Bain-Blog

Sunday, March 04, 2007

Campaign updates

The League of Women Voters is again hosting a candidates forum this Wednesday at Oshkosh City Hall. The forum begins at 7:00 p.m. with the council candidates, followed by the school board candidates at 8:00 p.m. The forum will be broadcast live on OCAT Channel 10 and 101.9FM, WOCT. Citizens are encouraged to submit questions for the candidates by March 5th via email. Due to a death in Frank Tower's family, the mayoral forum has been canceled.

I will be taping a segment of Eye on Oshkosh on Thursday evening. Please check Cheryl's blog or my website for replay times on Channel 2.

Ron Hardy, aka Babblemur, has an interesting assessment of the council race that's worth checking out.

Miles Maguire and several of his students have been busy covering the election. Miles has again put together the Voter Information Project website to provide a centralized location for the stories. I also have links to the stories on my website.

Finally, if you have not done so already, I encourage you to check out the online forum taking place on the Oshkosh Northwestern's website.

Only 30 more days until the election (April 3rd)!

-Bryan

UPDATE: Check out Babblemur's new poll, and be sure to vote!

posted by Bryan L. Bain at 3/04/2007 08:09:00 PM

18 Comments:

  • Bryans comment:
    "I'm not exactly sure what you are asking, but my view of bargaining with city employees is that we do it in accordance with the law, in good faith and in a spirit of what is best for the city of Oshkosh."

    Oops...What a bunch of spin that is. Bryan, I'm a bit ashamed! You had my vote until you posted that lame "no answer" answer.

    I know the city unions endorsed you, but alot of us here in Oshkosh think the bleeding has to end, and that means fixing the excessive benefit mess we're in. The folks in our city unions are draining the funds in this city and SOMEBODY is gonna have to have the guts to fix it.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at March 05, 2007 7:15 PM  

  • Anonymous 7:15 p.m.-
    Here is the question that was posed to us on the Northwestern's website: "My question for the city council candidates is what are their views on bargaining with the city union workers."

    I gave my views - that the city should enter into bargaining with city employees in good faith and with the mindset of doing what is best for the city, which includes quality and quantity of services provided, compensation packages (including salaries and benefits), etc.

    With all due respect, I disagree with your assessment of my answer. There was no attempt by me to spin or not answer the question. I simply provided my views on the collective bargaining process as a whole and did not get into specific goals or objectives, which can change from contract to contract.

    -Bryan

    By Blogger Bryan L. Bain, at March 05, 2007 7:50 PM  

  • So then, what is your idea of a "fair" increase per year? Do you think that the contracts that were settled to this point were within reason or should the unions have given more concessions with the benefit percentage? Does the cap on the dollar amount effect the percentage during the life of the contract? Or will we see the actual percentage get paid by the city workers?

    These and many more unanswered questions surround the contracts with city unions. It is no surprise that they would endorse those that will see their point of view.

    Did they support a Mayor candidate?

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

  • Anonymous 11:57 a.m.-
    I believe the city made some progress in the recent contracts that were approved, particularly in the area of health care, otherwise, I would not have voted to approve them.

    We (the city) had to make some concessions just as the union did, but that's the nature of collective bargaining. City employees will become responsible for more of their health care premimums in each year of the three-year contract.

    As for salaries, the city should remain comparable to our comparison cities so that we don't automatically force the issue of arbitration. I support using the cost of living index as a guide, but we also must factor in specific budgetary issues that we currently are dealing with, e.g., a 2% levy freeze.

    All approved contracts are a matter of public record, so I encourage you or anyone else who has questions to stop by City Hall to review them. Hopefully this will help alleviate any unanswered questions.

    -Bryan

    By Blogger Bryan L. Bain, at March 06, 2007 9:57 PM  

  • Have the health care providers agreed to a 3 year freeze in the rates? If so, then the increase in premium percentage will actually be realized. If not, the cap on the monthly dollar amount will prevent any percentage from being a factor. The cost of health care premiums increases every year and that cap is what limits the council. If you voted in favor of a cap, you are no different than your fellow councilors that "overlooked" this detail.

    Union 1, Taxpayers 0. Again.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at March 07, 2007 7:23 AM  

  • Anonymous 7:23 a.m.-
    It's clear to me that you are not satisfied with the contracts that already have been settled, and nothing I say is going to change that. I respect your opinion, but disagree with it.

    If you have not done so already, I encourage you to look at some of our comparison communities (Appleton, Fond du Lac, Sheboygan, etc.). I believe we made progress in the area of health care, and think you will find we are not so out of whack as some would lead us to believe.

    The bottom line is this: Did the city get everything it wanted? No. Did the unions get everything it wanted? No. The caps were not originally something the city wanted, but in the end, agreed to compromise on since our consultants believed we still would be able to realize some savings.

    I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this with you, but think we might have to agree to disagree on this one.

    -Bryan

    By Blogger Bryan L. Bain, at March 07, 2007 8:07 AM  

  • Agreeing to disagree is fine in most cases but the pay and benefits of employees is nearly 90% of the operating budget and that number will rise as long as the council continues to give the unions the advantage.

    We need people on the council that are willing to question the status quo and go after the benefit packages. Other communities may or may not agree or they are just waiting for someone to take the lead. Who knows, but if the council doesn't try, who will?

