Former Oshkosh mayor takes position on local election

[We have received the following copy of a Letter to the Editor of the Oshkosh Northwestern written by Melanie Bloechl and are pleased to publish it here]...

I’ve paid close attention to the local political campaigns this spring and a few things are painfully obvious.

Two distinct types of candidates are running for City Council and Mayor: Those I view as the “Tax and Spenders” and those I affectionately call the “Watch Dogs” of our tax dollars.

The Tax and Spenders are Meredith Scheuermann, Bryan Bain and Shirley Mattox. These people have said they’re comfortable spending your hard-earned money on proposed projects, even though they haven’t reviewed plans or asked if you can afford them.

Then you have the Watch Dogs: They are Paul Esslinger, Cheryl Hentz, Brian Poeschl, and Joe Jungwirth. They’ve stated that they won’t commit to spending large sums of money until a full review of the issues has been done and the taxpayers have had a say in the process.

And who hasn’t noticed that once again special interest groups are heavily involved in this election. While on the face of it that would not seem to be a bad thing, let's take a look at who they are and whom they support. Progress Oshkosh, Forward Oshkosh and the Chamber of Commerce each is hell-bent on making sure Oshkosh moves at break-neck speed in what they feel is a positive direction. Translation: Spend, spend, spend on downtown project. Coincidently these groups support the “Tax and Spenders.”

We must get to the polls on April 5 and vote to stop this insanity. Let’s bring faith, trust and common sense back to city hall. Please join me in supporting those who ask tough questions, think for themselves, research issues and see how effectively other communities do things. Support our Watch Dogs: Paul Esslinger for Mayor and Cheryl Hentz, Brian Poeschl, and Joe Jungwirth for City Council, on April 5th.

Your checkbook depends on it!

Sincerely,
Melanie Bloechl

No Reality for Bloechl in City Debate

Contributed by: Anonymous
While I enjoy Melanie Bloechl’s spirit and personality from time-to-time, her letter to the editor in the March 23 Northwestern was misguided, untruthful, and ignorant to the real issues the city is facing and the dialogue that has already taken place among council candidates.

When people in politics have nothing to resort to, they often start throwing around labels like "tax and spenders". At last week’s council debate every candidate was asked whether he or she supported cutting city staff, raising taxes, or expanding the tax base to pay for city services. Expanding the tax base was the number one response although candidates including Cheryl Hentz acknowledged the willingness to raise taxes for worthwhile services. I never heard Mattox, Bain, or Schererman say "they’re comfortable spending your hard-earned money on proposed projects, even though they haven’t reviewed plans or asked if you can afford them." Translation: You do not understand what you are talking about Melanie and it is a little disappointing.

Why? Because the increases in government spending have little to do with downtown projects and everything to do with:

*the increased cost of health care for city employees
*the increased cost of fuel and utilities
*and declining state aid to the city

The only way to pay for all of the city services we need (from these uncontrollable costs mentioned to addressing streets and other infrastructure) without grossly increasing taxes is to grow the tax base. Projects like the public library expansion, Opera House Square, and the amphitheater have more than just social benefit, but rather a great economic benefit to individual taxpayers. It is not whether to invest in development of not, but rather how we invest.

Working with the county, the state, the region, etc. to best determine how to deliver services most efficiently will be a priority as all are under financial pressure.

A large number of city employees have their salary and benefits determined by the collective bargaining process. Ms. Blochel should know this. And actually, while health care costs are skyrocketing in the public and private sector, our City Manager has been effective comparatively at keeping costs down and getting city employees to pay co-pays.

As for the non-represented employees, there is a pretty clear classification system in place with 11 or so steps. The step increases are based upon the collective bargaining process with the represented employees. The city did a salary study a few years ago that determined where we were versus other cities. Sure, we can cut salaries and positions, but campaign populism has consequences, in this case quality. Are we better off as taxpayers with a quality, creative, efficient workforce, or with the cheapest we can find.

As for council members like Mr. Esslinger being "watchdogs", don’t go to Tan Lines and then say you went to Florida.

