Bain-Blog

Wednesday, January 31, 2007

Candidate forum replay times

Last night, the candidates for school board and common council discussed the issues at the League of Women Voters forum. In case you missed it, below are replay times on CitiCable 10:

01/31 & 02/01: 7:00 p.m.
02/03: 12:00 p.m. & 4:00 p.m.
02/04: 12:00 p.m. & 7:00 p.m.

I assume there will be additional replay times. Please check the OCAT website for updated information.

-Bryan

posted by Bryan L. Bain at 1/31/2007 12:16:00 PM

28 Comments:

  • I plan to vote:

    Palmeri
    Monte
    Bain

    Please join me!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at January 31, 2007 9:28 PM  

  • I just finished watching the tape of the league of women’s voters’ candidates’ forum for the city council.
    We truly have a wonderful slate of candidates running this election cycle.
    I intend to vote for the following (in no particular order):
    Bain
    Monte
    Palmeri

    If I would be able to cast a fourth vote, that vote would be for King.

    Please watch a replay of this forum and listen closely to the answers given. The slate of candidates I will be voting for, are candidates who will support the average Oshkosh working class citizen. These candidates are forward thinking, with an eye towards accountability in city government.

    Please join me on February 20th and support:
    Bain
    Monte
    Palmeri
    For Oshkosh Common Council

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at February 01, 2007 7:44 PM  

  • I also think we have a wonderful slate of candidates running for the Common Council this election cycle. Since I have not totally made up my mind I want to hear more after all we have over 2 weeks to decide. How did you come to up with the choices you did.

    WHY 7:44PM What qualities do these three have
    What qualities make them the BEST choice over any others?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at February 02, 2007 8:02 AM  

  • If I were to vote today I would cast my vote for:

    Bain
    King
    Scheuerman

    These are forward thinking candidates, willing to listen candidates. They also address accountability in city government.

    We do have 2+ weeks to decide yet so I want to hear more from/ or about the other candidates.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at February 02, 2007 8:19 AM  

  • Bain is excellent.
    King is also worth consideration. She would be a close 4th on my pick list.
    I won't support Scheuerman again. I did last election and now regret it. She was a disapointment. I expected much more from her and she did not deliver.
    I think Tony Palmeri is a excellent choice. He will be a watchdog for the taxpayer. He still wants reform and improvement (especially to the tax base) but wants more accountability in city government. Kent Monte is cut out of the same cloth.
    Bain, Monte and Palmeri are good choices if you want accountable growth for Oshkosh.
    Bain, Monte and Palmeri are good choices if you want more accountability for Oshkosh city administration and govenment.
    Bain, Monte and Palmeri are good choices if you want focus on the elderly in Oshkosh and their ability to pay rising property taxes.
    Bain, Monte and Palmeri are good choices because they will not be lap dogs to the status quo good-ol-boy network that trys to control the issues in this city.
    Bain, Monte and Palmeri are good choices! VOTE for THEM on Feb 20th!!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at February 02, 2007 10:40 AM  

  • Bain
    King
    Scheuerman or Cornell

    Two have proven records to move Oshkosh forward and Ms King and Mr Cornell seem to be open minded and willing to listen to both sides of an issue.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at February 02, 2007 11:12 AM  

  • Would it bother you to have 3 University representatives on the Council?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at February 02, 2007 11:15 AM  

  • My votes go to
    Bain
    Schuermann
    Cornell
    for the experience they provide.

    King
    will get my final vote and I really like what BOTH King and Cornell represent.
    Given the "REAL" choice I would rather have both(King and Cornell)

    RECALL Esslinger or McHugh! NO more "GOTCHA" politics

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at February 02, 2007 11:26 AM  

  • I find it interesting that ALL the candidates seem, at least at the LWV forum, to have fairly major issues with the current administration (manager) and how that job is currently performed.
    I also see that they all seem to think there are ways to run the city better and that department MGR's need a little kick in the butt to get things on track. Some more than others...but they all seem to be thinking along those lines. I think thats good for Oshkosh.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at February 02, 2007 12:00 PM  

  • Bain
    Palmeri
    Stumped on third (maybe King)

    Out with Schuermann.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at February 03, 2007 4:12 PM  

  • Palmeri was an "I man" "I will do this" "I will do that" "I make city hall Nervous"
    Never once did I haer him say he was willing to work with other councilors. Never once did I hear hime say we.
    Do we need another "me" "I" councilor not willing to recognize the fact he has but one vote?
    Mr Palmeri wants to appoint a "blue ribbon" committee to study poverty in the city. Why? we know we have the problem what are the solutions?
    Shouldn't he as an elected officer study the problems of the city himself and bring solutions?

