For anyone looking for some light weekend reading with lots of bullet points, I've uploaded the Executive Summary prepared by the facilitator following our February 5th council/staff retreat.

Labels: council politics, events, process

Posted by John Nephew at 3/06/2010 09:03:00 AM | Permalink | Comments

On that goofy Bob Zick cable show last week, Zick referred to Diana Longrie as "the real mayor" and stated that he does not recognize Mayor Rossbach as anything more than "chairperson." I suppose that's cute, but I'm getting reports that at least one person seems to take it seriously — the former mayor herself. I've been told that she has been seen at meetings sporting a name tag that identifies her as Mayor of Maplewood. And a resident recently complained about an announcement that played on cable TV:

There was a spot on Channel 15 public access tonight [Feb. 15th], Diana Longrie had an “ad” or a spot that was about 30 seconds, encouraging citizens to join her in asking the State Auditor to audit Maplewood’s financial records. Her name and “Maplewood Mayor” were flashed on the screen...

What in the world is going on? Does she have a delusion that she is still the mayor, never mind that democratic process that took place last November? Does she so crave the attention and deference that she enjoyed while bearing the title, she's unable to let it go? Or is this a political ploy to confuse the electorate or somehow sway them as part of her campaign for the council seat in the special election?

Labels: campaign 2010, council politics

Posted by John Nephew at 2/17/2010 09:21:00 AM | Permalink | Comments

North Saint Paul resident Bob Zick is a regular at our council meetings, always looking to create footage of himself to show on his cable access TV show. At this past Monday's meeting, he promised that he would be showing the video shot by his camera people (primarily the former mayor's husband) at last week's city council retreat and the citizens forum. Wondering what clips he would find to take wildly out of context, I TiVo'd his show out of curiosity and skimmed through it.

As it turns out, he never did play any video from either the retreat or the citizens forum. He played lot of video, but it all seemed to be him talking to the city council at our last two meetings. You'd think that fresh footage (not available online on demand) would be more interesting to his audience. Then again, the retreat was a nine-hour meeting that didn't include Bob Zick talking, so perhaps there wasn't any footage of interest to his regular viewer(s).

I did get a chance to see many examples of how spectacularly uninformed, misinformed and mathematically illiterate Mr. Zick is. For example, he went on about “pre-agenda meetings,” which have not been in place as long as I've been on the council. Those were meetings held the Thursday before a regular council meeting. The mayor and council would review the packet with staff, ask questions, and give staff a couple of days to research answers for the Monday meeting if they didn't have them already.

He also declared that this year's city council was working in secrecy out of the public eye, because we decide things in workshops, which are not broadcast. Umm...except that all our council workshops have been broadcast as long as I've been on the council. If you missed them, because they tend to start at some time between 4:30 and 5:30, all of the workshops since the start of 2010 are or will be archived for online viewing on demand.

Mr. Zick likes to pull amazing numbers out of the air, and declare them to be well-established facts. At one point he announced that the council/staff retreat cost $30,000-40,000; another time he said $80,000. I think I heard him say one point that city employees are paid $80 per hour (that would be $166,400 per year, though state law caps local government salaries at about $145,000), and he then multiplied that figure by the months of staff time he imagines went into setting up the retreat. At one point he claimed that meals at the retreat were “catered” and cost $10,000.



Sounds lavish, doesn't it! You might be imagining some high society party with sterling silver canape forks and servants in black ties.

Well, I never saw the caterers. It looked to me like city staff just set out snacks, drinks (coffee, hot water for tea, a cooler of soda pop), disposable cups and plates, and take-out food from some local restaurants. For breakfast there were a few things of yogurt, some muffins, coffee, two half gallon cartons of juice (pour your own into a paper cup), and some sliced fruit like you might pick up at Cub or Rainbow. At noon we had boxed lunches from Panera. For dinner, some big aluminum trays of salad and pasta, and some Italian bread (not heated like that fancy garlic bread you might have heard of, just cold sliced bread with packets of butter to spread on it yourself) from an Italian restaurant were set out for the five councilmembers and eleven staff members.

It says a lot about Mr. Zick's financial acuity that he imagines this spread would cost $10,000. Let's average $3,333 per meal – maybe less for breakfast (smaller, since department heads didn't join the retreat until lunchtime), more for dinner (what with bread on the side and some fancy packets of optional crushed red peppers for culinary thrill-seekers). I'm going to say there were no more than twenty boxed lunches from Panera (which, let's remember, is located in the same building that Mr. Zick claims as his Maplewood address). Do the math, $3,333 ÷ 20...

