A personal tale about Paul Esslinger

About two years ago, when I was just a young man of 20, I too experienced the rath of now-Mayor Paul Esslinger.

No, he didn't try to make me pay for excess pavement, his apparent favorite method of payback, but rather arbitrarily decided to shun an entire news organization.

I was working as an intern for Oshkosh News, trying to get Esslinger's opinion on some random story about the Common Council. Instead of answering a few simple questions, he told me that he would have no contact with the entire organization due to a beef he had with the executive editor.

Apparently the editor in question had written an editorial (go figure) about Esslinger, to which he took great offense. This gave him the go-ahead to shun anyone affiliated with our entire organization.

Now that I look back on it, how many times has the Northwestern published something he disapproved of? Once or twice a week, at least. He even makes it a point to use his position in city government to publicly rail against the city's primary news source.

Now Esslinger has announced his so-called "media days" at the beginning of each month. This, of course, means that he will be a guest exclusively on two radio stations, one of which he works for and the other one supported his campaign.

Being a reporter is tough enough, but it doesn't help when a public figure refuses to play ball. Embracing a battle of words every time someone in the media critiques you seems a little immature for the mayor of a medium-sized city.

Come to think of it, this humble blog post is fairly critical of Mr. Esslinger. Do you think he'll scorn me? Never mind, it's too late.

Oshkosh politics stays interesting

Tuesday night, I sat with a couple friends for several hours and watched the Oshkosh Common Council meeting in its entirety.

Not your average night for three people in their early 20s, but it proved to be worth our time. That's because Oshkosh local politics is more entertaining than The Colbert Report and Family Guy put together.

The real fun came when the Council heard statements from the 16 people (minus a few no-shows) who were applying to be appointed to the vacant 7th Council seat.

The process allowed any citizen of Oshkosh to apply for the position and to make a statement in front of the Council. It showed.

Despite my roommate and I kicking ourselves for not applying and giving us an opportunity to speak in front of the great Tony Palmeri, it was a wonderful night of entertainment. We heard several hopefuls delve way too far into their personal history, at least four describe themselves as "blue collar workers" and enjoyed the awkwardness of Steve Cummings' and Larry Spanbauer's spiteful presentations.

We found it a little odd that some of the Councilors seemed so impressed with Harold Bucholz's speech. He had a couple pieces of paper, printed in all capital letters, outlining his qualifications. In it, he included three personality tests (he's a "red," by the way) and declared that he doesn't watch "American Idol." This immediately made him our favorite candidate, if only for the irony.

The greatest part was during the selection. My roommate, who is headed off to Omaha, NE, for grad school in August, said that if the Council selected Bucholz, he was "never leaving Oshkosh."

I guess we're extending our lease.

Now things are really getting interesting, or what I think is the best way to describe it, "more awesome." Jef Hall, one of the applicants, is accusing Councilors Palmeri and Bob Poeschl of violating an open meetings law. I don't have the energy to explain the whole thing, but you can read about it here.

In turn, some are accusing Hall of simply being bitter about not being selected, or more likely, upset that the Council did not select former mayor Stephen Hintz to fill the vacancy. Hintz is active in the Democratic Party (and the father of state Rep. Gordon Hintz), and Hall is the chair of the county Democrats.

Does Hall have a case? Or is this just political maneuvering? Regardless, it's fun to watch.

Partisan bickering continues with stimulus bill

In the newly christened era of hope and change, the debate on how to stimulate our pitiful economy has become all too familiar.

Oddly enough, it seems generally agreed upon that there needs to be a drastic amount of government spending to get things going again. That’s the good news. The problem is not “if” to spend the $800 billion, it’s simply “how” we’re going to do it.

For the Democrats, it’s the belief in major public works programs to get people back to work – for the federal government. Republicans, naturally, are arguing for tax cuts to allow the struggling private sector to recover faster.

The unfortunate thing is, neither side is making a real effort to find the best possible solution. Each is holding on to their tired ideological histories amid concerns of being re-elected and staying true to their strict stances. Given our odd intolerance to politicians changing their opinions, it’s not surprising that everyone’s holding steady, if no more to avoid being labeled a “flip-flopper.”

