The Esslinger Watch - Part 1
There’s been much talk this past week – both on the blogs and in the community – as our new mayor decided to not reappoint two longtime board/commission members to their posts. Some say it was dirty politics; some say it was both dirty and predictable; others say it was just Paul Esslinger making his mark on the city and giving it a breath of fresh air. Whatever it is, the timing of two of the applications – those of John Hinz and Kent Monte – are interesting and suspect. Yesterday I received an email from someone, who reviewed the applications at City Hall and wrote me with the following observations:
“Bob Fried applied to be appointed to the Park Commission on Dec 29, 2008. He runs a landscape company and wants to make Oshkosh more green.
"John Hinz applied to be appointed to the Plan Commission on May 11, 2009. His only employment listed was an ump for the Oshkosh Recreation Dept. He said he had experience during his recent campaign by having contact with many people as a candidate. He also said he had "upper level managerial experience"
"Kent Monte applied to be appointed to the Plan Commission on May 4, 2009. He wrote "I feel that I will bring a more common, yet diverse, outlook on the community and be able to facilitate progress."
It is possible that some of these people had applied previously to serve on a board or commission. But I believe when John Hinz appeared on our show as part of his recent candidacy he said he had not applied in the past. My co-host Dan Rylance and I both suggested to all the candidates we interviewed that they might want to do apply for service on a commission or board. Some said yes, they’d look into it. Yet, Hinz – recommended by Esslinger as an alternate for the plan commission – apparently didn’t bother applying until May 11, more than a month after Esslinger won the election, and was already being recommended only a few days later. People will have to draw their own conclusions about the timing of the applications, Esslinger’s motives and everything else associated with this situation. A lot of good comments and keen observations have already been made about Esslinger’s actions. Many of them can be found on the Oshkosh Northwestern’s OshKonversation site. For a very in-depth analysis by one local blogger, check out what The Chief has to say in this blog posting. The Oshkosh Northwestern also has a well-presented editorial about it.
Naturally these appointments have to be confirmed by the rest of the council, but, frankly, I think we’ve already begun to see the stage set for that. Whatever Esslinger’s reasons or strategy, he could have handled this situation better, but chose not to. I’m certainly not surprised by that lack of class he displayed and many others apparently aren’t either. But as one blogger stated: What goes up, must come down. And another suggested that Esslinger will probably not learn from his mistakes, but they hoped Oshkosh will learn from its’.
“Bob Fried applied to be appointed to the Park Commission on Dec 29, 2008. He runs a landscape company and wants to make Oshkosh more green.
"John Hinz applied to be appointed to the Plan Commission on May 11, 2009. His only employment listed was an ump for the Oshkosh Recreation Dept. He said he had experience during his recent campaign by having contact with many people as a candidate. He also said he had "upper level managerial experience"
"Kent Monte applied to be appointed to the Plan Commission on May 4, 2009. He wrote "I feel that I will bring a more common, yet diverse, outlook on the community and be able to facilitate progress."
It is possible that some of these people had applied previously to serve on a board or commission. But I believe when John Hinz appeared on our show as part of his recent candidacy he said he had not applied in the past. My co-host Dan Rylance and I both suggested to all the candidates we interviewed that they might want to do apply for service on a commission or board. Some said yes, they’d look into it. Yet, Hinz – recommended by Esslinger as an alternate for the plan commission – apparently didn’t bother applying until May 11, more than a month after Esslinger won the election, and was already being recommended only a few days later. People will have to draw their own conclusions about the timing of the applications, Esslinger’s motives and everything else associated with this situation. A lot of good comments and keen observations have already been made about Esslinger’s actions. Many of them can be found on the Oshkosh Northwestern’s OshKonversation site. For a very in-depth analysis by one local blogger, check out what The Chief has to say in this blog posting. The Oshkosh Northwestern also has a well-presented editorial about it.
Naturally these appointments have to be confirmed by the rest of the council, but, frankly, I think we’ve already begun to see the stage set for that. Whatever Esslinger’s reasons or strategy, he could have handled this situation better, but chose not to. I’m certainly not surprised by that lack of class he displayed and many others apparently aren’t either. But as one blogger stated: What goes up, must come down. And another suggested that Esslinger will probably not learn from his mistakes, but they hoped Oshkosh will learn from its’.
posted by Cheryl Hentz at 8:34 AM
7 Comments:
Ms. Hentz,
Can you share with us how you came to be on the Board of Appeals? I would be curious to hear your story as you know it sure is not easy getting appointed to these positions despite several applications.
