set their own procedural rules and therefore can presumably devise procedural rules to deal with these problems. Section 40 of Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised (10th ed.) provides that the quorum refers to the number of members present, not to the number actually voting on a particular question.
Once again, the difficult issue of abstention must be contended with. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals has held that when a board member is required by law to abstain from voting, that member is not present for calculating the number of votes required for the passage of legislation. (Ballenger v. Door County, 131 Wis.2d 422, 388 N.W.2d 624 (Ct. App. 1986).)
Unfortunately, that leaves unanswered the more difficult question of what happens when a member simply chooses to abstain but is not required to do so by law. No Wisconsin cases or attorney general opinions address the treatment of such abstentions, but the League has taken the position that abstentions should be treated as neither affirmative or negative votes. However, this differs from the majority view.
In the majority of other jurisdictions which have addressed the issue, courts have treated an abstention as acquiescence with the majority, the reasoning being that vital processes of government ought not to be halted or impeded by a council member's refusal to perform his duty of voting.
The reasoning behind this rule has been explained as follows: [C]ourts of other jurisdictions have steadfastly adhered to the doctrine that when members of a board present at a meeting, desire to defeat a measure, they must vote against it; that inaction on their part will not accomplish their purpose; and that their refusal to vote is, in effect, a declaration that they consent that the majority of the quorum may act for the body of which they are members.
Where abstention is used by members of a municipal body to block or impede the adoption of a measure or the appointment of an official, even though they would not have been able to achieve that objective by voting against, or in the negative, courts are more alert to possibilities and opportunities for obstruction and abuse of the governmental process and are more likely to conclude that a governing body member ought not to be permitted to accomplish by inaction (by failure to perform the duty of voting which is assumed with the office) a result or purpose which the officer could not achieve by proper participation in necessary decision making.
But the wisdom of this rule has been questioned when abstention is required because of a conflict of interest. It makes sense that a member's reason for abstaining may be relevant because where one abstains because required to by law or to avoid the appearance of impropriety, the policy reasons mentioned above would not apply. In fact, it would seem inappropriate to look upon a council member who abstains from voting because of a conflict of interest as having acquiesced with the majority or as having voted either in the affirmative or negative. Legal Comment, Governing Bodies # 346 R-1 (October 31, 2006) League of Wisconsin Municipalities. (citations omitted)
In dicta (meaning language not relevant to the court's ultimate legal conclusion, a federal district court wrote of the distinction between "not voting" and "voting present" or "abstaining":
By not voting, a council member does not prevent the body from functioning, as she might, for example, if by not voting she was not counted as a part of the quorum.... Rather the abstaining member simply does not aid the passage of the measure under consideration. If not aiding the passage of a given measure is equivalent to hampering the functioning of the body, then one would expect the Common Council to mandate that council members always vote "aye."
Permitting members to abstain is not functionally different from permitting them to vote no. When enough members abstain from voting on an issue, the measure will fail for lack of an affirmative vote by the majority of the body. The council may then proceed to the next order of business, as in any circumstance where a measure is defeated.
Wrzeski v. City of Madison, 558 F. Supp. 664 (W.D. Wis. 1983)
Because I have not had the opportunity to discuss with each abstaining member the specific reasons for each person's conflict of interest, I can only rely on what has been reported. Assuming its accuracy, the report indicated the abstaining members refrained from voting because of a conflict of interest with their membership or affiliation with the Chamber of Commerce. Presumably, the members interpretation of Sec. 19.59, Stats., guided each to abstain. The 1986 appellate court decision would then support this conclusion that the Plan Commission favorably recommended to the Council that the city purchase the Chamber building.
There was one other question raised as a result of this situation, specifically: whether members of an advisory body (that makes only recommendations to a higher body) must abstain when either the statutory or common law rules of conflicts of interest would otherwise indicate an abstention is appropriate. I find nothing in Sec. 19.59, Wis. Stats., that distinguishes between advisory and decision making bodies, nor has any case law been brought to my attention that imposes such a distinction on the statutory scheme. Without attempting to address the particulars that may affect a specific commission member's decision to vote, I also find nothing in the court decisions, of which I am familiar, that indicate a similar distinction. Therefore, without more information and analysis, I would encourage Commission members to adhere to the dictates of Sec. 19.59 and the common law rules of ethical conduct. If any member wishes to discuss this further, the member can contact my office for a private consultation.
