Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLandmarks Minutes 10-13-21CITY OF OSHKOSH LANDMARKS COMMISSION Minutes October 13th, 2021 PRESENT: Shirley Brabender Mattox, Gerald Jacklin, Andrew Smith, Nikki Stoll Olthoff, Paulette Feld, Sara Stichert, Kristopher Ulrich, Bill Miller EXCUSED: Steve Cummings ABSENT: None STAFF AND OTHERS: Steven Wiley, Kelly Nieforth (Community Development Director), Mark Lyons (Planning Services Manager), Alexa Naudziunas (Associate Planner) 1. Call to Order Ms. Brabender Mattox called the meeting to order at 3:06 p.m. and a quorum was declared present. 2. Approval of September 8th, 2021 Meeting Minutes Ms. Brabender Mattox asked the Commission if there were any revisions for the September meeting minutes. Mr. Jacklin requested a revision for Item 2 of the minutes. He referred to where the minutes state that, “Mr. Jacklin asked Ms. Feld and Ms. Stichert if they were both with the Landmarks Commission.” He asked that the minutes state that Ms. Feld and Ms. Stichert were two new Landmarks Commissioners. No Commissioners had any other revisions for the minutes so the Commission voted 8-0 to approve the minutes as written (Ulrich/Smith). 3. 404 W New York – Local Landmarking - Discussion The Commission voted to shift this item to after the Chief Oshkosh item out of respect for the visitors in attendance. Ms. Brabender Mattox provided an update after the Chief Oshkosh discussion. She stated that Mr. Green was in attendance at the last Landmarks meeting which was virtual. She stated that it was remarkable that someone was concerned enough about his property to landmark it locally which would put the property under the strongest oversight. She stated that Mr. Green was back in California but planning to move back to Oshkosh and setting up his business here. 4. Merrill School Recommendation – Kristopher Ulrich – Discussion/Action The Commission voted to shift this item to after the Chief Oshkosh item out of respect for the visitors in attendance. Ms. Brabender Mattox stated that the Commission could table this item and take it up later if there was an opportunity for a motion and action. 5. Chief Oshkosh Project Resolution – Discussion/Action The Commission decided to move this item up in the agenda. Ms. Brabender Mattox introduced the Chief Oshkosh resolution. She stated that the public would speak first, each person would speak for five minutes, and when all members of the public had spoken, discussion would close and the item would return to the Commission. She asked David Grignon if he would like to speak first. Mr. Lyons asked visitors to provide their names and addresses for the minutes. David Grignon – PO Box 910, Keshena, WI 54135 introduced himself as the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer for the Menominee Nation. He stated that the Menominee are indigenous to the state of Wisconsin. They had been here for over 10,000 years. Menominee had lived in harmony for thousands of years until 1634 when John Nicolet entered into the Bay of Green Bay and discovered them there. Prior to 1827 Chief Oshkosh was a young man. In 1827 Chief Oshkosh was named Chief and proceeded to negotiate treaties in 1831, 1840, and 1854 for the Menominee people. President Andrew Jackson passed the Indian Removal Act and in the treaty of 1848 the Menominee people were asked to cede their land to the State of Wisconsin. At this time the government wanted to move the Menominee to Minnesota to 600,000 acres there. Chief Oshkosh and others went over to Minnesota where many things were promised. When he visited the land he found two tribes, the Chippewa and the Sioux, and the resources were not what was promised. When Chief Oshkosh returned he informed his people that they were not going to move. He took a delegation to Washington and spoke for over an hour with President Millard Fillmore. He made his case to keep his people in Wisconsin. This led to the treaty of 1854. Mr. Grignon stated that Chief Oshkosh’s legacy was not given his name to the City of Oshkosh but rather his people, all 8,948 of them and the land they have today. The information they worked on with the five plaques was true. The drafts were correct and should be approved and sent to the City Council. Mitchell Oshkosh – W1827 Bent Arrow Road, Keshena, WI 54135 – introduced himself and his son, Mitchell Oshkosh, Jr. as fifth and sixth generation descendants of Chief Oshkosh. Mitchell Oshkosh provided a statement on behalf of Douglas Cox, who was Vice Chairman of the Tribal Legislature. Mr. Cox’s statement requested approval of all five plaques. Arnold Chevalier – PO Box 1013, Keshena, WI 54135 – introduced himself as a member of the Eagle Clan. He supported the plaques and was involved back when the former Mayor placed a phone call to him asking if he would take part in writing a paragraph on Chief Oshkosh. He told the Mayor that one paragraph could not come close to honoring Chief Oshkosh as a man. He asked for the Commission to vote yes to the five plaques and said that the project was going on far too long. He asked for the project to move onto City Council. He said the tribe would be happy to answer questions. Anahkwet – PO Box 1522, Keshena, WI 54135 – introduced himself as the director of a non-profit in Keshena. He offered his support to his uncles and