Thanks.
Given our history, your post was certainly not unexpected, nor is the fact that, to date, you've only responded here, when what is being called Appointmentgate by some is being written about in several places. And quite frankly, my op-ed is the least accusatory of any of them. But you've sought me out because you know my identity and my tenure of service to this city, whereas you don't know anything about the others. I'm also sure you have an ulterior motive for your "question," as most of the time where I'm concerned, you do. Fair enough.
To answer your "question" for the benefit of all readers, as with any applicant to a board or commission I was appointed to the Board of Appeals by the mayor and my appointment was confirmed by a majority of the council. Of course you knew that already, just as you also know that particular appointment came from then mayor Bloechl. We both know where you're going with this but let me point out the obvious difference here. That being that I was confirmed by some councilors whose political views I often disagreed with and RE-appointed by subsequent mayors and councils, despite my having taken issue with them publicly on several occasions over their votes, and quite frequently not sharing the same political beliefs as they. That does not seem to be the case here.
I might add that I was originally appointed to serve on a city board or commission by at least one of Mrs. Bloechl's predecessors, as I first applied for service in 1993 or 1994 and began almost immediately thereafter. She was not mayor at that time. Unlike your apparent experience, I did not find it hard to get appointed.
Might you share with readers why your application is dated May 4 rather than earlier, and what qualifies you more than Shirley Mattox to serve on the plan commission? Thanks.
The reason that I chose to answer here is because I did not want to debate issues with anonymous bloggers that are looking for any reason to rip apart any comment that I might make. I want a civil debate (if there must be a debate) and being able to sign your name to it tends to keep it that way.
Two years ago, I submitted application to several boards (not having a preference) and also sent an email to Frank Tower. He apparently did not find me suitable to serve at the time and did not provide a reason for his decision. I did not see that it would be productive to re-apply every year only to have similar results. It wasn’t until after the election that I began to contemplate applying again after a new Mayor was elected. When I did decide to apply, my first choice was to apply for the Parks Board because, as you know, I have 4 children. I am very interested in being involved with the future of our parks here in Oshkosh but did not know if a vacancy would allow for my appointment to that board (at the city website).
I subsequently submitted an application to the Plan Commission that was soliciting volunteers. Of the four on the city website, I felt that one would be challenging and something that I could provide a positive contribution. I cannot and will not say that I am either more or less qualified than Ms. Mattox. That decision must be made by the Mayor and City Council. I will state that it takes more than a resume to evaluate a person’s capability to serve on any board. You have served for several years on the Board of Appeals. You have a background in Journalism so one could argue that you are not qualified to serve in that capacity as well but you have served capably haven’t you? How you got there should not be relevant, should it?
Ms. Mattox is a retired teacher and a lifelong member of the community. I am sure she can bring a great deal to the table in regards to her experiences living in Oshkosh. I, on the other hand, am relatively a newcomer to the community (having lived/worked here for 9 years) and may bring a fresh perspective to the Plan Commission. My background is Quality Assurance and currently manage a staff of specialists that perform quality surveillance on Billions worth of product every year. If I am confirmed by the Council, I will only be one of 9 that will review and recommend for approval the plans presented to the commission. Realistically, it is the city staff that needs to be the experts, not necessarily the commission members themselves. The commission needs to be able to take the information and be able to make a sound decision when recommending approval to the Council.
Some observations and comments in regards to your most recent post…
(1) Posting here as opposed to elsewhere: I understand your feeling about people ripping apart something just because of who wrote it. For some time now I’ve noticed anytime I am even remotely critical of you, your wife, or your friends, the same thing happens to me by some of you. Never mind the fact that you have chosen to ignore anything good I’ve ever said about anyone (in this case, Paul Esslinger). Instead, you’ve chosen to focus only on what you perceive as negative.
(2) Your failure to reapply after non-appointment: How do you know you would have had similar results had you applied in a year subsequent to not being appointed? Also, did Frank Tower tell you he found you unsuitable or was that your perception based on nothing more than a non-appointment? It sounds like it was the latter inasmuch as you say he didn’t provide a reason for his decision. Meanwhile YOUR decision not to reapply, request your application be kept active, or at least voice an expression of interest in a subsequent year sounds somewhat like the same kind of frustration we have now heard from Ted Bowen. The difference is yours seems to have come after only one failed attempt and Mr. Bowen’s comes after years of dedicated service which, incidentally, has been the very kind of service and participation Mr. Esslinger has said he wants from people.