Another question this whole situation brings up is the idea of big government. Do we really know that it’s a bad thing? After all, the only kind of government we’ve ever known is a limited one, and obviously a limited government will not solve many problems. Hence, we’ve developed this idea that government helps no one. Is that really the case?

However, the Democrats have won the stimulus battle, for better or worse. This means potentially bigger government, something that we’re not used to. The essential question that remains now is if the U.S. is able to adapt to real change.

Time is right for campaign finance reform

As we face difficult times, I can't seem to help but think about the influence that special interest groups had to get us to this point. Fair elections are much-needed in our state as special interest groups continue to throw more and more money at our representatives.

This spring we will have a race for the Wisconsin Supreme Court and both candidates will raise a great deal of money from a variety of sources. It is unacceptable to allow our judges, the ones who are supposed to make the ultimate unbiased decisions, to be corrupted and influenced by money. Most times, trial lawyers account for a huge majority of the money raised for judicial races. Does that strike anyone as a conflict of interest?

Money in politics is simply the most important issue out there today. Since 1990, the insurance and financial sectors have contributed over $2 billion to candidates and parties. During that same time, we saw a great deal of deregulation of those industries, leading to where we stand today.

When congressmen are forced to raise millions of dollars to get re-elected, they end up owing a lot of favors. It's time for Wisconsin – and the United States – to embrace public financing. These systems are already widely popular in Maine, Connecticut and Arizona, with more states on the way. With widespread campaign finance reform at all levels, we can look forward to having elections based on issues, not cash.

Democracy Matters -- Meeting Feb. 4

The UW-Oshkosh chapter of Democracy Matters will have its first meeting of spring semester Wednesday, Feb. 4 at 4:30 p.m. in Reeve Union 213.

If you can't make it, or have any other questions, e-mail us at uwodemocracymatters@gmail.com.

Also, check out our new blog site at www.uwodm.blogspot.com.

Democracy Matters is a campus-based project of Common Cause that advocates for fairness in campaigns and elections through spending limits and public financing.

Swanson running for Council

That’s according to Facebook, anyway.

Travis Swanson is the second UW-Oshkosh student to run for the office, after Ed Kastern also picked up signature papers at city hall recently. I’m not sure if Swanson has officially picked up the papers, but his campaign Web site says that they’ll be canvassing for signatures on Saturday.

As of today, five people have intentions of running for Council, in addition to current Councilors Jess King and Tony Palmeri, which will mean that there will be a primary on Feb. 17.

The interesting thing is that people directly affiliated with the university could potentially make up a majority on the Common Council. With College of Business Dean Burk Tower already in place, the spring election could see the re-election of Palmeri (Communications professor) and the election of two students (Kastern and Swanson).

Is this possible? Maybe, although anyone defeating King seems unlikely, given her popularity in the city. On the other hand, she is also a former adjunct professor at UWO, making her also partly affiliated.

Also, Councilor Paul Esslinger announced that he’ll be running for mayor for a third time against incumbent Frank Tower. I don’t see this working out for him, considering his rep for seeking revenge against past political opponents (River Mill sidewalks, anyone?).

Another municipal smoking ban

This week, the village of Weston (near Wausau) Village Board passed a smoking ban that will take effect in 2010. It appears to have many of the business owners in the area up in arms, and probably for good reason.

The problem with this is that hard-core smokers, or most "regular" bar patrons, tend to avoid bars where smoking isn’t allowed. With a small community like Weston, they’ll be able to go to surrounding areas in order to be able to smoke while they drink. An unintended side effect of this is that they’ll be driving farther to get home, likely over the legal BAC limit.

I don’t understand this one. With a Democratically controlled Assembly and Senate until (at least ) 2010, why didn’t the board just wait for a statewide ban? That way, losing business from community to community won’t be a problem because there won’t be smoking allowed indoors anywhere.

Another possibility is that the village board is looking to set an example to help hurry the process of a statewide ban. Municipal governments are the creatures of state governments, but in some instances they can have strong influence on state policy.

To me, this seems like an inopportune time to be enacting an ordinance that will negatively affect business, considering the economic situation we’re in. And another question: where was the tavern league on this one? Perhaps it’s not as strong as it’s made out to be, which will help speed up the process for a statewide ban.

Banning smoking in individual communities makes no sense and is really inefficient. However, the "it hurts business" argument is irrelevant when talking about a statewide ban.