relatives in attendance. He emphasized that the tribe endured many hardships even in the 50s when they lost their status. They fought hard to have their status restored. This was their ancestral homeland and they were the longest inhabitants of the homeland. He stated that they had been through much and had to come down to defend themselves and how they wanted to be represented on plaques. He asked that with all the things that they had been through that Landmarks at least listen to them. He stated that the Menominee tribe was not trying to make things up or make people look bad. They had been there for a long time. He wanted to represent the Chief and people in a good way. All people in Oshkosh should know about the Menominee tribe and Chief Oshkosh. He hoped for a vote on the plaques the way they were written. David Overstreet – 1961 N. Summit Avenue, Apt 612, Milwaukee, WI 53202 – introduced himself as a practicing anthropologist and archeologist for many years. He was asked by the THPO to do some fact checking and Mr. Grignon had sent Mr. Overstreet the drafts for the five plaques. Mr. Overstreet stated that he did not speak for the tribe nor was he related to any of the tribal members. He was not paid to do this. All of the information on the plaques was true and there were volumes at the Wisconsin Historical Society that testify to the truth of the material presented on the plaques. The volumes were not written by the Menominee’s but rather by the immigrants that moved to Wisconsin. There was nothing untrue or deceitful in the series of plaques. Chief Oshkosh was able to stall his peoples’ moving to Minnesota and enlisted the help of many to keep his people in their homeland that they occupied for so long. The ethic of landscape management was still in place at the Menominee Reservation and this was a major accomplishment of Chief Oshkosh. Mr. Overstreet stated he was happy to answer questions. Pershing Frechette – PO Box 325, Neopit, WI 54150 – introduced himself as a lifelong resident of the Menominee Indian Reservation and a member of the Menominee Tribal Legislature. He agreed and trusted those who spoke in favor of the five plaques as presented. He struggled with why we were afraid of educating people on the truth. He stated that how we defined the word colonialism was what mattered. The five plaques approved by the tribe represented a large part of the Menominee history. Thanks to Chief Oshkosh’s efforts the Menominee leadership was always aware of the project and had full participation. He stated that we must promote the truths and asked the Landmarks Commission to vote not on the proposed resolution but to approve the five plaques as presented. He asked that the Commission make the vote, move this forward, and get it done. Angie Lee – 804 Monroe Street, Oshkosh, WI 54901 – began with a land acknowledgement. She expressed her support for all five plaques for the Chief Oshkosh monument. Her involvement began with Arnold Chevalier, David Grignon, and Dr. Pascale Manning attending the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) Committee’s April, 2021 meeting of which she was serving as chair at the time. The group working on the plaque drafts gave a presentation at the April meeting and the DEI Committee had a healthy, civil discussion on the proposed drafts along with the ramifications of the proposed plaques. She listened to each comment, question, etc. DEI then voted 9-0 to call a special meeting to vote on a resolution to forward onto Council. On May 17th DEI had a special meeting and moved to approve and adopt the proposed resolution 8-0. There was unanimous support. The DEI Committee had since included the item as a monthly update on its agenda to keep informed. In September DEI attended a joint workshop with Landmarks facilitated by City Manager Rohloff. Ms. Lee listened to all participants and did not comment so she could consider the opinions expressed by all participants. She asked for civility and respect when engaging in discussion. She believed the first four plaques were effective and captured significant achievements of Chief Oshkosh. She stated that upon reading the fifth plaque she felt pain at how indigenous people were mistreated and that our city was complicit in these acts. The meta-plaque begins a conversation needed to rectify the wrongs committed against the original inhabitants of this land and hopefully engage dialogue towards healing. She did not advocate for faulting a general group of people for wrongs committed by those from which they were generationally removed but advocated for a discussion to help heal. Lastly she stated that the plaques were carefully drafted by Arnold Chevalier, David Grignon, and Dr. Manning. She asked that the Commission listen to the elders and knowledge keepers. Misty McPhee – 1019 Jefferson Street, Oshkosh, WI 54901 – she stated that she was not of Menominee ancestry, nor on committees, nor an archeologist, nor historian but a citizen of Oshkosh who heard support of the Chief Oshkosh project. She wanted to live in a city that acknowledge its history and truth in an honest way. Aaron Sherer – 1720 Cliffview Drive – Oshkosh, WI 54901 – He put his comments in writing and explained that he is an ex officio meeting and had received the minutes for over 20 years. He respected the work