    My vote is going to those who are willing to do the job.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at March 07, 2007 10:22 AM  

  • anonymous.
    I applaude your attempt to drill down for more concrete answers.
    ALL the candidates want to stay away from specifics associated with union contracts. They all know that the 600+ city union worker voting block is important for them to be elected. The result however, as you point out so very clearly is...
    Taxpayers - O
    Unions - 1

    Somebody needs to stand up to the status quo and change a system thats broken.

    Does ANYONE know of a candidate running that is willing to challenge unions?

    These contracts are for a 3 year period, so ever time one is radified, we taxpayers dole out the big bucks for another 3 years.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at March 07, 2007 11:50 AM  

  • Anonymous 10:22 a.m. & 11:50 a.m.-
    The law requires quid pro quo. That means if the city asks for a concession from a union, we are required to give them something of equal value. We cannot demand payment of 15-20% of health care premimums by our employees without offering something of equal value, either in salary or other benefits. It's a "catch 22."

    It's easy for a candidate or current council member to say more employee concessions must be made, but what are they willing to give in return so that the laws surrounding negotiations are met?

    That's why I support the steps we've made working with city employees (having them pay more toward their health care costs).

    We also should focus on new employees, and what we can do differently with their contracts, so that we start them off at a higher percentage of payment. I believe that is where the most impact can be made.

    When I met with AFSCME representatives and the firefighters, I indicated that changes would need to be made, but that the city and unions needed to work together and be reasonable with one another. I think that's the best approach to contract negotiations.

    -Bryan

    By Blogger Bryan L. Bain, at March 07, 2007 1:10 PM  

  • Bryan said union negotiations are a "catch 22"

    Dictionary.com
    Catch-22
    1. a frustrating situation in which one is trapped by contradictory regulations or conditions.
    2. any illogical or paradoxical problem or situation; dilemma.
    3. a condition, regulation, etc., preventing the resolution of a problem or situation; catch.

    We need a candidate to step in and rather than through hands in the air and say "illogical, frustrating,contradictory, trapped"...get the SYSTEM CHANGED!

    This challenge requires a LEADER, not a follower.

    Who's ready to take the challenge of fixing a problem, not just putting more lipstick on the pig!?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at March 07, 2007 1:34 PM  

  • It has to be changed at the state level. That means your state assembly people. A city council member can not make the changes you want or expect. Are you being equally assertive with the state reps, and not just the one who serves your district? tell them all how you feel and what needs to be changed. Don't make it the sole mission of 7 people in city government whose hands are tied by the laws made by state reps.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at March 07, 2007 3:38 PM  

  • 3:38 You bet I am. And I've recruited many of my friends and co-workers to write also. Until the cycle of "follow-the-other-city" is broken, we taxpayers will continue to be held hostage by governement employees. At somepoint a city council, Mayor, or city governing body is going to have to say...here is the line in the sand. It stops here. Go to arbitration. Lay off large amounts of employees DO SOMETHING to stop the "catch 22" cycle. I'm doing my part. Now somebody on a city levels going to have to be bold and play some hardball with these people.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at March 07, 2007 5:44 PM  

  • Sorry but you're wrong. Until the laws get changed at the state level the city can only do so much. And I have a sneaking suspicion that no matter what gets done, it will never be enough for some. Concessions were made this time around and more will probably come in the future. But they can only be made so far. That's the law.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at March 07, 2007 10:33 PM  

  • Laws are able to be changed.

    We need leadership to drive that change.

    We have a huge gaping whole called "public service employees wages and benefits" that needs to be plugged. The gravey train needs to halt.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at March 08, 2007 7:11 AM  

  • But a city council member can't change the laws. You're barking up the wrong tree.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at March 09, 2007 8:06 AM  

  • It will be interesting to listen to the council meeting tonight. For the sake of money invested in the Leach will council approve Waterfest activities as is or give them a curfew?
    Will they allow Waterfest to continue to operate in violation of city ordinances? City parks close @11 Noise ordinance allows noise up to 10. How this vote comes down should determine who
    we re-elect.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at March 13, 2007 9:17 AM  

  • Several excellent choices are available this year.
    Bain will be one of those elected.
    Palmeri stands a good chance.
    I think Cornell will get alot of the senior citizen votes, and that group comes out in droves to actually cast a ballot vs the "rock the vote" UW student group.
    King and Scheurmann seem to be alot alike. I don't think either will be elected...but certainly Scheurmann will NOT be given a second term.
    Mark N did a much better job in the last forum, and I just might cast a vote for him. I don't think he has wide voter appeal, but his comments are right on target in many cases.

    I predict:
    Bain-Palmeri-Cornell

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at March 13, 2007 2:53 PM  

  • I was impressed with Meredith at last nights meeting. Unfortunity it is probably to little too late. Her 'new' attitude and concern for taxpayers should have been visible earlier in her policial career.
    I was also happy to hear to softer approach used by Paul, enough to make me re-evaluate my vote?? not sure but the upcoming debates will be interesting.
    We am still concerned about the "druckfests" at the Leach and lack of concern from our council for the neighborhood. There are serious violations of city ordinances plus added $$$ for police overtime.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at March 14, 2007 8:53 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home