Why is the common council waiting to fill Esslinger's seat? We just had an election, seems to me it is perfectly logical to appoint the 4th place finisher. How it could possibly be seen as "more democratic" for the 6 council members to hand pick the 7th member is beyond me. Isn't that why we went to an elected mayor, because we didn't want the council members deciding who the mayor would be? Why is it suddenly OK to disregard the people's wishes and interview and select a councilor rather than appoint the next highest vote getter? Seems to me it flies in the face of democracy.
Next, will this council make changes so that ANY sitting councilor loses their seat when running for mayor and would only be on the council if elected mayor? It seems wrong to only penalize 1/2 the council if they would choose to run for mayor and we really don't want to be appointing a councilor to a seat every 2 years. I'm not holding my breath that the council will even consider fixing this problem, but they should.
I will be watching carefully to see if the new mayor is able to keep any of his promises to taxpayers and if not what the excuses/reasons are. At the end of 2 years, will a majority, half, a quarter, any more than last year, of our streets be fixed? Will there be any new development or will developers find the Oshkosh Common Council to be unfriendly? Will anyone care? Will our streets still flood 5 years from now? Will all areas missing sidewalks have them in the next two years???
I'm not optimistic, but I am willing to watch with an open mind to see what kinds of decisions this new council makes.
10 comments:
You can't know if this is a good decision until to see who he applicants are.
I don't like the process regardless the result. We just had an election that process should be honored not the council "hiring" a council member.
While I see your point, I also see that we elected those that are making this decision. They represent us, so I don't see a problem with their decision to take this option. The vote count between 4th and 5th was so close, had it been 3rd and 4th, there could have been a recount. In this case, voter intent was not absolutely clear.
In addition, we are talking a one year appointment, not a full term. In this case, I could see opening it up to a past council member and let this year's candidates run again next year for a full term.
The biggest reason I can see for people criticizing this option is that they voted for the 4th place candidate and want their guy in. If the majority of the community wanted that gentleman, he would have been in the top three or taken fourth by a larger margin. He clearly does not have the support.
Just my humble opinion.
Going a step farther on the last comment...
If indeed we do allow Cummings to take the seat because he was "fourth place", do we grant Hinz a recount because he was only 24 votes short? Legally he would have the right to do a recount at our expense but now that the election is closed, it is not possible.
Please explain to me why this community voted to elect a mayor if they are supposedly happy with the council "hand picking" a council member to replace the mayor? At least when the council picked the mayor ALL councilors had been elected by the public.
We just had an election, it seems to me selecting the next highest vote getter gives the voters the most say in who should serve.
Applications and interviews leaves the public out of the process. That really isn't what some of the council members ran on to get elected.
Questioning said...
Please explain to me why this community voted to elect a mayor if they are supposedly happy with the council "hand picking" a council member to replace the mayor? At least when the council picked the mayor ALL councilors had been elected by the public.
We just had an election, it seems to me selecting the next highest vote getter gives the voters the most say in who should serve.
Applications and interviews leaves the public out of the process. That really isn't what some of the council members ran on to get elected.
May 4, 2009 8:44 AM
BlahBlahBlah.
Like the guy said, if they wanted Cummings he would have won. But truth is, he LOST. Losers Loose, Cummings lost.
Putting Cummings on for the remainder of the term, which is less than one year, makes the most sense, especially since the election was just held. The council wants public input. What better input than the votes of confidence by all those people? Instead we'll see 4 of them stacking the deck with one of their own and Cobblestoners throughout the city can rejoice.
BTW so disappointed in Bob Poeschl already for just "going along" with others on the council. He was elected for his politics, not to go along with those of others.
Well how about appointing Frank Tower to the seat? He got more votes than Poeschl, Cummings, Hinz or O'Day.
That's fine with this blogger. Although the argument would surely be made that he was not running for a city council seat but for mayor. Still the mayor's position is a council seat, so go for it. I don't think you'll get 4 votes for him either though.
I'm loving the election results. Tony Palmeri is awesome and this new school board is much more professional than the tatoo laden previous board majority. Keep it up guys. Harley Davidison has their member back!
Post a Comment