of the Commission. Something that distinguished work of Landmarks was that their work was based on the perspectives of white European immigrants and the impact they had on this land. The Commission had done a fantastic job of preserving this legacy. The project today was one of the first times the Commission had a chance to look at the history of indigenous peoples and to think about how our signage could impact our perception of indigenous peoples. Landmarks should pay attention to the impressive representation of the Menominee people in attendance. The Commission also needed to respect the perspective of the DEI committee because it was a different perspective than what the Commission had considered for the 20 years that Mr. Sherer had followed the Commission. He supported the language of the five plaques as presented and hoped that Landmarks would support them. The legacy of Chief Oshkosh was the right and responsibility of the Menominee people and we should honor that right. He had been director of the Paine for 20 years. When he was offered the job he knew nothing about the community. Therefore he looked online and read back issues of the Northwestern. Right around when he moved here the OASD board voted to abandon the Indian mascot for West High School and this factored into his decision to move here. Today presented another opportunity and he urged the Commission to support the five plaques. Rebecca Comfort – 1930 E. Main Street, Apt 1, Madison, WI 53704 – introduced herself as a member of the Lake Superior Ojibwe and stated that she was coming as a private citizen. She understood that it was the fifth marker that the Commission had hesitance with. She stated that regarding the fifth marker we should turn to our children. Children were excited to learn about conflict and they have not established the same sense of taboos that adults have. Whenever she looked to talk about a difficult issue, the only people who had any problem were the adults. The children, especially fourth graders would test people. They taught her that the only person concerned about learning contested history was her and other adults in the room. Monuments like this were an invaluable teaching tool for our students. Teachers were looking for opportunities in public spaces that were accessible. She urged the Commission to go forward with this for the public and schoolchildren. Pascale Manning – 1226 Western Street, Oshkosh, WI 54901 – stated that this meeting was occurring two days after Indigenous People’s day and the timing was felicitous. One of the myths was that Christopher Columbus discovered America. She stated that this was a false narrative. It ignored widespread efforts to conquer indigenous people, displace them, enslave them, etc. Indigenous Peoples Day offered an opportunity to celebrate them and their history and presence. She knew there was controversy about the fifth plaque and read the draft resolution. The fifth plaque was a hopeful message. In the letter circulated to Landmarks after Dr. Manning, Mr. Chevalier, and Mr. Grignon read the resolution, they concluded with a reference to a proclamation issued by the President. The proclamation recognized the realities recognized by all five plaques. She stated that if the office of the President can recognize the impact of colonialism was there any good reason why the City of Oshkosh could not do the same. This was not an issue of political partisanship. The plaques spoke to issues of reality that must be faced if we are going to move forward as a society. She called on the Landmarks Commission to table its flawed resolution and to do what they thought Landmarks would be doing, namely, to vote on the five plaques as written. Mr. Chevalier asked if anyone else wished to speak and then asked for those in attendance to introduce themselves for the record. Mr. Jacklin agreed that this was a good idea but suggested a pad and paper. Ms. Brabender Mattox asked for each person to stand and introduce him or herself. Each person stood and provided a name and address. Ms. Brabender Mattox thanked everyone in attendance and closed public comment. She opened up Commission discussion. Mr. Chevalier asked if those in attendance were allowed to stay. Ms. Brabender Mattox replied affirmatively. She introduced the resolution before the Commission. She read the resolution for those not familiar. She asked for a motion. Ms. Feld made a motion and Mr. Miller seconded. Ms. Stoll Olthoff stated that it was insulting that the Commission was not passing a resolution to include all five plaques. She stated that she was embarrassed by what had happened here and how it had gone on so long and that it should never have gotten to this point. She was aware early on that there were concerns about the fifth plaque. The group drafting the plaques generously agreed to go back and drafted very accessible language for the fifth plaque. She asked who we think we are to think we can write it better. She did not believe Landmarks should move forward with the flawed resolution and instead needed to vote on the five plaques. Mr. Smith asked who composed the resolution. Ms. Brabender Mattox stated that she did with the help of staff. Mr. Smith stated that he was in concurrence with Ms. Stoll Olthoff and that he did not agree with the language of the last