Council goes into closed session despite many questions and lingering doubt
We have received this from Tony Palmeri concerning the closed session meeting held earlier this evening, which several citizens believe was held illegally. Tony and I have discussed this and we will be filing a complaint with the Winnebago County District Attorney's Office against the council members involved in this meeting.
If anyone wishes to have their thoughts on this meeting included in the complaint, they may email me at hosts@eyeonoshkosh.com and I will include their email with the complaint. You may also vote in the poll on the right side of your screen as to whether you believe this meeting was illegally held.
The one exception on the council to not supporting or attending this meeting was Paul Esslinger. Kudos to him. The other six council members - Mayor Bill Castle, Deputy Mayor Frank Tower, Burk Tower, Shirley Mattox, Bryan Bain and Meredith Scheuermann - each voted in favor of the meeting being held and subsequently attended it, with Five Rivers Resort developer Tom Doig as the invited guest.
The sad thing is we will never know what was discussed in this meeting - even after the information no longer falls under the guidelines where it has to remain confidential. No real minutes are kept of closed session meetings and different people can come away from a meeting with very different impressions of what was said or what took place. And since there is no proof of anything, it is left up to memory and speculation. We can only hope they all remember the same thing and are honest in telling people what transpired when the information finally can be released.
[from Tony Palmeri]
As predicted, the Oshkosh Common Council went into closed session tonight, but not before they had a lengthy discussion of whether they should go into closed session. The discussion revealed that almost all of them were in doubt about whether a closed meeting was appropriate, which in and of itself is enough reason to avoid a closed session. Councilor Paul Esslinger voted against going into closed session and refused to attend the closed meeting.
We did in fact crash the meeting. Angel Aiken, Dan Rylance, Gary Jepson, Pat Gentile, me, and maybe one or two others joined the meeting. The Mayor asked us to leave and we did without provoking a visit from the police. In public session the Mayor said he would have the police remove us if he had to. We were not intimidated by that, but we felt that the discussion in open session had made our point sufficiently.
Complaints will be filed, and I am quite confident the Council will lose and the six members who attended the meeting will be fined. Rumor has it that even the Oshkosh Northwestern will be filing a complaint, though apparently they believe the meeting was illegal on grounds different than
what I argued. We'll see.
The city attorney essentially argued that the law means whatever he says it
means, and when asked why he could not just solicit advice from (Attorney General Peg) Lautenschlager's office he launched back into the "it's only her opinion"
canard.
- Tony Palmeri
from Cheryl
The actions of the Oshkosh Common Council with respect to holding this meeting are very disappointing for a number of reasons, most of which have been very eloquently stated on Tony's blog site at www.tonypalmeri.com, then Talk to Tony. But a couple things stood out in my mind as being almost equally troubling as the meeting itself being held. They had to do with the justifications for it being held. Tony has done a good job of covering Warren Kraft and his "reasoning."
But then we had Burk Tower, who at first seemed to be leaning toward getting an opinion from the Attorney General before holding such a meeting. Then when it came time for a vote, he changed his mind and actually said he wished this issue had been brought up sooner rather than in the 11th hour. He also used the word "confrontational" to describe the situation with meeting opponents. In viewing the meeting and hearing the post-meeting gathering, nothing really struck me as being confrontational, unless, of course, Burk views any opinion different from his as the holder of that differing opinion, confrontational.
The other problem with his comment is that the information on a closed session meeting was first distributed to councilors in their packets last Friday. That hardly allowed time for things to be done much sooner than they were. Tony began posting things as soon after as he could and I contacted the DA's office first thing Monday morning to get some wheels set in motion.
But what difference does it make when it was brought up? The fact is, it was. And if there was any question or doubt as to the legitimacy of such a closed session, Burk Tower should not have voted in favor of the meeting nor should he have attended.
Then there is Meredith Scheuermann who asked city attorney Warren Kraft repeated questions as to whether he felt this was the right thing to do, etc. It was almost like she was trying to find a reason why this meeting being conducted in private should be okay rather than finding reasons why the public should be allowed to hear what is going on with a project involving our city and our money.
Obviously Kraft felt a private meeting was the right thing to do or he would not have had the item placed on the council agenda for a closed session, nor would he have explained earlier about his reasonings for the meeting being okay in his mind. Scheuermann also kept stressing that the Five Rivers project was not a done deal, yet the developer clearly is marketing this project, booking events, etc. And the city could be sued, Warren Kraft says, if it pulled out now. Pulled out of what? If there is no agreement - verbal or otherwise - then it seems there is nothing to pull out of. What did Mrs. Scheuermann actually expect him to say in answer to her questions after all that?