Here are some facts to review:

* Mr. Esslinger supported Melanie Blochel’s effort to examine a brand new $26 million City Hall. Thankfully Mark Harris, Shirley Maddox, and Bill Castle led the effort to save taxpayers $23 million when they purchased the county building for a new police facility.
* Esslinger was behind the city repaving Burnwood Drive near his High Oak residence near the airport. Because the repaving included property belonging to the Town of Nekimi, city of Oshkosh taxpayers had to pay over $200,000 to cover the loss of assessed property contribution. Way to go Watchdog!
* If the so-called "watchdogs" wanted to have an open bid process on the amplitheater bathrooms, why didn’t they support keeping the bathrooms included as part of the original project which would have been subject to open bidding. Mr. Castle, Ms. Maddox, and Mr. Harris did.

If Mr. Esslinger is opposed to any tax increase, he should explain what city services should be cut, and what employees need to be laid off. Of course, he has voted for tax increases in the past.

Respect for citizens would involve actually attending the city’s budget hearings, which Mr. Esslinger has not. (more than stopping by)

I thought the debate last week showed improved dialouge between all candidates. Unfortunately, Ms. Blochel missed that.

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.

No Reality for Bloechl in City Debate
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 23 2005 @ 01:01 PM MST
There was no open bidding on the original amphitheater project. The Leach family single-handedly picked CR Meyer to construct the bandshell. You know not of what you are talking about. So I really don't know what Castle, Maddox and Harris voted on that you think you saw.

No Reality for Bloechl in City Debate
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 23 2005 @ 02:58 PM MST
Ah yes yet another person that has all the answers yet has no name. As I have stated on Oshblog Ms Scheuerman,mattox and Mr Bain's comments can be seen and heard at the League of Women Voters forum March 16th and Eye on Oshkosh. As to your comments on the city and her overall state of being. First you state the healthcare costs are out of control for the employees, then you state Mr Wollangk has done a good job control them, which is it? You state another issue is the decline in state aides to the city, yet Mr Esslinger was the only councilor that in writing asked Rep Gregg Underheim to appear and explain why he continues to support these damaging cut to our city. You talk of growing the taxbase as though that has never been thought of before, as though that has no issues associated with that growth. Obviously you have not thought about what comes with growth, the call for even more and extended city services. Fire, Police, street, lighting, sewer, water,personal. Growth must be well thought out, planned and coordinated with County, City, Schools, etc. so that resources where they can, can be combined and maximized. Growth for the sake of saying you want it provides nothing but sprawl and cost. The communities ability to pay, and their input as to how the city will develop is esstential, and has been over looked far too often. You talk of investment, it in my opinion is not a wise investment to trade $20.00 an hour jobs for $6.00 an hour jobs and call it progess. You need to consider the multipler effect and this type of investment/employee/employer benefit not to mention the rationale to your board of director (they would be the taxpayers paying the tab). You also bastardized a study that Mr Esslinger and I both support for a city hall/fire station/police station for the city. The cost projections at that time were approx 26 million dollars. Instead you support a piece meal approach for esstential city services, the ones for which the city is charged with providing to her taxpayers, of buying a mold infected building that has no heating or cooling on premise(because it was run from the courthouse), a builing thaqt the roof is flat and will cause future problems due to arcitual design flaws, whoes third floor has been renedered useless due to heavy bars as it was used as a jail, this is your idea of wise use of taxpayers money. You speak of quality and yet you damn the most visable of city buildings to be put back together with bubble gum and scotch tape. But by all means lets have progress in downtown? I fail to see or remotely understand your logic or lack there of in my opinion. Further you state that MR Esslinger wanted his street done which cost the taxpayers a great deal of money, the last ime I looked Mr Esslinger has been unable to singlehandedly get anything done so you may want to review the vote on that issue. You may also want to check and see if that project wasn't indeed suggest by the city staff, and that the cost will be recapture upon annexation. As to your comments about the original bid for the Ampitheather, my understanding, there was no original bid the project deal was cut between the Leach family, the community foundation and CR Meyer, but please if you have documents proving the opposite please do share them. As for Mr Esslinger stopping by at budget time, I have worked with Mr Esslinger and I know first hand how much time, effort and energy he gives to this city council and the people of Oshkosh, this is even too cheap a shot for the likes of you to take.

I have enjoyed this execrise and hope that you will in the future find the courage and strength to share your name and your views if you want to be taken as more than just a person that has contempt for Oshkosh and her questioning people.