paragraph at all. He stated that the Commission needed to vote on the five plaques as is. Mr. Ulrich stated that he had a lot to say. He thanked those in attendance for coming and making their presentations. He addressed a few of them and recapped main points. He stated that at large he agreed with everything that was said and supported promoting the history of the Menominee people as they have written it. He agreed that it had taken too long. His one criticism was the precedent that this would set for Landmarks and other named entities in the city. Plaque number five could be seen as an emotional bias with words like “troubling testament” with bias based on the culture of the moment in the same way that calling Chief Oshkosh’s greatest accomplishment lending his name to the city was an emotional dumb bias of 1911. He stated that with allowing emotional annotations on monuments today in another 110 years someone would scrutinize what we say today with similar frustrations. If we allow this now, it opens the door for similar annotations to be made on every monument. A spin could be written on anything. He cautioned that this would set a precedent for annotating other plaques, whether or not they were written based on facts. Mr. Jacklin agreed with most things Mr. Ulrich said. He believed the City had a beautiful statue though he knew it misrepresented Chief Oshkosh. For plaque five if there was any way to just tone it down 1% as it just seemed a bit too negative. Someone did a beautiful job on the statue so if the group could look at the first sentence of plaque five and tone it down that would be helpful. Ms. Feld agreed with most of what Mr. Ulrich said and that we were dealing with a plaque that was written in 1911 by the white, European, Yankee settlers of Oshkosh. 110 years later we have a different perspective as our speakers today pointed out. One of the speakers explained that it was time to rectify the situation and Ms. Feld agreed with that. However the people of the city, who created the situation, should do so. She agreed that what was written on the 1911 plaque was wrong, the statue was wrong, and a few weeks back she was looking at the statue. Some people came up and asked her if the statue was what Chief Oshkosh looked like and she said no, it was not. She agreed that it was time to do something about the situation and that it was the responsibility of the citizens of Oshkosh to do that. If it was done by the Landmarks Commission or someone else in the city that came up with a narrative, we need to do it as a city. She had no problem with the other four plaques and stated that it was time that more information was given regarding Chief Oshkosh’s role in the state. She stated that this resolution got that part of the signage moving along. Mr. Miller stated that this was one of the rare occasions where everyone in the room was 90% correct. His biggest fear was that we were changing the views of the people from 110 years ago. If we make these changes today, are we going to have to change every statue in the city for rectifying the views from 110 years ago. This was his biggest concern. This was going to be controversial. Everyone in the room cared and wanted to do the right thing. He didn’t want to spend his time on the Landmarks Commission changing statues. His vote was going to be to move the first four plaques forward and put some type of closure to this for those reasons. He thanked everyone for coming. Ms. Brabender Mattox introduced Mr. Miller as the Commission’s Council representative. Anahkwet spoke and stated that he was asking the Commission to honor what the Menominee tribe wanted. He stated that when the Commission mentioned changing the plaque draft 1% someone could argue that the statue could change 1% and more accurately depict Chief Oshkosh. All he wanted was that Landmarks honor the tribe’s wishes. The tribe wanted what they wanted and respect for their work. Ms. Brabender Mattox stated that the Commission was in session as a Commission. Ms. Stoll Olthoff asked to add something. To counter what Mr. Ulrich said, she asked why it was a problem if we analyze the other statues. She stated that she was speechless and did not know why it was a problem and why Landmarks was digging their heels in. They were not the experts and she did not know why they could not respect the wishes of the Menominee people. Mr. Ulrich replied that it related to biases and that he did not stray away from talking about them. His stance was that our current discussion on biases did not need to be put in stone. It displayed our own hubris and arrogance of this generation to annotate things from the past. He stated that the discussion was healthy and that any moderately educated person looking at the current plaque could see that it was foolish. He stated that he was in favor of plaques 1-4 and more fact based education was fantastic. Members of the public asked to speak. Mr. Lyons informed the Commission and those in attendance that the Commission could vote to reopen public comment but that a motion and a second were required. Ms. Stoll Olthoff moved to reopen public comment and Mr. Ulrich seconded. The Commission voted 8-0 to reopen public comment. Dr. Manning stated that the group working on the plaques had offered for years to sit down and go word by