TNX,Warren P. KraftCity Attorney Office
Much of Mr. Kraft's analysis turns on the issue of how an abstention should be treated in the final vote tally. He also confirms the the Common Council can act on the matter regardless of the meaning of the Plan Commission vote.
The full text of Kraft's reasoning can be found in the paragraphs below.
Good afternoon, Darlene
You posed several questions arising Tuesday night about a Plan Commission recommendation to the Council concerning the acquisition of the Chamber of Commerce building. For reasons explained below, the 4-1-3 vote is a positive recommendation. Therefore, you would draft the resolution for the scheduled July 24th agenda in this fashion--PLAN COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Approved, 4-1-3 abstentions.
You are correct, when you told the Plan Commission member, that the Commission is only advisory when this type of question comes before it. Sec. 62.23(5), Wis. Stats., says certain matters such as property acquisition are referred to the commission "for its consideration and report before final action is taken by the council" The statute further says that the council can take action even if the commission does not make a report within the specified amount of time (30 days). So, regardless of the determination as to what impact the 4-1-3 vote has on the Plan Commission recommendation to the Council, the matter is still referred to the Council for its consideration.
The question turns on what does "present and voting" mean when it comes to abstentions and the reasons for abstaining from the vote. There are situations where, when one is required by law to abstain, the votes "present" are not counted in the tally. And, there are circumstances, when one is not required by law or perceived to be required by law, where some jurisdictions count those votes against affirmative action and others that follow parliamentary rules which hold that abstentions are a nullity or no vote. The answer in Wisconsin depends on the particular situation and before which body the vote is taken. [Please note that this discussion does not apply to the Oshkosh Common Council. There is a specific statute, Sec. 64.07(3), Stats., says, "A majority of the members of the council shall constitute a quorum, and a majority vote of all the members of the council shall be necessary to adopt any ordinance or resolution." The sentence does not use the terms "present" or "present and voting." A "majority vote of all members" means four affirmative votes of the seven Council members without regard to any abstentions or absences, is necessary unless state law requires a super majority.]There is a hierarchy one must follow when determining the necessary number of votes to approve an item. First, one reviews the state law that authorized the creation of the body (if there is one.) Next, one looks to the local ordinance that put the body into place. Thirdly, one studies whatever rules or bylaws which the body created to govern its procedures. Finally, if there is no direction in these sources, one resorts to whatever set of parliamentary procedures have been adopted for the body or Robert's Rules of Order by default. Customarily, we also consult other legal resources, such as the League of Wisconsin Municipalities or the International Municipal Lawyers Association for guidance.
There are two more considerations: if there is a conflict between one voting rule and another similar rule, the rule from the "higher" body of law governs the conflict. And, if a court decision either considers the question head-on or discusses it in dicta (meaning language not necessary for the court's ultimate decision), the result may influence the answer. In this particular situation, a court decision provides this guidance.
In general, there is no set number of affirmative votes in the statute governing the Plan Commission with some exceptions. Example: The adoption of the "Smart Growth" master plan or any part, amendment, or addition, shall be by resolution carried by the affirmative votes of not less than a majority of all the members of the city plan commission. That means, with the nine-member Commission, there needs to be five affirmative votes for adoption regardless of how many commissioners are absent or voting to abstain. (This presumes a quorum of the body is present to conduct business) So, the next step in the analysis is to determine what the local ordinance says.
Sec. 2-36, of the City of Oshkosh Municipal Code, creates the general provisions that apply to all boards, commissions and committees which are officially created, unless another more specific rule expressly applies. Of note, subparagraph (H) reads: 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. (my emphasis.) Sec. 2-52 creates the Plan Commission and details only its membership and its duties; there is no reference to voting requirements, so the general provision of Sec. 2-36 would apply.
You noted that the Commission has adopted its own bylaws to govern its procedures. This is permissive under the last sentence of Sec. 2-36(D). The longstanding bylaws indicate that a majority vote of those members present (without the phrase "and voting") is needed to approve any measure. There are those parliamentarians who argue that there could be situations where members of the body do not vote, such as are absent from the room when the vote is taken, that could reduce the number of affirmative votes needed for passage. However, we do not reach this question because, based on information publicly reported concerning conflicts of interest, the state appeals court decision should apply. For the same reason, resort to general parliamentary principles is also not needed.
