People at Town Hall meeting want a mayor with veto power
A crowd of about 60 people gathered at City Hall this past Wednesday to voice their opinions on what they want in city government. Of those attending, 55 cast "ballots" for the things they would like to see happen.
At least one-third of them attending wanted to see a part-time mayor with veto power. The remaining two-thirds were split between the other choices. In addition, the people overwhelmingly said they believed the mayor should serve as a voting member of the Plan Commission.
As a result of that meeting, a proposal to put a referendum with these two provisions on the November ballot will be brought forward at this coming Tuesday's Common Council meeting for a vote. We will now see how many of our elected officials really care about giving the people of this community a voice.
A couple interesting points about the Town Hall meeting...
Freshman council member Burk Tower refused to complete a survey form, instead stating he'd let his voice be heard at the council meeting. How smug! This attitude seems to say, "I don't have to complete your insignifcant little survey. I've got a bully pulpit because I am an elected official and I'll flex my muscle there!"
Say, Mr. Tower, you may be - for the moment, anyway - an elected official, but you're also one of the taxpayers. Common sense would suggest that you voice your opinion like all the rest of the citizens in the community. Your vote may have helped sway the results in a different direction. And maybe it wouldn't have. But why would you take such an arrogant, contrarian position? Then again, this is kind of par for the course with B. Tower. He's had somewhat of an attitude from the beginning and since being elected, it's gotten even worse from where I sit. I'm sure he WILL let his voice be heard at the council meeting, and I predict it will be to NOT let the people have their own voice be heard.
Then we have mayor Mark Harris, who still insists that November is not the right time to put this on a ballot because, according to him, people will not have had enough time to think about it. As I told him after the meeting, people have had plenty of time to think about it. Mr. Harris, the people in this community are not stupid, despite what you may think. They know precisely what's going on and they know what they want. But apparently you still haven't bothered listening when they come to the city council meetings and tell you.
Mr. Harris also made the comment that 55 or so people is not a mandate. Well, neither were the 300 or 400 people surveyed on the smoking ban issue, but Mr. Harris fully supported that as being a mandate. After his proposal failed at the council level, he used that 300 or 400 people to prognosticate that the ban would pass at the polls last April by 75 percent. It never happened. Instead, the ban barely squeaked by, only to have a temporary injunction slapped on it by a judge several weeks later, and two weeks after that be nullified by the city itself because of technical problems.
Mr. Harris, no poll results - no matter how scientific or unscientific - can necessarily ever be called a mandate. But if you want a mandate, I would challenge you and you fellow council members to have the collective courage to put Mr. Esslinger's proposal on a November ballot. You don't have to agree with it and you're welcome to vote against it in November if you choose. But give the people a chance to say what they want, once and for all. When they vote and the results are revealed, you'll have your mandate. There can be no surer way than that.
Do you have the courage to do that? If not, you may as well forget about running for any other elected office around these parts. You will once again have shown people that you think they're not smart enough to understand issues and that you don't have enough respect for them to give them a voice.
To all who came to the Town Hall meeting - thank you! Working together maybe we can cause some effective change in this community once and for all.
Submitted by Cheryl Hentz
Co-host/Co-producer, Eye on Oshkosh
The results of the Town Hall meeting survey are in their entirety below, as they were tabulated that evening.
MAYORAL SELCTIONS
The people elect a full-time mayor with veto power. This mayor would replace the city manager and would only vote in cases of a tie. >>> 14
The people elect a part-time mayor with veto power. This mayor would work with a city manager and would only vote in cases of a tie. >>> 20
The people elect a mayor without veto power who is a figurehead, ceremonial mayor only and who serves as a full voting member of the city council. >>> 9
The city council selects a figurehead, ceremonial mayor. >>> 12
COMMON COUNCIL COMPOSITION
Numbered council seats, all councilors elected at large, but candidates must specify who they're running against. >>> 9
District representation only. >>> 9
A combination of district and at-large representation. >>> 13
At-large representation only with no numbered seats, but rather just as we have now. >>> 23
OTHER COMPONENTS OF CITY GOVERNMENT
The mayor, whether full- or part-time, should serve as a voting member of the Plan Commission. >>> 32
The city council should be able to terminate department heads with a super majority vote. >>> 19
At least one-third of them attending wanted to see a part-time mayor with veto power. The remaining two-thirds were split between the other choices. In addition, the people overwhelmingly said they believed the mayor should serve as a voting member of the Plan Commission.