word through the draft. The draft had been formally in circulation since January 2, 2020. She was perfectly aware of the Covid situation and there were plenty of reasons why the group and Landmarks were not able to get together. The group and Landmarks were finally able to get together for the workshop in September, 2021. At the workshop she was not asked to go word by word to hear specific, evidence based concerns. The very first specific evidence-based concern brought to her attention came from Mr. Ulrich, who proposed that the word troubling indicated violence. She stated that everyone should be troubled by histories of conquest, extraction, displacement, assimilation, etc. She had spent a lot of her time as a teacher and a researcher thinking about these histories. If she had been asked before this meeting to strike the word “troubling” from the fifth plaque, they would have been prepared in good faith as they had been prepared in good faith throughout this entire process to sit down with this commission or with any other board in the City of Oshkosh to consider striking the word “troubling.” She could not agree that the first sentence needed to be materially altered because the statue did misrepresent Chief Oshkosh and it was just a fact. She stated that she could not help but burst out despite years of training remaining calm in difficult situations because this was just too important to allow things to devolve into accusations, bias or assertions that non-indigenous people should speak on behalf of indigenous people. It is not the responsibility of employees of the City of Oshkosh to sit down and write a fifth plaque. Landmarks had a fifth plaque right here. Perhaps Landmarks would vote on all five plaques, ideally to approve with the understanding that Dr. Manning and the tribe would be prepared to consider the possibility of striking the word “troubling.” She had never been asked to sit down and discuss the language on these plaques. Instead general assaults had been lobbed against them and she was up here taking up space that should only be taken up by the Menominee in the room. Mr. Miller asked if Dr. Manning had reviewed the first four plaques. Dr. Manning stated that she had reviewed all five plaques. Mr. Smith explained that he needed to leave for another commitment and thanked everyone for attending. Mr. Smith left the meeting at 4:24 pm. Ms. Brabender Mattox stated to Dr. Manning that she did not know where Dr. Manning was going with this except that she was dissatisfied and she did not say this earlier. Dr. Manning replied that she had said it on the record. Ms. Brabender Mattox replied that the Commission had received four pages from Dr. Manning. Anahkwet stated to Ms. Brabender Mattox that the motion was just to allow Dr. Manning to speak and that with all due respect there were others that should have the ability to speak. He stated that one concern raised by the Commission was “tone down.” He stated that we could not tone down the truth. Mr. Overstreet asked to speak. Mr. Lyons asked if the Commission wanted to hear from more people. Ms. Stoll Olthoff explained that her original motion was to reopen public comment. Mr. Lyons asked people in attendance wishing to speak to come up one at a time to do so. Anahkwet stated that we could not tone down the truth. These were things their people had endured. It was about fixing things now. If this needed to happen with other monuments perhaps this one could be a start. History was not being represented properly in many places. He would like to see all five plaques approved today and just by the way it was going it was apparent that it was an uphill battle. Mr. Overstreet mentioned the reluctance to change the viewpoints of people 110 years ago. He provided an anecdote of mid-19th century archeology of the Sioux. It regarded the old paradigm and claim regarding authorship of the mounds. He mentioned the book The Davenport Conspiracy. He stated that the book pointed out that the very first person to call for changing blatantly racist kinds of approaches was Increase A. Lapham, a geologist that mapped mounds all over the world. It was contemporary Native American populations that were responsible for the authorship of those mounds. An entire generation of historians and archeologists had no reluctance to change the viewpoints of those from 100 years ago in the face of new data. He argued that the Menominee people had brought to the Commission’s attention how traumatic the characterization of their ancestors was. He would encourage the Commission to reconsider changing something that was clearly uncomfortable not only to the Commission but also to everyone that had spoken here today. He thanked the Commission for their time. Mr. Grignon spoke and stated that since 1492 the Indigenous peoples had to endure genocide, colonialism, etc. He stated that native peoples had to endure and that the four plaques were all true. He stated that the fifth plaque was also true. He asked the Commission why they did not accept the truth. He mentioned that education had been brought up. This was a chance to educate a lot of people that did not know the truth of the Menominee’s. He stated that the Menominee tribe had always been here and that he could only think of the feelings Chief Oshkosh had when negotiating