Council rejects troop withdrawal referendum 6-1
In watching the Oshkosh Common Council meeting last night, I was proud of the civility displayed by most everyone speaking on the troop withdrawal referendum issue - for or against. Except I did hear there were one or two nasty comments made to at least one pro-referendum speaker, and shame on those individuals for their rudeness and refusal to recognize that we live in a country where free speech is protected and should be encouraged.
But mostly civil and respectful public discourse notwithstanding, the decision of the Common Council is disappointing to say the least.
Most of the arguments made by city council members for rejecting the resolution sponsored by councilman Paul Esslinger centered around the petition-drive organizers' failure to obtain the required number of signatures to force direct legislation onto a local ballot. Some people, including Mike Hirt - a former Winnebago County Board Supervisor and soldier who has fought in Iraq - still have the misunderstanding that because the correct number of signatures was not obtained, somehow that means that the will of the people in Oshkosh is to not put this on a ballot. Nothing could be further from the truth.
While I am grateful to Mr. Hirt and every other soldier who is fighting in this war and every one before it - many of my own family members included - he continues to make arguments based on misinterpretations and on a failure to recognize there are two vehicles by which direct legislation can be placed on a local ballot. One of those is to get the required number of signatures; the other is by having a council member sponsor it and getting a simple majority of the council to agree to it. Both methods have been utilized in Oshkosh before.
The group pushing for this referendum did not get the correct number of signatures, it is true. But we have heard repeatedly that the group was given information by the city attorney, Warren Kraft, who indicated that no matter how many signatures petition circulators got, it would not matter and the council still would not have to put such a referendum on the ballot. As we now know, Mr. Kraft's position changed late in the game due to discussions with other city attorneys, etc., and he told the group very late (and it was reiterated at last night's meeting) that this issue could be proper for direct legislation.
Now, most people would think "Okay, we'll start over as the law says we must and this time get the right number of signatures; then they'll HAVE to put it on the ballot in November." Under most circumstances that would be true. But a couple of points need to be made about that.
First, I listened very closely to Mr. Kraft's words. He did not say that the proper number of signatures "would" constitute direct legislation. In framing his answer to city council members he very carefully chose his words by saying that it "could." And he emphasized the word "could."
So it should not surprise anyone if come this Fall when the correct number of signatures is presented to the city clerk, we don't see yet another situation where this effort is stonewalled or otherwise blocked. I would hope that wouldn't be the case, and I would like to believe that our city council would not play a game like that with this issue because of yet another technicality, but I remain cautiously optimistic about it.
Folks can call me suspicious if they wish, but we have seen too many instances with elected officials and city administration in this community where words are carefully chosen, yet answers not completely given; and words end up not meaning what we think they did. In other words, a game of semantics is oftentimes played.
The second point I wish to make is one that I discussed with my brother last night. In fact, we both said it aloud at the same time. So many of these council members had the audacity to talk about how the requirements of the process were not met and the petition-gatherers did not follow the rules. Yet it appears to be completely fine that they themselves did not follow the rules last year when they voted to waive the bids on the bathroom construction at the Leach Amphitheater. And despite both the Attorney General's office and the local DA's office saying the city council broke the law by waiving the bids, the council has repeatedly waved Warren Kraft's opinion in our faces - an opinion which says they did nothing wrong. They will also give you the argument that there were circumstances which deemed the bid-waiving necessary. All that aside, it comes down to this: the council will twist and turn things to fit their arguments against something, but those very same rules do not have to be applied when it is something they want to do.
As already stated and as summed up by Paul Esslinger last night, statutorily there are two processes by which a referendum can get on a ballot. One failed because the rules of the game were changed late in the final quarter. The other failed because the majority of our council got hung up on a technicality (i.e., they don't want to make a decision that will make them unpopular with a huge segment of our community. Much easier, and safer, to not have a spine and stick with the old "technicality" issue.)
- Cheryl Hentz
But mostly civil and respectful public discourse notwithstanding, the decision of the Common Council is disappointing to say the least.
Most of the arguments made by city council members for rejecting the resolution sponsored by councilman Paul Esslinger centered around the petition-drive organizers' failure to obtain the required number of signatures to force direct legislation onto a local ballot. Some people, including Mike Hirt - a former Winnebago County Board Supervisor and soldier who has fought in Iraq - still have the misunderstanding that because the correct number of signatures was not obtained, somehow that means that the will of the people in Oshkosh is to not put this on a ballot. Nothing could be further from the truth.
While I am grateful to Mr. Hirt and every other soldier who is fighting in this war and every one before it - many of my own family members included - he continues to make arguments based on misinterpretations and on a failure to recognize there are two vehicles by which direct legislation can be placed on a local ballot. One of those is to get the required number of signatures; the other is by having a council member sponsor it and getting a simple majority of the council to agree to it. Both methods have been utilized in Oshkosh before.
The group pushing for this referendum did not get the correct number of signatures, it is true. But we have heard repeatedly that the group was given information by the city attorney, Warren Kraft, who indicated that no matter how many signatures petition circulators got, it would not matter and the council still would not have to put such a referendum on the ballot. As we now know, Mr. Kraft's position changed late in the game due to discussions with other city attorneys, etc., and he told the group very late (and it was reiterated at last night's meeting) that this issue could be proper for direct legislation.
Now, most people would think "Okay, we'll start over as the law says we must and this time get the right number of signatures; then they'll HAVE to put it on the ballot in November." Under most circumstances that would be true. But a couple of points need to be made about that.
First, I listened very closely to Mr. Kraft's words. He did not say that the proper number of signatures "would" constitute direct legislation. In framing his answer to city council members he very carefully chose his words by saying that it "could." And he emphasized the word "could."
So it should not surprise anyone if come this Fall when the correct number of signatures is presented to the city clerk, we don't see yet another situation where this effort is stonewalled or otherwise blocked. I would hope that wouldn't be the case, and I would like to believe that our city council would not play a game like that with this issue because of yet another technicality, but I remain cautiously optimistic about it.
Folks can call me suspicious if they wish, but we have seen too many instances with elected officials and city administration in this community where words are carefully chosen, yet answers not completely given; and words end up not meaning what we think they did. In other words, a game of semantics is oftentimes played.
The second point I wish to make is one that I discussed with my brother last night. In fact, we both said it aloud at the same time. So many of these council members had the audacity to talk about how the requirements of the process were not met and the petition-gatherers did not follow the rules. Yet it appears to be completely fine that they themselves did not follow the rules last year when they voted to waive the bids on the bathroom construction at the Leach Amphitheater. And despite both the Attorney General's office and the local DA's office saying the city council broke the law by waiving the bids, the council has repeatedly waved Warren Kraft's opinion in our faces - an opinion which says they did nothing wrong. They will also give you the argument that there were circumstances which deemed the bid-waiving necessary. All that aside, it comes down to this: the council will twist and turn things to fit their arguments against something, but those very same rules do not have to be applied when it is something they want to do.
As already stated and as summed up by Paul Esslinger last night, statutorily there are two processes by which a referendum can get on a ballot. One failed because the rules of the game were changed late in the final quarter. The other failed because the majority of our council got hung up on a technicality (i.e., they don't want to make a decision that will make them unpopular with a huge segment of our community. Much easier, and safer, to not have a spine and stick with the old "technicality" issue.)
- Cheryl Hentz
posted by Cheryl Hentz at 8:11 AM
<< Home