The community discussion about the form of goverment we have here in Oshkosh is apparently over. Later today, the Oshkosh Common Council will vote to do away with the search for an "interim" City Manager and move right into hiring a permanent replacement for Richard Wollangk.
You may recall, the council decided to hire an interim manager to give residents a chance to circulate petitions for a government change--or to at least talk about what format they might want to consider. That came after the council rejected a referendum on government format out of hand--saying there needed to be more "discussion" on the topic.
Now, some on the council believe that discussion has taken place. The only talks I was privy to were my own "Two Cents" features. The first weighed the pros and cons of an elected mayor. The other decried the rejection of the referendum. A show of hands please from everyone else who attended a forum on this topic....that's what I thought. I seem to remember that Mayor Frank Tower saying he also wanted to wait for the next Presidential election to hold the referendum to ensure the best turnout possible. He must figure with Hillary and Rudy guaranteed to drive people away from the polls in droves--turnout may not be as great as expected.
By hiring a permanent manager, the council will be saying "Don't worry Mr New Hire, your position is safe here because we are basically putting the kibosh on any talk about voting your job out of existance."
My other beef with this proposal is that its unfair to those who might have applied for a permanent position--but not an interim one. At least one interim candidate is unsure if he wants to be in the running for a full-time job. If this is going to be a permanent hire--then the position should be re-posted so all of the best candidates have a shot.
Hopefully the council will stick with its original plan--interim first, referendum on the form of government--and the hire of a permanent manager if the position still exists. Otherwise the cities of Appleton, Neenah, Menasha, Green Bay, Madison, and Milwaukee will have to continue to fail on their own with their out-dated elected mayor-council forms of governments.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Krause's Two Cents
ReplyDeleteJonathan Krause, News Director at local radio station WOSH, maintains a blog called "My Two Cents." In his Friday posting he argues that the Common Council should continue with the interim city manager search in order to provide time for a referendum on the form of government to get on the ballot. Money quotes:
You may recall, the council decided to hire an interim manager to give residents a chance to circulate petitions for a government change--or to at least talk about what format they might want to consider. That came after the council rejected a referendum on government format out of hand--saying there needed to be more "discussion" on the topic . . .
Hopefully the council will stick with its original plan--interim first, referendum on the form of government--and the hire of a permanent manager if the position still exists. Otherwise the cities of Appleton, Neenah, Menasha, Green Bay, Madison, and Milwaukee will have to continue to fail on their own with their out-dated elected mayor-council forms of governments.
The complete posting is here.
My concern, as noted in my previous post, is with the ethics of recruitment, though Krause's post did remind me of what other councilors have said previously. From an earlier post:
King and B. Tower clearly do not want to see any council led referendum on the ballot, F. Tower wanted the referendum placed on a November ballot (which no one else supported), and Bryan Bain again said that there should be community discussions about what citizens want to see in government. It's still not clear if he is going to call for those discussions and lead them or how they are supposed to happen.
posted by tony palmeri at 6:32 AM
Wollangk was fired because he was not meeting the expectations the council had for the position of city manager.
ReplyDeleteThe decision had zero to do with the form of government. It is unclear to most of us why they even delayed hiring a new city manager. Address why Wollangk was let go but hiring someone who can meet expectations.
No city in Wisconsin has had as many referendums as Oshkosh has on the same issue.
Any person hired will require a significant buyout to protect against the unpredictable behavior of this council.
Here is one difference between a city manager government and a Mayoral-Alderman form:
ReplyDeleteWhen you get rid of a Mayor it doesn't cost $100,000 of taxpayer money. You just elect someone better.
When you hire a new Mayor, it doesn't cost thousands of dollars of tax payer money on consultants, staff time, meetings, etc. you just have an election.
Enough already,
ReplyDeleteLet's start fresh, get rid of them all. Though I did not agree with all the works of RW, he was a good worker, his problems came about when the new and inexperienced board members started to show up. Maybe if the Bored was more concerned about the activities of the city and rather than ther own well being we would progress as a city and not spend all Board meetings discussing internal operations of the city infastucture.
Hiring a City Manager ensures an employee of the people, working to keep the city running, electing a Mayor to run it all ensures some one who likes to be out there getting recognition to be re-elected.
Here is point and case of the disarray of the board - Ms King - bringing the dock up for revote. I want to get elected to the board so I can have Jackson narrowed back down and get reimbursed for my garbage last year. Ms. King, are you an eastsider? Who are you trying to impress?
Grow up city council, the city will speak, and you will be silenced.
Babs,
ReplyDeleteAs has been previously discussed, if we have a Mayor, we will hire a City Administrator to run the city. This will be more expensive, not cheaper than our current system. The Mayor option is not about money.
We should support the current progressive form of government. Bob LaFollette and the progressives recognized that a professional administrator would be insulated from politics or corruption.
obviously not!
ReplyDeleteWollangks departure had everything to do with the lack of transparency and communication of important information to the council. The insular nature of his position allowed him to hold his position alot longer than any elected official, including the council. A hidden government was allowed to form inside our elected one, insulated and unaccountable. A change in the form of government would keep that from happening again.
ReplyDelete