    MS King stated some excellent solutions and stated she was willing to work hard as a representative of the poeple not delegate the duties to someone else. I vote for

    Bain
    Cornell
    King

    They offer the best chances for progress and improvment for our Community

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at February 04, 2007 8:48 AM  

  • Right now I'd vote-
    Bain (should be running for mayor)
    Palmeri
    King

    WILL NOT VOTE - EVER for-
    Scheuerman

    Might be persuaded based on more info to-
    Monte

    The other two
    Cornell and the other guy just don't cut it in a group thats so good.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at February 04, 2007 9:46 AM  

  • Bain is a lock!
    A vote for Schueremann "Monte thinks she is so terrible," so there must be some real positives about her.
    Along with those positives she brings back experience to the council.
    Cornell and King offer cooperation and a willingness to work with city staff and other leaders of the community (University, Chamco and OACDC)

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at February 05, 2007 7:58 AM  

  • It takes a majority to do anything.

    Cornell and King would build a consenus and look at both sides of the issues. Both seem intelligent as well as independent BUT
    No sure which one gets the vote.

    Bryan and Meredith would add experience and with 2 experienced leaders leaving the council could use some level-headed members.
    YES for Bryan
    Yes for Meredith

    Palmeri is the "I this I that" candidate. NO

    Monte is manipulative and has the "sky is falling attitude".
    vote NO WAY

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at February 05, 2007 8:02 AM  

  • I for one think more intensive investigation and a closer look is required regarding Chamco and OCDC/OAEDC (or whatever alphabet soup they use these days).

    I commend Doug Pearson for his efforts to attract and retain business and industry. Doug wanted to take in retail as well but was shot down. The Rob Klemann who was doing retail and getting no where now seems to want to do commercial (non-retail) and some industrial.

    This all has a distinct odor about it. Palmeri alluded to it in his statement and I for one agree. That type of tenacious investigation and intensity for truth and facts is what we need. Castle and Maddox are prime examples of administration “yes” men and that’s what we don’t need.

    Just about everyone mentioned at the LWV forum that the public perception of the administration isn’t good. It’s kind of like the public perception of the Bush administration. People are not happy and want change. I believe some fairly significant change will occur during this election cycle.

    I plan to vote:
    Bain
    Palmeri
    King or Monte

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at February 05, 2007 10:07 AM  

  • I find it interesting that everyone either had one of two opinions on doing the city audit study.

    1) Do it because its money well spent and there will be a pay back.
    2) If the city mgr can’t find excess, and drive improvement, fire him and hire somebody who can, but don’t spend the money.

    Either way, it looks like at least to me that most who are running for the council are saying that the current city mgr needs to be held more accountable. If I was Richard Wollangk I guess I might be dusting off my resume.

    Can you say “change is good”!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at February 05, 2007 10:19 AM  

  • I would prefer "balance" on the Common Council.
    We now have tenacious investigation and intensity for truth and fact-finders with McHugh and Esslinger.
    We have 2 repersentatives(Tower and Bain)from the University asking tough questions and getting all sides of an issue.
    I think Cornell and King offer independent viewpoints. Both speak of willingness to listen to both sides of an issue. Both speak of the importance of "building a case" for the "smart" vote. I think
    both would be good choices to obtain some balance and equal representation for all citizens. They both recognize they can not do it alone it will take ALL members of the councilor to move Oshkosh forward.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at February 05, 2007 10:24 AM  

  • Can someone please answer these??

    When did we first hear of the need for a city audit?
    Was McHugh on the council at that time?
    I recall Esslinger mentioning it but couldn't get support.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at February 05, 2007 10:30 AM  

  • Bottom-line… It's all about 4 votes.

    The 4 votes we had, were generally in favor and supportive of the current administration and methods. I think you will see that shift this election cycle.

    The new council seated will be 4 votes that tend to challenge the current status quo and insist on a much higher level of accountability and justification from our Manager and his staff.

    Leadership, accountability, fiduciary responsibility and justification are the hot topics in the circle people that I discuss city politics with.

    “Change is Good”!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at February 05, 2007 11:00 AM  

  • Hummm.

    Seems our Mr. Underheim is getting into his new role of "just plain citizen"

    Always looking out for the average citizen huh Gregg? Glad to see Gordo will be taking over you spot, maybe now the state will know where Oshkosh is!