the treaties. He stated that he wanted the truth to come out about his people and that these were native lands and home to the Ho-Chunk and Menominee and that they were still here and would be here into the future. Ms. Brabender Mattox thanked Mr. Grignon. Ms. McPhee spoke and wished to address some of the points made. The first was that we needed to not change things now and the possibility of having to change something in another 110 years. She stated that change was progress in many ways and we could not predict where we were going to be in 110 years so we needed to do things right for today. If someone was changing things in another 110 years she applauded them because change was progress and she hoped that the dialogue would continue moving forward. She mentioned the second point of setting precedent. She argued that setting precedent was not a bad thing. We are setting precedent for change, setting precedent for making things right; it is going to take time, it is going to take work. She hoped that the Commission was willing to take the challenge as necessary. Ms. Brabender Mattox asked if the Commission wanted to come back. She stated that she had not had an opportunity to speak. Ms. Feld made a motion that the Commission close public comment. Mr. Miller seconded. The Commission voted 7-0 to close public comment. Ms. Brabender Mattox stated that she was here in 2015 and had been here since 2002 serving on this Commission. She stated that Landmarks generally did not deal with monuments. The Commission did take up a project some years back for signage along the riverfront. It was an extra opportunity. Another opportunity came along with Chief Oshkosh. It was not trying to write signage and fit it on a board and finding the photos. What the Commission was trying to do was represent the Chief and who he was because he was not represented properly in that plaque form 1911 below the statue. The statue was an idealistic young brave as represented by Trentanove. Ms. Brabender Mattox explained that the Commission discussed this for a while and what to do because it was not their story so they reached out to the tribe. Mr. Grignon was well known as the tribe’s Historic Preservation Officer. They visited with Mr. Grignon and had a very respectful, productive meeting. She stated that members of Landmarks should have taped Mr. Grignon at that meeting. Mr. Grignon was taped today and his story should be told just as he told it. Ms. Brabender Mattox recalled that as Mr. Grignon talked all of the information was too much for one plaque so the project became four plaques. Mr. Grignon had informed Ms. Brabender Mattox that four was sacred. She stated that this did not however allow the city to address what they had done, which was the misrepresentation of the Menominee chief. This was where on the next visit to Keshena, there was a fifth plaque which was going to be the city’s reconciliation/reflection. She stated that it was the city’s atonement that needed to be on the fifth plaque. She stated that what was currently on the fifth plaque could be inserted into the other four plaques. Even with this, the city still needed the fifth plaque to address what had been done. Through lack of communication and people coming and going the project got changed. She stated that the Commission was Midwest diners and it was like when someone ordered four courses and received a fifth course also. You do not say you do not want it. It is a situation of it is here, what do we do with it. She stated that the sentiments in the fifth plaque could be integrated into other plaques and the city still needed its plaque. She stated that this was how the four plus one was conceived. The committee met outside of Landmarks and Landmarks was not aware. She would like to get four plaques but then still needed the plaque from the diverse people that lived in Oshkosh. Ms. Brabender Mattox stated that the fifth plaque could explain what happened back when the statue was created but then highlight that people were more enlightened and aware. She explained that she had just read something on the Doctrine of Discovery. Everyone was constantly learning and 90 percent of the people outside the room were not aware of any of this. That is why the fifth plaque is needed. Ms. Brabender Mattox explained that Mr. Grignon was a storyteller and she wanted his voice at that monument. Thais was why she brought up a solar narrative. She stated that kids should be able to come, push a button, and hear Mr. Grignon tell the story of his chief. Somehow the city needed to make this right and she hoped that with the four storyboards it was possible. Ms. Stoll Olthoff interjected that by Landmarks approving the fifth plaque also, it was the city’s way of making the change. She stated that it was written and here and that we did not need to re-write it. Ms. Feld stated that there were some technical issues the Commission needed to discuss. The design of the signage has not been settled on. The signage may or may not allow for images to be included. The draft is written to include an image. She stated that it was not at a point where everyone could say this is what we want. It needed to be looked at once the signage was decided on. Ms. Stichert asked that people in the audience be quiet. Mr. Chevalier suggested making a