Councilman F. Tower’s arguments against proposal lack foundation, reason
After two years of silence on our city council, Frank Tower is emerging as a leader-wannabe. He is speaking more at council meetings and he has now – in an effort to confuse the electorate in November – offered his own proposal for a referendum to be placed on the presidential ballot, which could be passed by the city council this evening. Unfortunately his own proposal is meaningless and his arguments against anything stronger both defy logic and lack any foundation or merit.
His proposal is simply to allow the citizens in this community to elect a mayor, who would then serve for a term of three years, instead of the current two years. He stated in a radio interview this morning that his conversations with people have told him people want to elect a mayor.
They certainly do – but a mayor whose title actually means something; a mayor who can do the bidding of the citizens; a mayor who has some authority; and a mayor whose position carries some weight.
Perhaps in talking to citizens, Mr. F. Tower should have asked the full question: “Do you want an elected ceremonial only mayor, in other words a figurehead mayor, or an elected mayor who actually has some power to do the will of the citizens?” But to ask that question, F. Tower would get an answer he does not want to hear.
F. Tower has said his proposal offers the citizens a compromise to what fellow councilman Paul Esslinger and the group Citizens for Responsible Government are proposing. Nothing could be further from the truth!
F. Tower’s proposal does not allow this community to have better government than what it currently has, nor does it give us anything other than our choice for head ribbon-cutter and grand marshal at parades.
Mr. F. Tower also made ridiculous statements during his radio interview about how having numbered council seats is getting too close to an aldermanic form of government. He then took his ridiculousness even further by suggesting that in aldermanic districts, favors get traded (like this kind of thing doesn’t go on now under our current form of government!!) and how certain sections of the city would possibly get no funding and fall into disrepair because of in-fighting among council members.
To buy into that B.S., one would have to believe that the majority of communities throughout Wisconsin have sections of their cities that are in grave disrepair because of an aldermanic government. Hogwash with a capital H.
I am sure that our northern neighbors in Neenah, Menasha and Appleton will be astounded to hear that their cities are suffering at the hands of an aldermanic form of government. I guess that’s why they have so much more development; their TIF districts are highly successful; and they have thriving downtowns; to name just a few.
F. Tower also said with a numbered seat or aldermanic form of government, we might have less people running for city council seats than we have now. All he needs to do is look at city council races in other communities that have either numbered seats or aldermanic districts and he will see that, once again, his arguments are extremely flawed. Numbered seats and aldermanic districts not only have a history of producing more candidates, they tend to spur higher voter turn-outs, as well. It’s apparent that Councilman F. Tower does not get out of Oshkosh very much.
But the simple fact of the matter is that the proposal F. Tower is against – that of Councilman Paul Esslinger and Citizens for Responsible Government – does not create aldermanic districts. It provides for numbered seats, which means candidates must run against specific candidates – period! And the reason F. Tower doesn’t like that option is very simply that he doesn’t want to have a target on his back come time for him to run for re-election.
With respect to a mayoral veto, F. Tower said he opposed such ability because it would cause a fractionated council. Again, the spin he has put on this has gone from the sublime to the ridiculous. In order to override a veto, the council would need a super-majority vote, much like it needs for several issues now; therefore consensus among the council members would have to be built. That is quite different from his suggestion that the council would be at odds with each other. The council is often at odds now, or hasn’t F. Tower been paying attention?
He made a comment at the end of the interview that he does not know what the people actually want so his proposal should go on the ballot and the people should decide. I couldn’t agree more, but that very same logic should then be used for him to support the placement of Paul Esslinger’s proposal on the ballot. What gives F. Tower the right to circumvent the people’s right to choose what kind of government they want by using his position as a councilman to put his proposal on the ballot, but then usurp the power of another councilman to have that same ability. That is precisely what is wrong with this city council and the way the majority of its members historically do business.
There is much that could be said about this, but the bottom line is this: What are these council members so fearful of? If they believe that they are doing what their constituents want, they should not fear being voted out of office, no matter what form of government we have. And if everything is so perfect with our current form of government and the citizens like what we have, then the council should not fear the Esslinger/Citizens proposal at all.
If the Common Council believes in freedom of choice, they will vote to put both proposals on the ballot - though it will likely cause much confusion at the ballot box. But if they’re not going to put the Esslinger proposal on, they shouldn’t put the Tower one on either. To do nothing with either one, however - including failing to offer any amendments - is to abdicate their responsibility as councilors and so-called leaders, especially when these councilors have the ability to tweak what is before them this evening. But if they are going to amend either proposal, it should be noted that to create anything short of a referendum with some meaning and strength behind it for the people to vote on would be committing political suicide the next time those council members run. Because in the end, the public will have its say and, numbered seats or not, certain council members numbers may be up.