    As posted on the Palmeri Blog:

    skeptic eclectic (Gregg Underheim)said...
    Okay you have listed concerns. What will you actually do? Seems to me to be some of the same old platitudes with no specifics...well stated platitudes...in fact, eloquent platitudes...but pretty much platitudes. Hmmm...I think I'll start a blog to "watch Tony".
    You know what...I am having a good time not on the ballot.

    Gregg Underheim



    Again, the "Old Guard" - status quo does not want change. I think that in-itself is reason we need change!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at February 05, 2007 11:49 AM  

  • The new council seated will be 4 votes that tend to challenge the current status quo and insist on a much higher level of accountability and justification from our Manager and his staff.

    ???? 4 votes Please clarify you thinking here.

    Esslinger and McHuge are two
    Tower/Bain will review each issue individually but it is possible we will still have the 5 to 2 status on any issues.

    We are electing but 3 new councilors and one new mayor.
    Not sure what you mean by 4 votes etc?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at February 05, 2007 1:28 PM  

  • Sounds like Gregg is spewing standard republican rhetoric. These guys that constantly screw up and then try to justify it by crying the “well what would you do” mantra don’t get it. The act of doing is not the goal, the act of doing it correctly is. In City government our council people don’t need to have it all figured out…THAT’S WHAT DICK and CREW get the big bucks for. Our city council needs to hold DICK and CREW’s feet to the fire and have them figure it out! Im voting - Palmeri, Bain and Monte. I agree Bain should have run for Mayor.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at February 05, 2007 1:32 PM  

  • From Kent Monte Blog:
    "Only 2 days before that visit, I had an interview with AFSCME union members (all candidates were invited for potential endorsement) and at this meeting I was criticized for my positions that I have taken. Some senior union members feel that the productivity study and alternate health benefits are a bad idea. Well, I need to point out that the 1400 (approximate) people that this clinic served last year are all contributing to the city employees health plan. Maybe not directly, but they are paying for it. Do you want to tell them that they are paying for someone else to have insurance while they have none of their own? Do you want to tell them that there are cheaper alternatives but the city is not willing to explore them?"

    This is why I intend to vote for Kent Monte. He has the GUTS to stand up to a huge voting block. CIty Union workers...and even though he may not get there votes, he's not intimidated.

    Kent is spot-on correct on this issue. EVERY council candidate should take a similar stance.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at February 05, 2007 9:24 PM  

  • We vote for Change and Proven Leadership Bain and King.
    It is important that the representatives serving on the Oshkosh Common Council identify with the needs of their constituents. These candidates identify with the struggles faced by many Oshkosh families as they preserve the dignity of their elders, save for their retirement, and prepare the foundation for future generations.

    Bryan & Jessica BOTH have the desire to serve the community, and are prepared to stand up for quality of life. BOTH have the knowledge, skills and experience to develop and advance public policy while keeping the budget and city hall in check. Both have proven coalition builders who will make Oshkosh stronger.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at February 06, 2007 10:07 AM  

  • Proven leadership and desire for change....
    (as listed on his website)
    Toni Palmeri
    I’m 45 years old, own a home near City Hall, and have been a resident of Oshkosh for 18 years. I’ve taught at UW Oshkosh for all of those years. In addition to teaching I have served as Chair of the Department of Communication, President of the Faculty Senate, and president of the Association of University of Wisconsin Professionals. I’m currently serving as President of the Wisconsin Communication Association, an organization that named me “Communication Educator of the Year” in 2004.

    Many Oshkosh residents recognize me from the public affairs television show “Commentary” I co-hosted with former Mayor Jim Mather, or from “Eye on Oshkosh” which I co-host with Cheryl Hentz. On those programs I have developed a reputation as someone who does his homework, asks tough but fair questions, speaks truth to power, and helps educate the community on important issues. I will bring those same qualities to the Council.

    On Feb 20th, VOTE:
    BAIN - PALMERI - MONTE

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at February 06, 2007 11:57 AM  

  • To ALL Oshkosh Common Council Candidates:

    One topic that has been discussed at length on many blogs is the current state of compensation for city labor.

    Most city employees are represented by one of many unions. The council has approved the labor contract with the Oshkosh Police Supervisor’s Association. Several other union contracts are yet to be voted on:
    -Oshkosh Professional Police Officers Association.
    -Oshkosh Fire Department Chief Officers.
    -Oshkosh Clerical,Paraprofessional Union Local 796-B, AFL-CIO
    -Oshkosh City Employee Union Local 796, AFSCME, AFL-CIO
    …just to name a few.