motion. Mr. Ulrich proposed voting. He made a motion that the Commission vote on the resolution. Mr. Lyons stated that a motion was already out there. He clarified that “yes” would mean approving the resolution as-is, “no” would mean voting against the resolution in front of the Commission. Someone could make a motion to amend the resolution. Ms. Stoll Olthoff stated that the Commission needed to vote on the five plaques and that this was ridiculous. She argued that the resolution was flawed and not why the Commission was here. Mr. Miller informed her that she could make a motion. Ms. Stoll Olthoff made a motion to vote on all five plaques being approved. Mr. Ulrich seconded. Mr. Lyons stated that a vote was necessary to amend the motion as Ms. Stoll Olthoff stated. Then staff would call the roll on Ms. Stoll Olthoff’s motion. Ms. Brabender Mattox asked if the Commission needed to allow discussion. Mr. Lyons stated that the Commission could but first to vote on approving Ms. Stoll Olthoff’s motion. The Commission voted 7- 0 to amend the motion on the floor. Mr. Ulrich called for the vote. Mr. Wiley took the roll call. The motion failed 3-4 (Jacklin, Ulrich, Stoll Olthoff – yes / Brabender Mattox, Miller, Feld, Stichert – no). After Mr. Ulrich made his vote he explained that this opened a can of worms for all future landmarks and that this had become bigger than this Commission. He stated that change was inevitable and that we needed to move beyond this. He explained that we can read the room and read society as it is today. He stated that he would not be on the wrong side of this and therefore, he voted in favor of all five plaques. Mr. Lyons stated that with three “yes” votes and four “no” votes, the motion failed. Someone else could make a different motion if they wished. Mr. Ulrich made another motion to move forward with all five plaques if Landmarks could get together with Dr. Manning and other members this month and resolve this before Council. If this group needs to come together to have their say in it so be it, but let’s move forward with all five if we get time to amend it this month with Dr. Manning. Ms. Feld seconded. Mr. Lyons and Ms. Brabender Mattox asked if there was any discussion. Mr. Miller suggested tying the motion down with specific dates. Mr. Lyons stated that to get this to Council by November 9th the meeting would need to occur before November 3rd. Mr. Ulrich proposed meeting with Dr. Manning before November 3rd. Ms. Brabender Mattox asked if the Commission would meet with the Tribal members. Mr. Lyons clarified that the motion was to meet with Dr. Manning and members of the tribe prior to November 3rd to discuss the specific language of the fifth plaque and finalize that language prior to Council on November 9th. Mr. Jacklin asked if Dr. Manning and members of the tribe should inform Landmarks of who they wanted to have meet with Landmarks prior to November 3rd. Dr. Manning replied that she, Mr. Grignon, and Mr. Chevalier as three co-authors could meet and would welcome the input of other tribal members. Mr. Jacklin asked who would send out the message. Mr. Lyons answered that Mr. Wiley would coordinate dates with everyone. Ms. Feld seconded the motion. Mr. Jacklin suggested considering the audio and web aspects. The motion carried 7-0. Ms. Brabender Mattox thanked everyone for coming. Members of the Menominee Nation and others in attendance left at this point. Mr. Miller thanked everyone for coming and stated that he had to leave. Mr. Miller left at 4:53 pm. Mr. Ulrich suggested making a motion to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Lyons suggested that the Commission consider a special meeting to consider the rest of its business. Ms. Brabender Mattox asked if the Commission still had a quorum. Mr. Wiley replied affirmatively. Mr. Jacklin stepped out at 4:55 pm. 6. 716 E Irving Avenue – Historic Plaque Application – Kristopher Ulrich – Discussion/Action Ms. Brabender Mattox asked Mr. Ulrich if he would like to do his presentation the next time. Mr. Ulrich replied affirmatively. Ms. Brabender Mattox and Mr. Wiley stated that they would keep the item on the agenda for the next meeting. 7. Building Permit Review Ms. Brabender Mattox shifted discussion of this item to after the Merrill School update. She asked Mr. Wiley about the downtown building where the mural was being painted between the alleys whether the mural was being painted on historic masonry. Ms. Feld and Mr. Ulrich believed that the mural was not being painted but rather a vinyl one. Mr. Wiley explained that the mural was planned for a CMU portion of the building rather than on brick. Ms. Brabender Mattox stated that the project was great for that location. Ms. Brabender Mattox stated that the project on Washington Avenue was not big enough for tax credits but that the home was certainly eligible. She stated that she had not contacted the people at 502 N Main Street who were putting in two furnaces and close to $18,000 worth of work. Mr. Ulrich asked if furnaces counted for tax credits. Ms. Brabender Mattox stated that she believed so. She stated that she would check to see. She asked Mr. Wiley if he knew whether furnaces would qualify. Mr. Wiley stated that he would need to confirm. 