I would note, however, that two parliamentary guides contain language that would also support this conclusion, that an abstention is not counted in the voting tally. In the 10th edition of ROBERT's RULES OR ORDER Newly Revised) (c) 2000, one reads: The chair should not call for abstentions in taking a vote, since the number of members who respond to such a call is meaningless. To abstain means not to vote at all, and a member who makes no response if abstentions are called abstains just as much as one who responds to that effect. (see page 394) RONR (10th ed.), p. 43, l. 25-30.
In another guide, paragraph 7.11.2 reads, "An abstention is not a vote." The next paragraph, 7.11.2.1, reads, "When responding to a roll call vote with 'here' or 'present,' a member only indicates his/her presence, which may be useful in establishing the presence of a quorum at the time the vote was taken. The member is not regarded as having voted. NOTE: If the vote requirements for passage is a majority (or some proportion) of the members present, or of the total membership, an abstention has the effect of voting 'no' in that it reduces the pool of possible 'yes' votes." A Guide to Parliamentary Procedures for Local Governments in Wisconsin, p. 59, by Larry E. Larmer, Division of Continuing Studies, UW-Madison, (c) 1999.
Additionally, there are two League of Wisconsin Municipalities opinions which tend to offer conflicting advice, primarily because the more recent one relies on two court decisions cited below. Asked in 1979 for his opinion on the topic, Burt Natkins, Legal Council, League of Wisconsin Municipalities, wrote, "I support the opinions of this office which reasonably concluded that an abstention should not be counted as either an affirmative or a negative vote, but, in essence, should be deemed a nullity." GOVERNING BODIES # 262 (April 29, 1979)
However, last fall, the League offered a revised comment which included the following discourse, referencing both state appellate court and district court decisions:
The lack of clear guidance in this area means that there is room for disagreement and, also, that municipalities have the opportunity to think about these questions and answer them in a way that makes sense for their community. ...
Abstentions: Of all the situations that arise, abstentions seem to present the most difficulty and uncertainty. As explained above, the court in Hall held that it is not enough to merely have a quorum present but, rather, a quorum must actually vote. In Hall, the members voted but the court disqualified their votes because the members would have been required to abstain by law.
It is unclear from Hall whether an abstention would count as a vote for purposes of determining whether a quorum is present. In the past, the League has opined that Hall requires that the ayes and noes add up to a quorum. But as the League opinion acknowledges, this conclusion has the potential to lead to strange results. For example, if three members of a five-member village board are present, a quorum exists. Assuming a majority-of-a-quorum vote requirement, if two members vote yes and one votes no, the proposal is adopted. However, if two vote yes, and the third member abstains, the proposal is not adopted. It seems improper that the third member can defeat the proposal by abstaining, but not by voting no.
However, the opinion points out that an odd result occurs if the contrary rule is used and abstentions are counted in determining whether a quorum is present. For example, such a rule would mean that a five-member village board could pass a measure with one aye, two abstentions and two absent.
Hall was decided in 1879 but has not been overruled or modified since that time and, in fact, has been relied on by other courts in more recent decisions. However, it was decided before the legislature repealed the special charters of municipalities and set forth a general charter for cities and villages in chapters 61 and 62 of the Wisconsin Statutes. Under the general charters, specifically secs. 62.11(3)(e) and 61.32, municipal governing bodies are free to set their own procedural rules and therefore can presumably devise procedural rules to deal with these problems. Section 40 of Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised (10th ed.) provides that the quorum refers to the number of members present, not to the number actually voting on a particular question.
Once again, the difficult issue of abstention must be contended with. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals has held that when a board member is required by law to abstain from voting, that member is not present for calculating the number of votes required for the passage of legislation. (Ballenger v. Door County, 131 Wis.2d 422, 388 N.W.2d 624 (Ct. App. 1986).)
Unfortunately, that leaves unanswered the more difficult question of what happens when a member simply chooses to abstain but is not required to do so by law. No Wisconsin cases or attorney general opinions address the treatment of such abstentions, but the League has taken the position that abstentions should be treated as neither affirmative or negative votes. However, this differs from the majority view.
