Council candidate Paul Esslinger's missing interview and what viewers might want to know about it
Because there has been some discussion on this site and others about the “missing” Paul Esslinger interview, I felt I would address those comments and concerns for all interested Eye on Oshkosh viewers.
Like most candidates, Mr. Esslinger was to appear on Eye on Oshkosh before the spring election. No interview was done with him, however, as he canceled his appearance, citing a conflict. I learned of this cancellation the day of the taping – not from him, even though I was the one who booked him (after much reluctance, which is another story) – but from my co-host Tony Palmeri.
Even though he was not appearing on the show, Esslinger had the gall to send Tony a very self-serving message that he asked him to read, when a simple “Sorry, my schedule doesn’t permit me to be there” would have sufficed. Such a concise comment has worked well for others the few times conflicts have come up, but it apparently wasn’t good enough for Mr. Esslinger. Indeed, his intentional, carefully crafted message was nothing short of an unpaid political announcement that should not have been read, and if we were to do it again, it would NOT be. Unfortunately, Tony felt obligated since he’d already promised Esslinger the favor prior to speaking to me about it or before letting me know that Esslinger wasn’t coming on. Since the taping several people who are aware of what happened, including a challenger for the city council, said the message should not have been read. The general feeling was, if someone can’t make it, they can’t make it. Period! But that is water under the bridge and I believe Mr. Esslinger’s handling of this matter not only speaks for itself, but sends a much louder message than his political announcement itself.
There were comments made on another blog site (as well as this one before being deleted) claiming I slandered Mr. Esslinger for half the show. Not only do those comments show that some people don’t really understand what slander is, the remarks are nothing but outright lies, and will be exposed as such when the show airs. I showed my disgust over the poor way I believe Esslinger handled things. For me to do anything less would be to suggest that I found his behavior acceptable. But at no time was he slandered. I also suggested that if people were going to ask Mr. Esslinger questions, they ask some of the questions we would have asked had he appeared, such as:
* Why when he accepts campaign contributions from certain people it's not a case of those people trying to buy votes, but somehow in his mind it is when others accept certain contributions;
* Why he hasn't filed a complaint against his fellow council members for holding what he thought was an improperly-held closed meeting;
* Why he felt it more important to reportedly participate in a cribbage tournament the day city manager goals were being set than attend that goal-setting meeting with his six fellow council members;
* Why he signed a confidentiality agreement with the Five Rivers developer.
Part of Mr. Esslinger’s announcement asked people to watch the candidate’s forum where he said he’d answer questions from the League of Women Voters and the audience. I don’t believe anyone should be swayed by such a “generous offer of information.” Mr. Esslinger knows that the League doesn’t allow specific questions to be asked of individual candidates, so I’m sure he knew he was protected from any challenges to his own personal behaviors as a councilman.
I once had respect for Mr. Esslinger as an elected representative and gave my total support to him, even though we disagreed on issues from time to time. Unfortunately, his recent behavior has done little to instill confidence in me and I believe he has exercised poor judgment on a variety of issues – both in and out of council chambers, this most recent action included.
But watch the show (three other candidates for local office are interviewed) and consider Esslinger’s statement; then look at his entire voting record and pattern of behavior; and on Tuesday, April 4, we will each be the judge.
- Cheryl Hentz
Like most candidates, Mr. Esslinger was to appear on Eye on Oshkosh before the spring election. No interview was done with him, however, as he canceled his appearance, citing a conflict. I learned of this cancellation the day of the taping – not from him, even though I was the one who booked him (after much reluctance, which is another story) – but from my co-host Tony Palmeri.
Even though he was not appearing on the show, Esslinger had the gall to send Tony a very self-serving message that he asked him to read, when a simple “Sorry, my schedule doesn’t permit me to be there” would have sufficed. Such a concise comment has worked well for others the few times conflicts have come up, but it apparently wasn’t good enough for Mr. Esslinger. Indeed, his intentional, carefully crafted message was nothing short of an unpaid political announcement that should not have been read, and if we were to do it again, it would NOT be. Unfortunately, Tony felt obligated since he’d already promised Esslinger the favor prior to speaking to me about it or before letting me know that Esslinger wasn’t coming on. Since the taping several people who are aware of what happened, including a challenger for the city council, said the message should not have been read. The general feeling was, if someone can’t make it, they can’t make it. Period! But that is water under the bridge and I believe Mr. Esslinger’s handling of this matter not only speaks for itself, but sends a much louder message than his political announcement itself.
There were comments made on another blog site (as well as this one before being deleted) claiming I slandered Mr. Esslinger for half the show. Not only do those comments show that some people don’t really understand what slander is, the remarks are nothing but outright lies, and will be exposed as such when the show airs. I showed my disgust over the poor way I believe Esslinger handled things. For me to do anything less would be to suggest that I found his behavior acceptable. But at no time was he slandered. I also suggested that if people were going to ask Mr. Esslinger questions, they ask some of the questions we would have asked had he appeared, such as:
* Why when he accepts campaign contributions from certain people it's not a case of those people trying to buy votes, but somehow in his mind it is when others accept certain contributions;
* Why he hasn't filed a complaint against his fellow council members for holding what he thought was an improperly-held closed meeting;
* Why he felt it more important to reportedly participate in a cribbage tournament the day city manager goals were being set than attend that goal-setting meeting with his six fellow council members;
* Why he signed a confidentiality agreement with the Five Rivers developer.
Part of Mr. Esslinger’s announcement asked people to watch the candidate’s forum where he said he’d answer questions from the League of Women Voters and the audience. I don’t believe anyone should be swayed by such a “generous offer of information.” Mr. Esslinger knows that the League doesn’t allow specific questions to be asked of individual candidates, so I’m sure he knew he was protected from any challenges to his own personal behaviors as a councilman.
I once had respect for Mr. Esslinger as an elected representative and gave my total support to him, even though we disagreed on issues from time to time. Unfortunately, his recent behavior has done little to instill confidence in me and I believe he has exercised poor judgment on a variety of issues – both in and out of council chambers, this most recent action included.
But watch the show (three other candidates for local office are interviewed) and consider Esslinger’s statement; then look at his entire voting record and pattern of behavior; and on Tuesday, April 4, we will each be the judge.
- Cheryl Hentz
posted by Cheryl Hentz at 4:31 PM
<< Home