8. Social Media – Discussion/Action Ms. Brabender Mattox asked Mr. Wiley for an update. Mr. Wiley explained that this upcoming Friday the Commission would have a plaque presentation for 1523 N Main Street and the Smith School event also. Staff noticed both events so the Commission could attend both. Mr. Jacklin stepped back in at 4:58 pm. Mr. Wiley stated he would stop by the Smith one and then the 1523 N Main plaque presentation which would both be great for social media. Mr. Wiley explained that usually staff liked to post images of the Commissioners with the property owners. Ms. Brabender Mattox stated that she was excited about Smith School because in all her years on the Commission she was looking for properties on the south side to create districts with. Ms. Stoll Olthoff left at 5:00 pm. Ms. Brabender Mattox emphasized the importance of Facebook and that the page needed to remain current. 9. Commissioner Statements a. 1523 N Main Plaque Presentation – October 15th Mr. Wiley explained that this event would occur at 4 pm this Friday. Ms. Brabender Mattox stated that if she had time she would work on something for the presentation. She explained that she worked to make the presentations special for the owners. b. WHS Fall Conference for Local History and Historic Preservation – October 2021 Ms. Brabender Mattox explained that this was coming up next week. Mr. Ulrich stated that he had signed up. Ms. Brabender Mattox stated that staff could reimburse Commissioners who signed up. She stated that she registered. Mr. Wiley explained that the deadline to register was the 18th. So far Mr. Cummings and Mr. Jacklin had asked to sign up. Ms. Brabender Mattox stated that it was a three day conference and usually 400 to 600 people attended. The conference had been virtual the past year and would be for 2021. c. 907 Washington Avenue – Update Mr. Wiley explained that he had not yet reconnected with Sue Tatum who was one of the owners of the property. He stated that this was on his to-do list. Ms. Brabender Mattox stated that many people were coming back to Oshkosh and revitalizing older historic homes such as this one. 10. Agenda Items for Next Meeting (November 10th, 2021: 3 PM in City Hall Room 203) Ongoing items such as the Longfellow Lintel, 404 W New York landmarking project, and 716 E Irving plaque project would be back on the meeting agenda for November. Additionally it was requested to include the plaque program for local landmarks on the agenda. 11. Outstanding Issues Mr. Ulrich stated that T.J. Waters bought the Northwestern Building so he suggested reaching out to Mr. Waters. He also stated that he was in touch with someone who complained about work done to a property on Bay Shore Drive. He asked Ms. Brabender Mattox to explain. Ms. Brabender Mattox explained that the property was the Abraham Briggs Bowen House, built in 1856 when the City was three years old. It was one of the best examples of early Italianate. It had a graceful front and side porch and there was nothing like it. The fretwork was unbelievable. Going around the porch were round columns on pedestals. They were replaced by 4x4s and after 165 years, the owners decided to put up a banister. The property had been on the National Register for years. The porch needed stabilizing but instead, the owners took an axe. Ms. Brabender Mattox stated that it was a sad commentary. She found out from Mr. Wiley that all houses in historic districts were flagged but any individually listed properties were not listed. Individually-listed properties were more important. Ms. Brabender Mattox asked Mr. Wiley if staff had gotten the individually-listed properties in yet. Mr. Wiley stated that staff needed to work with the software company for the City’s permitting software to do so. For district properties they were in the GIS system and showed up under a specific tab in the system. However, if staff did not know or take time to look, they would not see the historic district status of properties already in the system. Mr. Ulrich stated that he wanted to respond to the citizen. Mr. Wiley stated that the citizen could reach out to him. Mr. Ulrich asked if someone did reach out to Mr. Wiley. Mr. Wiley answered that Chuck Williams had connected with him. Mr. Ulrich confirmed the Mr. Williams was the same person who talked with him. Ms. Brabender Mattox asked if Mr. Williams had not commented on Facebook whether Commissioners would know about the work done at the Bay Shore property. Commissioners replied that they would not know. Ms. Brabender Mattox asked Mr. Ulrich what he suggested with T. J. Waters. Mr. Ulrich suggested that the Commission reach out to Mr. Waters in an official manner and offer assistance. Ms. Brabender Mattox stated that it was people like Mr. Waters that would save properties. Ms. Brabender Mattox suggested connecting with Mr. Waters and congratulating him. Ms. Feld asked if the Commission would wait until the regular meeting in November to finish the agenda. Ms. Brabender Mattox stated that the only item to address would be the 716 E Irving plaque and Mr. Ulrich agreed to shift to the upcoming agenda. The next meeting would be a special meeting to work with the tribe on the Chief Oshkosh item. 12. Adjournment Mr. Ulrich made a motion to adjourn and Ms. Feld seconded. Meeting adjourned at 5:23 pm (5-0). Recorded by: Steven Wiley, AICP, Associate Planner