In the majority of other jurisdictions which have addressed the issue, courts have treated an abstention as acquiescence with the majority, the reasoning being that vital processes of government ought not to be halted or impeded by a council member's refusal to perform his duty of voting.
The reasoning behind this rule has been explained as follows: [C]ourts of other jurisdictions have steadfastly adhered to the doctrine that when members of a board present at a meeting, desire to defeat a measure, they must vote against it; that inaction on their part will not accomplish their purpose; and that their refusal to vote is, in effect, a declaration that they consent that the majority of the quorum may act for the body of which they are members.
Where abstention is used by members of a municipal body to block or impede the adoption of a measure or the appointment of an official, even though they would not have been able to achieve that objective by voting against, or in the negative, courts are more alert to possibilities and opportunities for obstruction and abuse of the governmental process and are more likely to conclude that a governing body member ought not to be permitted to accomplish by inaction (by failure to perform the duty of voting which is assumed with the office) a result or purpose which the officer could not achieve by proper participation in necessary decision making.
But the wisdom of this rule has been questioned when abstention is required because of a conflict of interest. It makes sense that a member's reason for abstaining may be relevant because where one abstains because required to by law or to avoid the appearance of impropriety, the policy reasons mentioned above would not apply. In fact, it would seem inappropriate to look upon a council member who abstains from voting because of a conflict of interest as having acquiesced with the majority or as having voted either in the affirmative or negative. Legal Comment, Governing Bodies # 346 R-1 (October 31, 2006) League of Wisconsin Municipalities. (citations omitted)
In dicta (meaning language not relevant to the court's ultimate legal conclusion, a federal district court wrote of the distinction between "not voting" and "voting present" or "abstaining":
By not voting, a council member does not prevent the body from functioning, as she might, for example, if by not voting she was not counted as a part of the quorum.... Rather the abstaining member simply does not aid the passage of the measure under consideration. If not aiding the passage of a given measure is equivalent to hampering the functioning of the body, then one would expect the Common Council to mandate that council members always vote "aye."
Permitting members to abstain is not functionally different from permitting them to vote no. When enough members abstain from voting on an issue, the measure will fail for lack of an affirmative vote by the majority of the body. The council may then proceed to the next order of business, as in any circumstance where a measure is defeated.
Wrzeski v. City of Madison, 558 F. Supp. 664 (W.D. Wis. 1983)
Because I have not had the opportunity to discuss with each abstaining member the specific reasons for each person's conflict of interest, I can only rely on what has been reported. Assuming its accuracy, the report indicated the abstaining members refrained from voting because of a conflict of interest with their membership or affiliation with the Chamber of Commerce. Presumably, the members interpretation of Sec. 19.59, Stats., guided each to abstain. The 1986 appellate court decision would then support this conclusion that the Plan Commission favorably recommended to the Council that the city purchase the Chamber building.
There was one other question raised as a result of this situation, specifically: whether members of an advisory body (that makes only recommendations to a higher body) must abstain when either the statutory or common law rules of conflicts of interest would otherwise indicate an abstention is appropriate. I find nothing in Sec. 19.59, Wis. Stats., that distinguishes between advisory and decision making bodies, nor has any case law been brought to my attention that imposes such a distinction on the statutory scheme. Without attempting to address the particulars that may affect a specific commission member's decision to vote, I also find nothing in the court decisions, of which I am familiar, that indicate a similar distinction. Therefore, without more information and analysis, I would encourage Commission members to adhere to the dictates of Sec. 19.59 and the common law rules of ethical conduct. If any member wishes to discuss this further, the member can contact my office for a private consultation.
TNX,Warren P. KraftCity Attorney Office
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.
Wednesday, July 04, 2007
Plan Commission Vote
First of all, do you think the Chamber of Commerce has enough representation on the city's Plan Commission? (Some people think that 3 university employees on the 7-member Common Council is too much, but at least the voters have the power to change that.). According to today's Northwestern, three members of the Commission voted "present" on a plan for the city to purchase the Chamber building "because of their ties to the Chamber."
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:
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.
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:
Posts (Atom)