The Cap Times reported that
Konkel said it was “clear it (the mayor’s action) was retaliatory for something.” However, she would or could not say what it was in retaliation for.
Well, the answer is “could not”.
Since the Mayor will not talk to me and his staff are equally unhelpful, its very difficult to say exactly why he is furious with me. However, it is clear, he is outraged over something. I’ve asked his staff if we could try to settle this like adults on several occasions, but apparently, the Mayor is unwilling to even discuss whatever his grievances are with me.
Given the above, the most annoying part of this is his explanation for taking me off the plan commission.
I am looking for consensus builders, and I don’t think Ald. Konkel had filled that role.
Does he forget all the work I did for him getting to compromise so he could take credit for the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance in his first year in office? That was one HUGE consensus building exercise. And I have a history of working on various projects and issues with the real estate industry. Most notably, the work I did with the neighborhood and a developer in my district to get land use approval for a major project in the stagnant East Washington Avenue corridor. Of course, the Mayor eventually killed the project because of TIF rules that we routinely seem to ignore for other projects. This even prompted the developer to write a letter to the editor praising my work. Did he forget the work Alds. Olson, Onken and I did to review the TIF policies and work with the business community to come to some compromises on the policy, which he then delayed for nearly a year.
My best guess at what is going on here, is that the Mayor and I disagree about the meaning of compromise.
Compromise is not inviting some parties to the table to “compromise” to the exclusion of other stakeholders – most notably, the main sponsors of the initiatives. (i.e. Minimum Wage – King and Lobbying – Konkel)
Compromise is not requiring someone to agree with you and if they don’t, proclaiming that they won’t compromise. As one of the new alders put it to me. If you say “give me $50” and I say “no” and then you say “ok, give me $25”, that is not a compromise.
Compromise is not when in the end, someone declares “Everyone is unhappy, so this must be a good compromise.”
Compromise is when two parties who disagree, sit down and discuss an issue and figure out where the agreements lie and where the difference are. Then, you work together to find a win-win solution that you both can live with.
Compromise and consensus cannot be reached when one party refuses to participate, is excluded or doesn’t work in good faith. And my guess is, that this is where our real disagreements lie. However, since the mayor won’t talk to me, it is difficult to know if my guess is correct.
So it is clear, we won’t be reaching any type of compromise on this issue. On thedailypage, I offered a beer (later amended to a pitcher of beer to reflect the difficulty of this task) to anyone who can figure out why the Mayor is mad at me AND get him to admit it! My guess is, I’ll never have to make good on that promise, but I’m willing.
(Sorry, I had problems with several links and will try to link them later if I can access them.)