Shirley Mattox had an interesting comment, saying she was the elected official and as such owed it to the people to be there as part of the negotiating team, basically. No, Shirley. You were elected and owe it to the people to make sure the law is upheld and that the our best interests are being watched out for and that we have as much of an eye into what you elected officials and city staff are doing as possible.
And by the way, I'm told that council candidate Mark Madison was overheard by a few people around him approving aloud when Shirley made her comments. It makes one wonder whose side this council member wannabe is on and if he has a grasp on what the law is. But clearly by Madison's remarks, had he been on the council last night, he too, would have voted in favor of holding this meeting behind closed doors, shutting out the public. That needs to be considered when we vote next Tuesday.
Far too much of this project to date has been done behind closed doors and yet developer Tom Doig is asking the people of this community for millions of dollars. Our own community development director, Jackson Kinney, we're told, has been talking to bankers on behalf of Mr. Doig. Why? Whose payroll is this man actually on? And when do we, the employer, get to start hearing what the hell is going on and be able to give our input. It's kind of hard when we're kept out of meetings that have no business being closed.
Tonight we also heard Jackson Kinney saying there are other people looking at the property in question. This is extremely hard to believe and, if it's true, why have we not heard about any of these people before this. It makes it look like he was saying that merely as a way of suggesting to the council that this property still is in a competitive state, despite the fact that for one to two years he has spent countless hours working on this with Doig and his group. Where and when did these mystery people enter the picture?
All of this aside, here is the main question: If the Five Rivers Resort project is so great and such a sound business decision, why are bankers not lining up in droves to loan Mr. Doig money to finance his portion of the project? Even Mrs. Scheuermann - the banker on the council - had difficulty with this question when I posed it of her.
It is time this project and its various nuances be discussed in open, BEFORE this council has sold its citizens up the very river it wants to build this project on.
So the complaint will be filed with the District Attorney and we will see whether the law was indeed broken tonight. If it was we'll also see if the punishment will be more severe than just a slap on the wrist and a stern letter of reprimand, especially given the fact that this council had fair warning from citizens and they had to contemplate the legitimacy of this closed session meeting for about an hour or so before conducting it.
As mentioned earlier, if anyone wishes to have their thoughts on this meeting included in the complaint, they may email me at hosts@eyeonoshkosh.com and I will include their email with the complaint.
- Cheryl Hentz
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Council goes into closed session despite many questions and lingering doubt
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 15 2006 @ 08:28 AM MST
I think what the city council did with this meeting broke the law and I admire those who went there to try stopping it or at least be allowed to participate in it. I also admire those people like Cheryl and Tony who will be filing a complaint to see that justice is upheld and we're protected. I wish I had the courage to do the things these people do, but I am glad they are in our corner. If only I could believe our city council was.
Council goes into closed session despite many questions and lingering doubt
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 15 2006 @ 09:35 AM MST
Mr Poeschl was on the radio this morning and said that he didn't have a problem with the meeting being closed last night. Is he the type we want representing the taxpayers? I don't think so.
I missed Mark Madisons interview before Poeschls but he was overheard at the council meeting last night agreeing with Mrs. Mattox when she was in favor of the meeting along with the other 5. Did anyone hear what he had to say this morning?
Council goes into closed session despite many questions and lingering doubt
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 15 2006 @ 09:45 AM MST
Don't expect our DA to take up this matter. He declined on the no bid bathroom issue.
Council goes into closed session despite many questions and lingering doubt
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 15 2006 @ 10:29 AM MST
I don't know if a formal complaint was actually filed with his office on the bathrooms. If one was he would have had to act or refer it out. This time there will be a formal complaint filed asking for an investigation and he'll have to do something. Maybe being that he's running for office will put a little more fire under his feet. But if he's not interested in seeing that the laws are upheld he should not be elected judge and he should not be reelected if he runs for DA again later. This was just wrong and those council members have shown their contempt for the law and the public.
Council goes into closed session despite many questions and lingering doubt
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 15 2006 @ 11:34 AM MST
Yes...I can assure you that a formal complaint WAS made with the District Attorney regarding the bathroom bidding issue. The exact date was May 17, 2005. His reason for not pursuing the matter was, "Regardless of how the open bid law was violated, the District Attorney's Office lacks the authority to enforce a violation under Wis. Stats. 62.15(1)."
The state says it's the DA's duty to enforce, the DA says it isn't. That only leaves a civil suit, and Councilor Esslinger was right last night when he said who wants to spend their own time and money to enforce this?