Melanie Bloechl

Congratulations on your award

Contributed by: Meredith S.

Kudos and congratulations should go out to Cheryl, Melanie and Tony for your award you have won. The time, effort and energy you put into your show, Eye On Oshkosh, clearly has paid off. You often present viewpoints that may differ from some, but you always present your information in a way that often leaves us thinking of alternate perspectives. Thank you for that!Your guests continue to be of great interest to many. Again, congratultations.

Regards,
Meredith Scheuermann

Eye on Oshkosh wins state award

I have been notified that "Eye on Oshkosh" has won an Award of Excellence from the Wisconsin Association of PEG Access Channels as part of the WAPC Video Festival.

There were more than 160 entries from over 25 Wisconsin communities and we were among 13 to receive this distinguished honor.

I am very grateful to the WAPC for this award and our entire crew wishes to thank them. I also want to personally thank the "Eye on Oshkosh" crew for all its hard work. These folks come in twice a month, some from out of town, and graciously volunteer their time. This award would not have been possible without them and I want them each to know how valuable they are to the success of the show and how deeply I appreciate having them a part of this program.

I also want to thank Melanie Bloechl for all her efforts during the first two years of the show. Though she needed to depart late last year because of professional commitments, etc., she was a part of the show for which we have received this award and it's only fitting that she share in the honor.

This show would not be possible without guests, so I feel it only fitting to thank the dozens of guests we've had on the show since its inception. They help make it what it is - informational, interesting and, often-times, controversial. But it is a highly watched show and that, I believe, is due in large part to the guests I have had the privilege of booking. So again, thanks to all the guests who have graced our set.

I also want to thank the staff at OCAT for their continued support and assistance when we need it. They have been wonderful to work with during the last 2 and 1/2 years or so and we look forward to a continued relationship with them.

Finally, I want to thank Tony Palmeri for all his efforts in stepping up to the plate when Melanie needed to step away. He is a true professional and it is indeed an honor and pleasure to have the opportunity to work with him.

Cheryl Hentz
Host/Producer, "Eye on Oshkosh"

We've now heard something from the Northwestern about the "no-bid bathrooms"

We have now heard from the Northwestern (http://www.wisinfo.com/northwestern/news/local/stories/local_20244137.shtml). At least we have had a piece written on the dispute and how the state still believes the city broke the law. It will be interesting to hear what their own opinion is, especially since they, too, supported waiving the bid process, despite their constant cheering for fair play. Hypocrisy on the part of the Northwestern - at least the editorial board - seems to be par for the course (no pun intended, Mr. Castle).

Kudos to Mr. Geoffrey Matze for having the courage to challenge city leaders when he believed that they did something wrong and overstepped their bounds. More cities need residents who are not afraid to have the courage of their convictions and who will stand up for what they believe is right.

While this is a sticky situation, for the Attorney General's office to take such a strong position on it without, as Mr. Kraft says, getting information from the city before rendering an opinion, suggests to me that the law is pretty clear on this matter. Moreover, the attorney in the AG's office says he did consider the contaminated soil issue when rendering his opinion.

Those things notwithstanding, I said several months ago that C. R. Meyer was and is certainly not the only contractor around who knows how to properly handle contaminated soil. Many contractors deal with such problems all the time and they are well-versed in how to handle them. I maintain that position because it is fact.

What I find particularly troubling is mayoral candidate Bill Castle's non-chalant attitude calling it a "non-event." Whether the city erred or not, the Attorney General's office is of the opinion that the city broke the law. That means that litigation could very well be coming down the pike. And litigation will undoubtedly cost this city something - if not financially, then certainly in reputation and image. Yet a man who wants to represent this community and its people has the attitude that it is no big deal and it can essentially be swept under the carpet!!

But I guess we should have expected such an attitude from the very man who boasted about his close personal relationship with the owner of C.R. Meyer and even discussed city business and a further business relationship with that very owner on the golf course. He also feels it's okay to continue voting on issues involving C.R. Meyer as they come up. So really, why should we be shocked over his latest remarks?

Whether the city truly erred or not, Bill Castle does not seem to be concerned with fair play - which is precisely why the state's bidding law was created in the first place. That is one of the biggest reasons he does not deserve to be mayor of this community.

