The "Council-Manager" vs. "Mayor-Council" debate
Contributed by: Zoff B.
I know as far as Oshkosh politics go, this issue is like like beating a dead horse. The last time (as I recall) this was a hot issue was when Richard Wollangk was hired as City Manager, despite the fact that his qualifications did not meet the standards set by the City Council (which include Mr. Wollangk as a member) The grass roots campaign to place a referendum on the ballot to change the form of government had a strong following and only weeks before the election, polls showed that the measure would pass. It was only a last minute barrage of counter campaigning from the pro-manager people that changed the outcome. They contributed large amounts of money for a big media "scare tactic" campaign which threatened legal chaos if the referendum passed.
Well a decade later, with Mr. Wollangk's approval rating (unofficaially) in a spiral, I once again here the rumbings of debate on "why do we have a Manager-Council form of government and why is it better that having Mayor-Council form"
One of my biggest peeves is the argument that having 7 at large council members is so much better than having one local alderman. They say that you have 7 people that will work for you because they all need your vote vs having just one. I say that you now have 7 that can dismiss you, because you are but one lone voice. If this "group representation" is so great, why doesn't the United States vote as a whole for the 100 best Senators, no matter where they live. Or why doesn't Wisconsin just elect 9 representatives as a whole to make up our House of Representatives contingent. Why is it that AT EVERY OTHER LEVEL, representative goverment is a good thing, but at the city level it's a bad thing.
I could go on and on, but lets hear your thoughts on the issue.
I know as far as Oshkosh politics go, this issue is like like beating a dead horse. The last time (as I recall) this was a hot issue was when Richard Wollangk was hired as City Manager, despite the fact that his qualifications did not meet the standards set by the City Council (which include Mr. Wollangk as a member) The grass roots campaign to place a referendum on the ballot to change the form of government had a strong following and only weeks before the election, polls showed that the measure would pass. It was only a last minute barrage of counter campaigning from the pro-manager people that changed the outcome. They contributed large amounts of money for a big media "scare tactic" campaign which threatened legal chaos if the referendum passed.
Well a decade later, with Mr. Wollangk's approval rating (unofficaially) in a spiral, I once again here the rumbings of debate on "why do we have a Manager-Council form of government and why is it better that having Mayor-Council form"
One of my biggest peeves is the argument that having 7 at large council members is so much better than having one local alderman. They say that you have 7 people that will work for you because they all need your vote vs having just one. I say that you now have 7 that can dismiss you, because you are but one lone voice. If this "group representation" is so great, why doesn't the United States vote as a whole for the 100 best Senators, no matter where they live. Or why doesn't Wisconsin just elect 9 representatives as a whole to make up our House of Representatives contingent. Why is it that AT EVERY OTHER LEVEL, representative goverment is a good thing, but at the city level it's a bad thing.
I could go on and on, but lets hear your thoughts on the issue.
posted by Cheryl Hentz at 2:20 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home