Also, there are no specific penalties for violating the bidding laws. When Gregg Underheim's office was contacted in regards to possibly putting forth language to address these problems, their response was NO. They wouldn't even consider proposing language to clarify the issue because "it would cost the taxpayers money"!
Council goes into closed session despite many questions and lingering doubt
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 15 2006 @ 12:27 PM MST
Lennon is running for an office now. So is Lautenschlager. Maybe it is time to hold their feet to the fire and force them to give us a clear understanding of exactly who of these law enforcement officials is reponsible for upholding the damn law.
Council goes into closed session despite many questions and lingering doubt
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 15 2006 @ 01:15 PM MST
It's my understanding that the open meetings laws are MUCH more clear. I believe either the DA or the AG can accept and prosecute an open meetings law complaint/violation.
Council goes into closed session despite many questions and lingering doubt
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 15 2006 @ 07:27 PM MST
It seemed to me that Meredith Scheuermann was looking to the city attorney for guidance as to the legality of the meeting rather than for a "reason to have the meeting in closed session". Isn't that what the city attorney is hired for? I also believe that Ms. Maddox did not intend to "negotiate" with the developer but to be more informed of the plans. I think it sad that those who say they are the advocates for the citizens are too caught up in negativism to inform themselves, and thus, better inform me the citizen.
Council goes into closed session despite many questions and lingering doubt
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 15 2006 @ 09:37 PM MST
If you review the meeting on videotape you'll see that the true advocates for the citizens are right in their interpretation of how things looked and the council members had the wrong idea and guidance as to the legality of the meeting. As Ms. Hentz already said there were no real questions asked by Meredith Scheuermann other than confirmation and validation that they were doing somthing right by meeting. The city attorney was of that opinion when the agenda was established. These were silly questions. I think Mattox did use the work negotiations.
Council goes into closed session despite many questions and lingering doubt
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 15 2006 @ 09:41 PM MST
No matter who he works for the city attorney is an officer of the court and has the duty to see the law is kept. That there were council members in doubt and plenty of citizen questions should have been enough for the council to direct him to seek the AG's opinion. This will bite the Secretive Six in their backsides.
Council goes into closed session despite many questions and lingering doubt
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 16 2006 @ 07:49 AM MST
Why is it when anyone questions the council or any of their plans they are called negative? Did you ever think they just don't like the path the council is leading this city down?
If anyone wishes to have their thoughts on this meeting included in the complaint, they may email me at hosts@eyeonoshkosh.com and I will include their email with the complaint. You may also vote in the poll on the right side of your screen as to whether you believe this meeting was illegally held.
The one exception on the council to not supporting or attending this meeting was Paul Esslinger. Kudos to him. The other six council members - Mayor Bill Castle, Deputy Mayor Frank Tower, Burk Tower, Shirley Mattox, Bryan Bain and Meredith Scheuermann - each voted in favor of the meeting being held and subsequently attended it, with Five Rivers Resort developer Tom Doig as the invited guest.
The sad thing is we will never know what was discussed in this meeting - even after the information no longer falls under the guidelines where it has to remain confidential. No real minutes are kept of closed session meetings and different people can come away from a meeting with very different impressions of what was said or what took place. And since there is no proof of anything, it is left up to memory and speculation. We can only hope they all remember the same thing and are honest in telling people what transpired when the information finally can be released.
[from Tony Palmeri]
As predicted, the Oshkosh Common Council went into closed session tonight, but not before they had a lengthy discussion of whether they should go into closed session. The discussion revealed that almost all of them were in doubt about whether a closed meeting was appropriate, which in and of itself is enough reason to avoid a closed session. Councilor Paul Esslinger voted against going into closed session and refused to attend the closed meeting.
We did in fact crash the meeting. Angel Aiken, Dan Rylance, Gary Jepson, Pat Gentile, me, and maybe one or two others joined the meeting. The Mayor asked us to leave and we did without provoking a visit from the police. In public session the Mayor said he would have the police remove us if he had to. We were not intimidated by that, but we felt that the discussion in open session had made our point sufficiently.
Complaints will be filed, and I am quite confident the Council will lose and the six members who attended the meeting will be fined. Rumor has it that even the Oshkosh Northwestern will be filing a complaint, though apparently they believe the meeting was illegal on grounds different than
what I argued. We'll see.
The city attorney essentially argued that the law means whatever he says it
means, and when asked why he could not just solicit advice from (Attorney General Peg) Lautenschlager's office he launched back into the "it's only her opinion"
canard.