So the next time you see Mr. Zick claiming to speak with authority on any topic whatsoever, just remember — this is a guy who convinced himself that a six-inch sandwich, cookie and chips in a cardboard box from Panera Bread costs $167. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't trust him to buy lunch unsupervised, let alone advise my local government on policy and operations.

Labels: council politics, media, video

Posted by John Nephew at 2/11/2010 01:12:00 PM | Permalink | Comments

On Friday, February 5th, a long overdue City Council-Management Team retreat was held all day at the fire station on Clarence Street. The purpose of the retreat was threefold: to set council direction and goals for the next 2-3 years, identify short-term priorities, and build trust and better ways of working between staff and council. While we await a written report from the retreat facilitator, I thought I'd briefly write up my own notes from the day.

In the morning, the city council reviewed the city's assets and obstacles. Using a list of goals assembled from questionnaires the council had filled out prior to the meeting, we discussed and ranked those goals. The following emerged as our top seven:

1. Re-establish Maplewood's Reputation — restore trust and respect between the citizens, staff, and elected officials, restore a positive image with our residents, the media and other government entitites

2. Good Government — Make city government transparent and accessible, and operate with an environment of efficiency and mutual respect. Welcome and encourage citizen involvement, but not let the city's path be dictated simply by the loudest and most persistent voices that show up at city meetings.

3. Parks Department — Reorganize, re-establish, revitalize; possible joint venture with neighboring communities

4. (tie) Environmental Planning — Further develop processes for “going green”; enhance and fund open space management; includes follow-up on Fish Creek commission recommendations

4. (tie) Fiscal Responsibility — Manage the city's finances and financial planning effectively, with an eye to providing stability and maximum value in the long term for our residents

6. Complete the infrastructure upgrade process

7. Redevelopment

In the afternoon, city department heads joined the retreat. Each councilmember and staff member in the retreat was asked to identify ten short-term objectives or priorities. The following items were on the list of majorities of both group (three or more councilmembers, plus six or more of the eleven management team staff):

• Maintain Quality Services
• Integration of Parks and Recreation; Parks Funding
• Economic Development
• Investment in Redevelopment
• In-depth survey of citizens
• Investment in infrastructure

With nine hours of work and discussion, there was a lot more to it than these two lists, but this provides at least some idea of the areas of consensus that emerged from the retreat. It was time well spent, and I look forward to working with my fellow councilmembers and the staff in going forward to achieve these goals and objectives.

Labels: council politics, events, process

Posted by John Nephew at 2/09/2010 11:13:00 AM | Permalink | Comments

The Maplewood City Council gets a lot of ink in this week's Maplewood Review. You can read the articles online about Julie Wasiluk's temporary council appointment, the passing of the sign ordinance (minus two sections for further study and discussion), and the final passage of the amended recreational fire ordinance.

Labels: council politics, environment, media

Posted by John Nephew at 2/06/2010 12:03:00 PM | Permalink | Comments

Remember all the controversy about wood smoke? Remember how, right before the election, a few pamphleteers and cable access TV shows purported to have uncovered a secret agenda on the part of mayoral candidate Will Rossbach to ban recreational fires, fireplaces, wood stoves, etc.?

Last night we passed the second reading of the amended recreational fire ordinance. It becomes law as soon as it's published in the official newspaper. Contrary to all the election-season bleatings of Maplewood's conspiracy mongers, we didn't ban wood fires. In fact, most members of the city council told you all along, if you asked, that no ban was ever being considered.

But from the outset of the wood smoke task force, some people (including certain now-former councilmembers) have worked hard to fan the flames of fear with rumors that a ban on wood burning was imminent. Denials could only be seen as proof of the sinister scheme underway, to their way of thinking.

Now that the ordinance has actually passed (and there is no ban, in case that was unclear), the naked dishonesty and cynicism of these conspiracy mongers should be plain to all.

What we actually did do:

• Changed the ordinance to conform to state law (which supercedes our ordinances anyway) where they were in conflict. Examples: Our old ordinance permitted coal as fuel for recreational fires, which Minnesota law prohibits; our ordinance allowed fires 20 feet from a structure, while the state requires a minimum of 25.
• Extended the permitted hours for recreational fires, formerly from 2 PM to 11 PM, now from 10 AM to 11 PM.
• Added a "good neighbor" clause that states "Recreational fires should not be lit or maintained if the smoke therefrom unreasonably causes discomfort or a negative impact to neighboring properties."
• Added a wind restriction to allow recreational fires only when the wind is less than 15 mph.
  

And after all that controversy and character bashing, after turning a minor ordinance update into a political football, how many of those "concerned" people actually showed up last night to comment on the final passage of the ordinance? Zero.