As a result of that meeting, a proposal to put a referendum with these two provisions on the November ballot will be brought forward at this coming Tuesday's Common Council meeting for a vote. We will now see how many of our elected officials really care about giving the people of this community a voice.
A couple interesting points about the Town Hall meeting...
Freshman council member Burk Tower refused to complete a survey form, instead stating he'd let his voice be heard at the council meeting. How smug! This attitude seems to say, "I don't have to complete your insignifcant little survey. I've got a bully pulpit because I am an elected official and I'll flex my muscle there!"
Say, Mr. Tower, you may be - for the moment, anyway - an elected official, but you're also one of the taxpayers. Common sense would suggest that you voice your opinion like all the rest of the citizens in the community. Your vote may have helped sway the results in a different direction. And maybe it wouldn't have. But why would you take such an arrogant, contrarian position? Then again, this is kind of par for the course with B. Tower. He's had somewhat of an attitude from the beginning and since being elected, it's gotten even worse from where I sit. I'm sure he WILL let his voice be heard at the council meeting, and I predict it will be to NOT let the people have their own voice be heard.
Then we have mayor Mark Harris, who still insists that November is not the right time to put this on a ballot because, according to him, people will not have had enough time to think about it. As I told him after the meeting, people have had plenty of time to think about it. Mr. Harris, the people in this community are not stupid, despite what you may think. They know precisely what's going on and they know what they want. But apparently you still haven't bothered listening when they come to the city council meetings and tell you.
Mr. Harris also made the comment that 55 or so people is not a mandate. Well, neither were the 300 or 400 people surveyed on the smoking ban issue, but Mr. Harris fully supported that as being a mandate. After his proposal failed at the council level, he used that 300 or 400 people to prognosticate that the ban would pass at the polls last April by 75 percent. It never happened. Instead, the ban barely squeaked by, only to have a temporary injunction slapped on it by a judge several weeks later, and two weeks after that be nullified by the city itself because of technical problems.
Mr. Harris, no poll results - no matter how scientific or unscientific - can necessarily ever be called a mandate. But if you want a mandate, I would challenge you and you fellow council members to have the collective courage to put Mr. Esslinger's proposal on a November ballot. You don't have to agree with it and you're welcome to vote against it in November if you choose. But give the people a chance to say what they want, once and for all. When they vote and the results are revealed, you'll have your mandate. There can be no surer way than that.
Do you have the courage to do that? If not, you may as well forget about running for any other elected office around these parts. You will once again have shown people that you think they're not smart enough to understand issues and that you don't have enough respect for them to give them a voice.
To all who came to the Town Hall meeting - thank you! Working together maybe we can cause some effective change in this community once and for all.
Submitted by Cheryl Hentz
Co-host/Co-producer, Eye on Oshkosh
The results of the Town Hall meeting survey are in their entirety below, as they were tabulated that evening.
MAYORAL SELCTIONS
The people elect a full-time mayor with veto power. This mayor would replace the city manager and would only vote in cases of a tie. >>> 14
The people elect a part-time mayor with veto power. This mayor would work with a city manager and would only vote in cases of a tie. >>> 20
The people elect a mayor without veto power who is a figurehead, ceremonial mayor only and who serves as a full voting member of the city council. >>> 9
The city council selects a figurehead, ceremonial mayor. >>> 12
COMMON COUNCIL COMPOSITION
Numbered council seats, all councilors elected at large, but candidates must specify who they're running against. >>> 9
District representation only. >>> 9
A combination of district and at-large representation. >>> 13
At-large representation only with no numbered seats, but rather just as we have now. >>> 23
OTHER COMPONENTS OF CITY GOVERNMENT
The mayor, whether full- or part-time, should serve as a voting member of the Plan Commission. >>> 32
The city council should be able to terminate department heads with a super majority vote. >>> 19
posted by Cheryl Hentz at 5:49 AM
<< Home