Melanie Bloechl

This directly elected mayor will have very little effect, and that’s unfortunate because that was not the intent of this ordinance change. As originally proposed, it was to be a strong mayor and that would have given people reason to become more passionate, to become more attentive to the election process. It would have given them the direct connection to City Hall that they were looking for.

While the movement to an elected mayor is an important move, it’s kind of a sham because it’s in name only. There are not any real teeth to this. This new arrangement is going to be a lot of the same-old/same-old.

There is somewhat of a bully pulpit to be had with this position, but until we are serious about where are going with this, we are leading people to believe that they are going to get something great out of this and what has been done is a fraud to the taxpayers, to the people who can vote. People have become confused about what really they are going to get.

I do think this is a movement in the right direction, but I think it’s somewhat disingen-uous because it’s leading people to think they are choosing a leader. The expectation from voters and from taxpayers when they have an election for a mayor they would like to view as their leader is that there will be significant changes in the way things are going to be done. But they are misinformed, and they will get frustrated.

With more frustration will come more rebellion, thereby pushing to a strong mayor position.

Jon Dell’Antonia

[The effect] could be not much, or it could be quite a bit. It all depends if the candidates for mayor get out in front of the public and put forth their vision of the future direction of the city. Then, if they are elected, one can presume they at least have some indication of what people want and can use their position as mayor as a bully pulpit to get things done. If they don’t get out there with their positions, then the election becomes a popularity contest and there will be no effect.

If the mayor comes from an existing Council member that understands what needs to be done and how the Council functions, it will work OK.

If it’s someone who was never on the Council before and has no idea how it functions and all the things that the mayor does (and there are things that the mayor does more than is readily apparent), then it could be somewhat clumsy for someone to learn the ropes. The meetings may not go as well. The mayor does make appointments to commissions and is the political head and does meet with people from time to time to represent the city, and all of that could make it much more difficult for someone who is new. Someone who is already on the Council should be able to fill the role fairly easily.

My hope would be that the candidates put forth their vision so we know what they are about. That at least give some sense of what direction the community wants to go.

My concern is that this is a case of the camel’s nose getting inside the tent so that slowly you end up giving the mayor more power without the public being able to vote for that. You could sort of end up with a de facto change of government that’s not what you planned.

Stephen Hintz

The primary effect will be that the mayor can articulate positions as mayor with an independent base. It is primarily a legitimization of the role of the mayor as a person who can speak as mayor rather than simply as one of the Council members. One of the issues with the previous form was … that there was always an undefined and unwritten line where other Council members could say, “Who do you think you are? You are just one of us.”

The distinction is going to be a subtle distinction. Under the new system, the mayor is still just one of seven votes. But it is a distinction.

You may also see in the election a little sharper delineation of issues from the perspective of the mayoral candidates. Ultimately what there will be is a somewhat greater legitimization of the position of mayor.

I think we have to separate out the structural change from the personalities that we will have in the position at any one time. All other things being equal, the … structural changes will not change very dramatically.

The mayor becomes the political representative of the city, and that’s not simply symbolic representation. That role will continue and may be somewhat strengthened.

My hopes are that [this change] further legitimizes the role of the mayor in the eyes of the public. It has a checkered history. In 1998 the Council actually passed a charter ordinance that went to referendum, and it lost on a 61 [percent]-39 [percent] vote. It was a huge loss, although coupled with it was also a proposal to go with a full-time mayor.

My greatest fear, and fear may be too strong word, I really have two of them. One is that this would be the basis on which there would be a major initiative to try to move to a full-time mayor and to do away with the council-manager form of government. I think that would be unfortunate because I think good government depends on having a strong political leader as well as on having good professional management.

The other concern is, and here we’re dealing with subtleties, is that one of the good features of the old system is that it was very much a system of collective decision-making. We all were essentially equal. Some people would say there was a downside to that, but we were far more likely to have consensus and collegial action on the part of the Council.

If we get into a situation where the mayor takes a position contrary to what the rest of the Council thinks, then you have a bit of a political mess on your hands. Different opinions, different perspectives are good. But you could have a mayor defining positions that might run contrary to the majority or the Council’s preferences. There’s nothing inherently wrong in that. Where there would be a problem would be if the mayor and Council get at loggerheads. But there isn’t anything inherent in the change that would create that.

Kathleen Propp

All Oshkosh City Council members are elected at large by the same pool of voters that elect the mayor. The top Council vote getter is likely to receive as many votes as the mayor. Therefore, It may be difficult for the new mayor to claim any special mandate for his policies. On the other hand, if the mayoral candidates are able to draw clear distinctions between their platforms, the winner could argue that Oshkosh voters support his approach to Oshkosh government. I would be surprised if having a directly elected mayor makes any dramatic difference in city government.

If the new Council, mayor, and city staff establish appropriate roles and working relationships in the first few months after the election, things should work smoothly.

One concern is the chain of command at City Hall. City staff
should continue to report to the city manager, and the manager should continue to be the primary staff liaison with the mayor. The mayor needs to refrain from micromanaging staff and from working with department heads or other staff independently of the city manager. My hope is that the new mayor will maintain a low key cooperative, consensus-building approach to government, serving as the Oshkosh political spokesperson and policy liaison with other communities, business, and local organizations, presiding over meetings, and voting with the other Council members. The position needs no additional power or authority.