- Tony Palmeri
from Cheryl
The actions of the Oshkosh Common Council with respect to holding this meeting are very disappointing for a number of reasons, most of which have been very eloquently stated on Tony's blog site at www.tonypalmeri.com, then Talk to Tony. But a couple things stood out in my mind as being almost equally troubling as the meeting itself being held. They had to do with the justifications for it being held. Tony has done a good job of covering Warren Kraft and his "reasoning."
But then we had Burk Tower, who at first seemed to be leaning toward getting an opinion from the Attorney General before holding such a meeting. Then when it came time for a vote, he changed his mind and actually said he wished this issue had been brought up sooner rather than in the 11th hour. He also used the word "confrontational" to describe the situation with meeting opponents. In viewing the meeting and hearing the post-meeting gathering, nothing really struck me as being confrontational, unless, of course, Burk views any opinion different from his as the holder of that differing opinion, confrontational.
The other problem with his comment is that the information on a closed session meeting was first distributed to councilors in their packets last Friday. That hardly allowed time for things to be done much sooner than they were. Tony began posting things as soon after as he could and I contacted the DA's office first thing Monday morning to get some wheels set in motion.
But what difference does it make when it was brought up? The fact is, it was. And if there was any question or doubt as to the legitimacy of such a closed session, Burk Tower should not have voted in favor of the meeting nor should he have attended.
Then there is Meredith Scheuermann who asked city attorney Warren Kraft repeated questions as to whether he felt this was the right thing to do, etc. It was almost like she was trying to find a reason why this meeting being conducted in private should be okay rather than finding reasons why the public should be allowed to hear what is going on with a project involving our city and our money.
Obviously Kraft felt a private meeting was the right thing to do or he would not have had the item placed on the council agenda for a closed session, nor would he have explained earlier about his reasonings for the meeting being okay in his mind. Scheuermann also kept stressing that the Five Rivers project was not a done deal, yet the developer clearly is marketing this project, booking events, etc. And the city could be sued, Warren Kraft says, if it pulled out now. Pulled out of what? If there is no agreement - verbal or otherwise - then it seems there is nothing to pull out of. What did Mrs. Scheuermann actually expect him to say in answer to her questions after all that?
Shirley Mattox had an interesting comment, saying she was the elected official and as such owed it to the people to be there as part of the negotiating team, basically. No, Shirley. You were elected and owe it to the people to make sure the law is upheld and that the our best interests are being watched out for and that we have as much of an eye into what you elected officials and city staff are doing as possible.
And by the way, I'm told that council candidate Mark Madison was overheard by a few people around him approving aloud when Shirley made her comments. It makes one wonder whose side this council member wannabe is on and if he has a grasp on what the law is. But clearly by Madison's remarks, had he been on the council last night, he too, would have voted in favor of holding this meeting behind closed doors, shutting out the public. That needs to be considered when we vote next Tuesday.
Far too much of this project to date has been done behind closed doors and yet developer Tom Doig is asking the people of this community for millions of dollars. Our own community development director, Jackson Kinney, we're told, has been talking to bankers on behalf of Mr. Doig. Why? Whose payroll is this man actually on? And when do we, the employer, get to start hearing what the hell is going on and be able to give our input. It's kind of hard when we're kept out of meetings that have no business being closed.
Tonight we also heard Jackson Kinney saying there are other people looking at the property in question. This is extremely hard to believe and, if it's true, why have we not heard about any of these people before this. It makes it look like he was saying that merely as a way of suggesting to the council that this property still is in a competitive state, despite the fact that for one to two years he has spent countless hours working on this with Doig and his group. Where and when did these mystery people enter the picture?
All of this aside, here is the main question: If the Five Rivers Resort project is so great and such a sound business decision, why are bankers not lining up in droves to loan Mr. Doig money to finance his portion of the project? Even Mrs. Scheuermann - the banker on the council - had difficulty with this question when I posed it of her.
It is time this project and its various nuances be discussed in open, BEFORE this council has sold its citizens up the very river it wants to build this project on.
So the complaint will be filed with the District Attorney and we will see whether the law was indeed broken tonight. If it was we'll also see if the punishment will be more severe than just a slap on the wrist and a stern letter of reprimand, especially given the fact that this council had fair warning from citizens and they had to contemplate the legitimacy of this closed session meeting for about an hour or so before conducting it.
As mentioned earlier, if anyone wishes to have their thoughts on this meeting included in the complaint, they may email me at hosts@eyeonoshkosh.com and I will include their email with the complaint.