    Negotiations with these unions occur only every 2-3 years on a cycle. Most of the negotiations are held in executive session and none are broadcast so we the taxpayers can see what takes place.

    Our city budget for the 2007 calendar year is about $60,000,000.00. Of that sum, we see the city administration justify about 13% of it during the workshop sessions. That 13% equates to about $7,800,000.00. That $7,800,000.00 covers every operational expense other than labor costs, to run our entire city for an entire year.

    The remaining portion of the $60,000,000.00 budget is set aside to fund wages and benefits to all city employees…union and non-union. 87% of the entire budget covers wages and benefits. That 87% equates to about $52,000,000.00.

    Of the $52,000,000.00 set aside for labor compensation, $6,000,000.00 is earmarked to cover healthcare costs for our employees. The city taxpayers fund about $10,000.00 per employee to cover just healthcare costs. Taxpayers fund 95-97% while the city employee contributes 3-5%.

    Please review and provide your input in these questions:


    Background A-
    We often hear the City Manager complain that the State mandated levy freeze hurts our city. We rarely hear him mention that the State mandated labor arbitration laws and quid pro quo laws also hurt our city. These laws were enacted, as critical public safety positions such as police, fire, water treatment etc are unable to conduct a labor negotiation strike. Arbitration and quid-pro-quo were offered in lieu of the ability to conduct a strike…however the result is the law stops us from truly negotiating with the union, as arbitrators will ultimately make the final compensation decision.

    Question #1
    What is your opinion on the quid-pro-quo and arbitration laws?

    Question #2
    Do you feel all represented employees deserve protection under these laws, or should they be reserved for specifically Public Safety and Municipal Critical positions? (ie: Police and Fire vs. Parks and City Hall Clerks)

    Question #3
    The laws as currently structured clearly stop us from truly negotiating with the unions, the laws are slanted to favor unions and punish municipalities. What do you intend to do, to level the playing field for the negotiation process?


    Background B –
    Healthcare costs are spiraling out-of-control. About $6,000,000.00 is spent each year on employee healthcare. Taxpayers fund 95-97% while the city employee contributes 3-5%.

    Question #1
    It is reported that the average private sector per person cost for healthcare is about $5,000.00 - $6,000.00. The city spends about $10,000.00. What do you intend to do to significantly lower healthcare costs?

    Question #2
    It is reported that the average in the private sector is an 80/20 split. Employers pay 80% and employees contribute the remaining 20% of healthcare costs. Our city employee ratio is more like 95/5. What do you intend to do to bring the employees contribution more in-line with the private sector? What percentage ratio split, city/employee do you feel is a reasonable goal to work towards?


    Background C-
    As everyone knows, many public meetings are held to discuss the City operating budget. Line items are reviewed. Department Managers are asked to make justifications and a great deal of emphasis is placed on trying to insure each dollar is spent wisely. However, we rarely ever hear open discussion about the biggest expense the city has…wage and benefit compensation costs associated with labor.

    Question #1
    Assuming there are laws around disclosure of information during negotiations, what do you intend to do to make the next contract negotiation process more open and transparent for the taxpayers?

    Question #2
    As labor costs are clearly by far the largest expense our city incurs, it would seem far more effort be placed on labor costs than operational costs. What do you intend to do to insure the city administration places more efforts in these areas?


    Taxpayers want to maintain our quality of life in Oshkosh. By restructuring labor costs, many more quality of life projects could occur with no added tax increases for Oshkosh taxpayers…and city employees would still maintain a very fair and equitable compensation package.

    In closing, Oshkosh taxpayers and voters will support candidates that have the best interest of the taxpayer as their top priority. We want Council members that are focused as much on controlling run-away labor costs as they are focused on downtown or river front issues.

    Thank you for your consideration.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at February 06, 2007 12:54 PM  

  • If we look hard enough we probably can find fault with any one of the candidates. Some faults are just more visible than others but the greater fault is the people that don’t vote. If you don’t vote you lose the right to complain!

    Candidates were asked if there is the disconnect between city hall and the council. I believe the disconnect starts at the voting booth. What was the percentage of Oshkosh citizens that got out to vote last November?
    We have to VOTE!
    We don’t trust city hall, we don’t like politicians, there are facets of politics that none of us likes; but none are a big enough reason to not vote.
    Staying away from the voting booth will not solve any problems our city facing. We can gripe about the city manager, the benefits that public employees get but pissing and moaning will not get it done. It all can start with a single vote at the polls. We have young men and women fighting and putting their lives on the line so another country’s citizens can have the freedom to cast a vote. A freedom we here in Oshkosh that for granted. I don’t care which candidate you want to cast your vote for JUST DO IT VOTE

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at February 06, 2007 3:31 PM  

  • Geez...No one seems to want to tackle answering these questions.