As far as the amphitheater restrooms and concession area go, we need to take a good hard long look at this before allowing C.R. Meyer to proceed.

- Cheryl Hentz

AG's office gives "opinion" on Council's bid-waiving decision

[The following was originally published on an earlier version of Eye on Oshkosh, on March 15, 2005]

[The state Attorney General's office has rendered its position on the decision by the Oshkosh Common Council to waive bids for the bathroom and concession area down at Riverside Park. Oshkosh City Attorney Warren Kraft followed up by writing a letter to City Manager Richard Wollangk on why he disagreed with that position. "Eye on Oshkosh" co-host and "Radio Commentary" host Tony Palmeri has submitted the following editorial and it is included here with his permission.]

Three cheers to Geoffrey Matze (whom I do not know and have never met) for requesting an opinion from the attorney general's office on the amphitheatre bid waiver, and three cheers to the assistant attorney general for responding. I hope that Oshkosh News is able to obtain a copy of the assistant attorney general's opinion and will post it on this site. I find city attorney Kraft's memo to Mr. Wollangk extraordinary in the way it rewrites history in describing the rationale for waiving the bid.

In the memo, Mr. Kraft writes: "As the Community Development Director noted in his communications to the Council, the protection of the public's health, safety, and welfare was the first and foremost consideration to recommend a bid waiver." I do not know what communications Mr. Kraft is referring to, but I do know that the Council in December was provided with a December 9th, 2004 memo from Jackson Kinney to Dick Wollangk that requested the waiver. (see http://www.tonypalmeri.com/jackson1.htm). In that memo, Kinney provided three reasons for the waiver: 1. Given the "sensitive nature" of the site, it is in the city's best interest to have CR Meyer and its subcontractor Terra do the work as they have a "detailed understanding of the site conditions." 2. A need for "standardization and compatibility between the performance facility and other buildings in the phase 1 area." 3. Having CR Meyer do the work would "assist in efforts to open the facility for events on the earliest possible schedule."

Only reason #1 could be interpreted as having anything to do with the public's "health, welfare, and safety" and that is only using the most generous possible interpretation. I suspect that what happened here is that after Mr. Matze filed his complaint, Mr. Kraft and Mr. Kinney invented a new set of reasons for the waiver and, to his credit, the assistant attorney general did not buy it. Mr. Kraft concludes in his memo that the assistant attorney general's letter "cannot reverse the Council's approval, not does it halt the construction currently underway." This is true, but it is also true that the Council CAN reverse the Council's approval.

I would hope that one of the Councilors who voted for the waiver would read the assistant attorney general's letter and, if they come to the conclusion that his opinion is correct, move to have the Council reconsider the bid waiver. I also hope that from this point on, the city requests an opinion from the AG's office BEFORE waiving a bid.

--Tony Palmeri

AG's office gives "opinion" on Council's bid-waiving decision

[The state Attorney General's office has rendered its position on the decision by the Oshkosh Common Council to waive bids for the bathroom and concession area down at Riverside Park. Oshkosh City Attorney Warren Kraft followed up by writing a letter to City Manager Richard Wollangk on why he disagreed with that position.

"Eye on Oshkosh" co-host and "Radio Commentary" host Tony Palmeri has submitted the following editorial and it is included here with his permission.]



Three cheers to Geoffrey Matze (whom I do not know and have never met) for requesting an opinion from the attorney general's office on the amphitheatre bid waiver, and three cheers to the assistant attorney general for responding. I hope that Oshkosh News is able to obtain a copy of the assistant attorney general's opinion and will post it on this site.

I find city attorney Kraft's memo to Mr. Wollangk extraordinary in the way it rewrites history in describing the rationale for waiving the bid. In the memo, Mr. Kraft writes: "As the Community Development Director noted in his communications to the Council, the protection of the public's health, safety, and welfare was the first and foremost consideration to recommend a bid waiver."