(3) My qualifications for service: I had quite a bit of other professional and practical experience besides that of being a journalist, however, the Board of Appeals was one of the last boards I was appointed to having, I believe, proven myself in service on other boards previously. Moreover, if you look at the makeup of the various boards and commissions I think you’ll find that most of those serving didn’t have specific experience in that particular area when they were first appointed. I suspect selections are made based on a person’s overall experience, ability and willingness to serve, and probably other factors, as well. Additionally, and probably most important as it relates to Mr. Esslinger’s first round of appointments, is that I do not believe that I was ever chosen for service over someone who was going to not be reappointed. Instead, I believe I was filling a vacancy that existed. There is a distinguishable, and very relevant, difference.
(4) Existing vacancies: We have had a need for someone on the Board of Appeals for some time – a need I’ve even discussed several times on the Eye on Oshkosh program. The Chief talks in a recent blog posting about this and other vacancies that any of you appointees could have filled. Might the reason you were selected for the Plan Commission be that the Board of Appeals renders decisions not acted on by the council? Conversely the Plan Commission deals extensively with development, some of which I’m sure at least some on the council would like to eventually vote no on, or perhaps see never even make it out of committee. That is much more likely if the board is stacked with people of the mayor’s mindset and the suspicion is that is the direction in which he is headed.
(5) Your request for appointment now and your choices: If you didn’t know the answer from having run for council and being knowledgeable about much city business for some time now, I would think a simple phone call to your friend, Mr. Esslinger would have answered your question as to whether a vacancy would allow for an appointment to the parks board. I would also think if that was your first choice, the mayor should have respected that wish. From my perspective that makes the Plan Commission appointment seem even a little more curious, even though it was your second choice and something you thought seemed interesting and a place you could contribute. You mention making a “positive” contribution. Quite honestly, the word “positive” is not one I think of when hearing the name Monte (among others). But anything’s possible and I guess time will tell if your contribution truly is positive or merely one of negativity and obstruction, as someone else on another site has suggested.
(6) Relevancy: You state in your most recent email that how I came to be on the Board of Appeals isn’t really relevant. Yet you are the one who raised the issue and asked me the question about that very issue in the first place. Did you forget that? Or were you merely trying to draw some kind of inference by making comparisons where none really exist and where the situations are vastly different? And yes, I have served quite capably – asking tough questions along with the rest of the board and sometimes making unpopular decisions – decisions which at times favored the city, at other times favored the applicant – but always taking into account every single thing the law allows us to consider in our deliberations.
(7) Finally, I would note: Asking questions and having meaningful discussion is hardly the same as debating issues which, as has been noted elsewhere, is tantamount to nothing more than arguing. That is something else we have seen from you in the past and it’s suspected by many that that is why you’re the Plan Commission appointee. I am hoping you’ll prove us wrong and show that you really can make a meaningful contribution rather than having yet another venue for divisiveness and negativity.
Cheryl,
After reading your post, I am speachless. I was hoping that this could be a civil discussion but by the end it turned into quite a display of negativity. If you think I am negative, perhaps you should re-read your last and give that some thought.
Thank you for your time. It is clear that civil discussion is not possible and my efforts are best spent elsewhere. Good Day.
K. Monte
Hey-
I thought you two vowed not to participate on each other's blogs not that long ago......
Or even MENTION each other....
eh?
Kent, I view my post as nothing more than directly answering your questions or responding to your comments. You wanted a dialogue, after all. If you view some or all of it as negative perhaps that is because you have no good response or maybe it's partially negative because of your initial comment. You knew how I came to be appointed to the Board of Appeals and your asking the "question" you did clearly came with an ulterior motive.
As for having a discussion, civil or otherwise, what more was there to possibly discuss? We asked each other questions and they were answered, other than your not addressing some of my more pointed comments and observations.
Finally, I said I hoped you proved me wrong and that you can make a meaningful contribution to the plan commission. But again, that has gone without recognition by you.
I just don't know how long you actually wanted the conversation to go on or what more you saw as needing to be said.
----------------------------------
CJ,
You are right that Kent said he'd never mention my name on his blog again, though that was short-lived. I also don't recall if he ever said he wouldn't participate in a discussion here. But I didn't make the same "promise" he did. I try never to say never as I usually try to answer someone's questions or respond to their comments - good or bad - and I typically defend myself when I feel it important to do so. Then again, there are times certain comments are not deserving of a response, and those will not get one from me. In Mr. Monte's case, I felt his comments/questions deserved a response, hence our discussion. Thanks.
Post a Comment
<< Home