    To ALL Oshkosh Common Council Candidates:

    One topic that has been discussed at length on many blogs is the current state of compensation for city labor.

    Most city employees are represented by one of many unions. The council has approved the labor contract with the Oshkosh Police Supervisor’s Association. Several other union contracts are yet to be voted on:
    -Oshkosh Professional Police Officers Association.
    -Oshkosh Fire Department Chief Officers.
    -Oshkosh Clerical,Paraprofessional Union Local 796-B, AFL-CIO
    -Oshkosh City Employee Union Local 796, AFSCME, AFL-CIO
    …just to name a few.

    Negotiations with these unions occur only every 2-3 years on a cycle. Most of the negotiations are held in executive session and none are broadcast so we the taxpayers can see what takes place.

    Our city budget for the 2007 calendar year is about $60,000,000.00. Of that sum, we see the city administration justify about 13% of it during the workshop sessions. That 13% equates to about $7,800,000.00. That $7,800,000.00 covers every operational expense other than labor costs, to run our entire city for an entire year.

    The remaining portion of the $60,000,000.00 budget is set aside to fund wages and benefits to all city employees…union and non-union. 87% of the entire budget covers wages and benefits. That 87% equates to about $52,000,000.00.

    Of the $52,000,000.00 set aside for labor compensation, $6,000,000.00 is earmarked to cover healthcare costs for our employees. The city taxpayers fund about $10,000.00 per employee to cover just healthcare costs. Taxpayers fund 95-97% while the city employee contributes 3-5%.

    Please review and provide your input in these questions:


    Background A-
    We often hear the City Manager complain that the State mandated levy freeze hurts our city. We rarely hear him mention that the State mandated labor arbitration laws and quid pro quo laws also hurt our city. These laws were enacted, as critical public safety positions such as police, fire, water treatment etc are unable to conduct a labor negotiation strike. Arbitration and quid-pro-quo were offered in lieu of the ability to conduct a strike…however the result is the law stops us from truly negotiating with the union, as arbitrators will ultimately make the final compensation decision.

    Question #1
    What is your opinion on the quid-pro-quo and arbitration laws?

    Question #2
    Do you feel all represented employees deserve protection under these laws, or should they be reserved for specifically Public Safety and Municipal Critical positions? (ie: Police and Fire vs. Parks and City Hall Clerks)

    Question #3
    The laws as currently structured clearly stop us from truly negotiating with the unions, the laws are slanted to favor unions and punish municipalities. What do you intend to do, to level the playing field for the negotiation process?


    Background B –
    Healthcare costs are spiraling out-of-control. About $6,000,000.00 is spent each year on employee healthcare. Taxpayers fund 95-97% while the city employee contributes 3-5%.

    Question #1
    It is reported that the average private sector per person cost for healthcare is about $5,000.00 - $6,000.00. The city spends about $10,000.00. What do you intend to do to significantly lower healthcare costs?

    Question #2
    It is reported that the average in the private sector is an 80/20 split. Employers pay 80% and employees contribute the remaining 20% of healthcare costs. Our city employee ratio is more like 95/5. What do you intend to do to bring the employees contribution more in-line with the private sector? What percentage ratio split, city/employee do you feel is a reasonable goal to work towards?


    Background C-
    As everyone knows, many public meetings are held to discuss the City operating budget. Line items are reviewed. Department Managers are asked to make justifications and a great deal of emphasis is placed on trying to insure each dollar is spent wisely. However, we rarely ever hear open discussion about the biggest expense the city has…wage and benefit compensation costs associated with labor.

    Question #1
    Assuming there are laws around disclosure of information during negotiations, what do you intend to do to make the next contract negotiation process more open and transparent for the taxpayers?

    Question #2
    As labor costs are clearly by far the largest expense our city incurs, it would seem far more effort be placed on labor costs than operational costs. What do you intend to do to insure the city administration places more efforts in these areas?


    Taxpayers want to maintain our quality of life in Oshkosh. By restructuring labor costs, many more quality of life projects could occur with no added tax increases for Oshkosh taxpayers…and city employees would still maintain a very fair and equitable compensation package.

    In closing, Oshkosh taxpayers and voters will support candidates that have the best interest of the taxpayer as their top priority. We want Council members that are focused as much on controlling run-away labor costs as they are focused on downtown or river front issues.

    Thank you for your consideration.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at February 14, 2007 11:34 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home