I do not know what communications Mr. Kraft is referring to, but I do know that the Council in December was provided with a December 9th, 2004 memo from Jackson Kinney to Dick Wollangk that requested the waiver. (see http://www.tonypalmeri.com/jackson1.htm). In that memo, Kinney provided three reasons for the waiver:
1. Given the "sensitive nature" of the site, it is in the city's best interest to have CR Meyer and its subcontractor Terra do the work as they have a "detailed understanding of the site conditions."
2. A need for "standardization and compatibility between the performance facility and other buildings in the phase 1 area."
3. Having CR Meyer do the work would "assist in efforts to open the facility for events on the earliest possible schedule."

Only reason #1 could be interpreted as having anything to do with the public's "health, welfare, and safety" and that is only using the most generous possible interpretation.

I suspect that what happened here is that after Mr. Matze filed his complaint, Mr. Kraft and Mr. Kinney invented a new set of reasons for the waiver and, to his credit, the assistant attorney general did not buy it.

Mr. Kraft concludes in his memo that the assistant attorney general's letter "cannot reverse the Council's approval, not does it halt the construction currently underway." This is true, but it is also true that the Council CAN reverse the Council's approval. I would hope that one of the Councilors who voted for the waiver would read the assistant attorney general's letter and, if they come to the conclusion that his opinion is correct, move to have the Council reconsider the bid waiver.

I also hope that from this point on, the city requests an opinion from the AG's office BEFORE waiving a bid.

- Tony Palmeri

PMI Vs. Supple

Contributed by: Jim B.

Congratulations to the council on their decision last night! I am not sure why it was delayed, but I believe the right decision was made. This is an exciting time for Oshkosh, and I hope we make the best of it. This "locals only" approach from the Supple's is shortsighted and would be a disservice to the potential of this sweet venue. Weddings, reunions, etc. are not going to be what makes this venue successful!

As a sidenote, how about big props to the nice lady(didnt catch her name) from Adams St. at the public comments part of the meeting. Sandwiched between Ken "profanity laced" Bender and Gordon"off the deep end" Doule, very eloquently spoke about these obsessed people that get up and spout for 5 minutes incoherently. We are all for free speech, but these few people do not seem to have any regard for decorum or respect.

Jim B.

Former mayoral candidate in the dark on major issues

It is perhaps a good thing that Mark Madison was not given the nod in last month's primary.

His recent letter to the editor of the Oshkosh Northwestern about the delay in voting on a management group for the amphitheater makes it clear that he jumps to conclusions and doesn't have all his facts straight. He even suggested there was a vote by councilman Brian Poeschl. Perhaps Mr. Madison hasn't followed city politics long enough to know who Brian Poeschl actually is. But for the record, Mr. Poeschl was not even in attendance at the meeting when the vote to lay over the decision for two weeks was made.

Moreover, Mr. Madison's apparent belief that a council member should not have been on the selection committee for a promoter of the bandshell events tells me he STILL is not paying close enough attention to city issues. Even at least one of the "Cobblestoners'" opponents believes the committee should have had council member representation. It's called "taking a leadership role" and being both involved and responsible. But apparently those things aren't important to Mark Madison, unless of course he would have become mayor. Then they might be. He'd probably even have appointed himself to the committee.

Oshkosh voters made the right choice by not choosing him. Not every person knows every little thing about every issue, but we surely cannot afford to have someone in office who does not have the major details and facts on the major issues.

Cheryl Hentz

Mayor's Race

Contributed by: Jim B.
It is a good thing that the new mayor will not have anymore power than the other council members. It is ashame we will start this new political era in Oshkosh with one of two lousy candidates. I am struggling whether to even cast a vote in this race. I find neither candidate capable of representing our city as it should be in our current state of affairs.

Paul Esslinger always seems so negative about every issue. Watching him at the last council meeting call out Mark Harris on the concession/promotion debate of the Leach Ampitheater was irresponsible and immature. This is not the guy I want representing Oshkosh to the world. I appreciate his fiscal responsibility stance, but I have heard very little from him on alternatives and solutions.

I still wonder why Bill Castle is even running for mayor. Rarely do you see him taking part in the "ribbon cutting" type events that this mayor position will have to do. He was originally in favor of keeping the "council picks" the mayor system. He runs his business by the old school approach of nepotism and old boys network. Obviously, he can run his private business as he sees fit, but do we want that kind of attitude as mayor of Oshkosh? I really don't think so at this crucial time.

I would be interested to hear other opinions on who really is the better candidate. I think Oshkosh deserves better!!!

Jim B.