- Cheryl Hentz
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Council goes into closed session despite many questions and lingering doubt
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 15 2006 @ 08:28 AM MST
I think what the city council did with this meeting broke the law and I admire those who went there to try stopping it or at least be allowed to participate in it. I also admire those people like Cheryl and Tony who will be filing a complaint to see that justice is upheld and we're protected. I wish I had the courage to do the things these people do, but I am glad they are in our corner. If only I could believe our city council was.
Council goes into closed session despite many questions and lingering doubt
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 15 2006 @ 09:35 AM MST
Mr Poeschl was on the radio this morning and said that he didn't have a problem with the meeting being closed last night. Is he the type we want representing the taxpayers? I don't think so.
I missed Mark Madisons interview before Poeschls but he was overheard at the council meeting last night agreeing with Mrs. Mattox when she was in favor of the meeting along with the other 5. Did anyone hear what he had to say this morning?
Council goes into closed session despite many questions and lingering doubt
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 15 2006 @ 09:45 AM MST
Don't expect our DA to take up this matter. He declined on the no bid bathroom issue.
Council goes into closed session despite many questions and lingering doubt
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 15 2006 @ 10:29 AM MST
I don't know if a formal complaint was actually filed with his office on the bathrooms. If one was he would have had to act or refer it out. This time there will be a formal complaint filed asking for an investigation and he'll have to do something. Maybe being that he's running for office will put a little more fire under his feet. But if he's not interested in seeing that the laws are upheld he should not be elected judge and he should not be reelected if he runs for DA again later. This was just wrong and those council members have shown their contempt for the law and the public.
Council goes into closed session despite many questions and lingering doubt
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 15 2006 @ 11:34 AM MST
Yes...I can assure you that a formal complaint WAS made with the District Attorney regarding the bathroom bidding issue. The exact date was May 17, 2005. His reason for not pursuing the matter was, "Regardless of how the open bid law was violated, the District Attorney's Office lacks the authority to enforce a violation under Wis. Stats. 62.15(1)."
The state says it's the DA's duty to enforce, the DA says it isn't. That only leaves a civil suit, and Councilor Esslinger was right last night when he said who wants to spend their own time and money to enforce this?
Also, there are no specific penalties for violating the bidding laws. When Gregg Underheim's office was contacted in regards to possibly putting forth language to address these problems, their response was NO. They wouldn't even consider proposing language to clarify the issue because "it would cost the taxpayers money"!
Council goes into closed session despite many questions and lingering doubt
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 15 2006 @ 12:27 PM MST
Lennon is running for an office now. So is Lautenschlager. Maybe it is time to hold their feet to the fire and force them to give us a clear understanding of exactly who of these law enforcement officials is reponsible for upholding the damn law.
Council goes into closed session despite many questions and lingering doubt
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 15 2006 @ 01:15 PM MST
It's my understanding that the open meetings laws are MUCH more clear. I believe either the DA or the AG can accept and prosecute an open meetings law complaint/violation.
Council goes into closed session despite many questions and lingering doubt
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 15 2006 @ 07:27 PM MST
It seemed to me that Meredith Scheuermann was looking to the city attorney for guidance as to the legality of the meeting rather than for a "reason to have the meeting in closed session". Isn't that what the city attorney is hired for? I also believe that Ms. Maddox did not intend to "negotiate" with the developer but to be more informed of the plans. I think it sad that those who say they are the advocates for the citizens are too caught up in negativism to inform themselves, and thus, better inform me the citizen.
Council goes into closed session despite many questions and lingering doubt
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 15 2006 @ 09:37 PM MST
If you review the meeting on videotape you'll see that the true advocates for the citizens are right in their interpretation of how things looked and the council members had the wrong idea and guidance as to the legality of the meeting. As Ms. Hentz already said there were no real questions asked by Meredith Scheuermann other than confirmation and validation that they were doing somthing right by meeting. The city attorney was of that opinion when the agenda was established. These were silly questions. I think Mattox did use the work negotiations.
Council goes into closed session despite many questions and lingering doubt
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 15 2006 @ 09:41 PM MST
No matter who he works for the city attorney is an officer of the court and has the duty to see the law is kept. That there were council members in doubt and plenty of citizen questions should have been enough for the council to direct him to seek the AG's opinion. This will bite the Secretive Six in their backsides.
Council goes into closed session despite many questions and lingering doubt
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 16 2006 @ 07:49 AM MST
Why is it when anyone questions the council or any of their plans they are called negative? Did you ever think they just don't like the path the council is leading this city down?
posted by Cheryl Hentz at 11:31 PM
<< Home