His proposal is simply to allow the citizens in this community to elect a mayor, who would then serve for a term of three years, instead of the current two years. He stated in a radio interview this morning that his conversations with people have told him people want to elect a mayor.
They certainly do – but a mayor whose title actually means something; a mayor who can do the bidding of the citizens; a mayor who has some authority; and a mayor whose position carries some weight.
Perhaps in talking to citizens, Mr. F. Tower should have asked the full question: “Do you want an elected ceremonial only mayor, in other words a figurehead mayor, or an elected mayor who actually has some power to do the will of the citizens?” But to ask that question, F. Tower would get an answer he does not want to hear.
F. Tower has said his proposal offers the citizens a compromise to what fellow councilman Paul Esslinger and the group Citizens for Responsible Government are proposing. Nothing could be further from the truth!
F. Tower’s proposal does not allow this community to have better government than what it currently has, nor does it give us anything other than our choice for head ribbon-cutter and grand marshal at parades.
Mr. F. Tower also made ridiculous statements during his radio interview about how having numbered council seats is getting too close to an aldermanic form of government. He then took his ridiculousness even further by suggesting that in aldermanic districts, favors get traded (like this kind of thing doesn’t go on now under our current form of government!!) and how certain sections of the city would possibly get no funding and fall into disrepair because of in-fighting among council members.
To buy into that B.S., one would have to believe that the majority of communities throughout Wisconsin have sections of their cities that are in grave disrepair because of an aldermanic government. Hogwash with a capital H.
I am sure that our northern neighbors in Neenah, Menasha and Appleton will be astounded to hear that their cities are suffering at the hands of an aldermanic form of government. I guess that’s why they have so much more development; their TIF districts are highly successful; and they have thriving downtowns; to name just a few.
F. Tower also said with a numbered seat or aldermanic form of government, we might have less people running for city council seats than we have now. All he needs to do is look at city council races in other communities that have either numbered seats or aldermanic districts and he will see that, once again, his arguments are extremely flawed. Numbered seats and aldermanic districts not only have a history of producing more candidates, they tend to spur higher voter turn-outs, as well. It’s apparent that Councilman F. Tower does not get out of Oshkosh very much.
But the simple fact of the matter is that the proposal F. Tower is against – that of Councilman Paul Esslinger and Citizens for Responsible Government – does not create aldermanic districts. It provides for numbered seats, which means candidates must run against specific candidates – period! And the reason F. Tower doesn’t like that option is very simply that he doesn’t want to have a target on his back come time for him to run for re-election.
With respect to a mayoral veto, F. Tower said he opposed such ability because it would cause a fractionated council. Again, the spin he has put on this has gone from the sublime to the ridiculous. In order to override a veto, the council would need a super-majority vote, much like it needs for several issues now; therefore consensus among the council members would have to be built. That is quite different from his suggestion that the council would be at odds with each other. The council is often at odds now, or hasn’t F. Tower been paying attention?
He made a comment at the end of the interview that he does not know what the people actually want so his proposal should go on the ballot and the people should decide. I couldn’t agree more, but that very same logic should then be used for him to support the placement of Paul Esslinger’s proposal on the ballot. What gives F. Tower the right to circumvent the people’s right to choose what kind of government they want by using his position as a councilman to put his proposal on the ballot, but then usurp the power of another councilman to have that same ability. That is precisely what is wrong with this city council and the way the majority of its members historically do business.
There is much that could be said about this, but the bottom line is this: What are these council members so fearful of? If they believe that they are doing what their constituents want, they should not fear being voted out of office, no matter what form of government we have. And if everything is so perfect with our current form of government and the citizens like what we have, then the council should not fear the Esslinger/Citizens proposal at all.
If the Common Council believes in freedom of choice, they will vote to put both proposals on the ballot - though it will likely cause much confusion at the ballot box. But if they’re not going to put the Esslinger proposal on, they shouldn’t put the Tower one on either. To do nothing with either one, however - including failing to offer any amendments - is to abdicate their responsibility as councilors and so-called leaders, especially when these councilors have the ability to tweak what is before them this evening. But if they are going to amend either proposal, it should be noted that to create anything short of a referendum with some meaning and strength behind it for the people to vote on would be committing political suicide the next time those council members run. Because in the end, the public will have its say and, numbered seats or not, certain council members numbers may be up.
posted by Cheryl Hentz at 6:05 PM
<< Home