Labels: council politics, environment, public safety

Posted by John Nephew at 1/26/2010 05:01:00 PM | Permalink | Comments

The Sunday Pioneer Press includes an article about a petition seeking signatures to ask the State Auditor to examine Maplewood's books. Leading the petition drive is Elizabeth Sletten, one of former Mayor Diana Longrie's most devoted fans (you may also remember her as one of the candidates in last year's city council primary), and Longrie herself.

Long-time readers of my blog may recall that we've talked about this before. As my term began in 2008, I seriously considered whether we should ask the State Auditor to look at our books, after the mismanagement and incompetence of the Longrie-Copeland era. You can read my entry on the topic from April 7, 2008.

Then-Mayor Longrie wrote an April 8, 2008 opinion article in the Pioneer Press about her wish to see an audit; she ran the same text as her article in the May 2008 city newsletter. Longrie's laundry list of concerns focused not on Copeland's time at the city's helm — rather, she wanted an inquiry to focus on policy disagreements such as the amount of city debt, and bizarre personal obsessions like someone joking about naming a street after Will Rossbach. (Perhaps Longrie thinks "Comedy Police" is part of the state auditor's job description.)

In the new Pioneer Press article, Sletten claims to have obtained more than 400 signatures so far — roughly the same number as votes she received in last year's primary. To meet the required 20% of registered Maplewood voters, she'll need about 4,200. Even then, the scope of the audit is determined by the auditors, not the petitioners. To quote the State Auditor's website:

If a petition audit is certified by the county auditor, staff from the Office of the State Auditor would then meet with a committee of petitioners to review the petitioners' concerns. The audit staff then would review the concerns to determine the scope of the audit. The audit might not include all the concerns identified by the petitioners if the audit staff determined that the concerns were based on decisions within the discretion of the governing body.

I believe the State Auditor would duplicate the work already done by our independent auditors every year — which, let's be clear, has included a lot of clean-up of issues from the Longrie-Copeland era. But staff and auditors have repeatedly told us that there's no evidence of wrongdoing, just errors that we can reasonably believe came as a result of the loss of most of the accounting department, who were driven away by the toxic environment created in City Hall by Copeland and his masters. To emphasize the point once again, a state audit would not just duplicate our independent auditors' work, but the city's taxpayers would have to pay for the cost of the audit in a year when the budget is already stretched thin.

I don't believe that this money would be well spent, especially in these lean budgetary times. Still, if 20% of Maplewood voters want it, we'll indulge the personal obsessions of the former mayor and her cronies on the taxpayers' dime once again. I don't expect anything shocking will turn up, but I do still have my own list of questions, as I wrote in May 2008, that I will happily submit to the auditors if they're going to be examining the city's affairs anyhow.

Labels: council politics, finance, media

Posted by John Nephew at 1/17/2010 10:49:00 AM | Permalink | Comments

The Pioneer Press editorial writers had some fun last week at the expense of Maplewood and the anticipated decline of our previously thriving headline manufacturing sector. "But where are tomorrow's quips, headlines, conflicts, gaffes and attacks going to come from, if not from our elected leaders?" they write. " This agreeableness has got to stop."

Labels: council politics, media

Posted by John Nephew at 1/10/2010 03:49:00 PM | Permalink | Comments

In promoting the idea of even-year elections last year, former councilmember Erik Hjelle mentioned his concern about "a few motivated partisans that sway the election process" in odd-year elections.

I think that this is exactly what happened in 2005 and the ultra-low-turnout 2006 special election, which put Hjelle, Longrie and Cave in office. As turnout has increased in recent elections, the number of votes for Longrie and Cave (and former running mate DelRay Rokke) did not increase proportionally. Stephan Flister discussed this phenomenon on Maplewood Voices last year, in comparing the 2005 and 2009 mayoral primaries; but it can be seen in the council races as well.

Look at these comparisons:

Election	Ballots Cast	Turnout	Cave Votes	Change	Rokke Votes	Change
2005 Primary	2228	n/a	796	n/a	n/a	n/a
2007 Primary	3543	+59.02%	941	+18.22%	793	n/a
2009 Primary	4268	+20.46%	871	-7.44%	828	+4.41%

Election	Ballots Cast	Turnout	Juenemann Votes	Change	Llanas Votes	Change
2005 Primary	2228	n/a	1047	n/a	n/a	n/a
2007 Primary	3543	+59.02%	n/a	n/a	200	n/a
2009 Primary	4268	+20.46%	1759	+68%	1415	+608%

In essence, there seems to be a limited and largely fixed number of people who will vote for Longrie, Hjelle or their proxies. The bigger the voter participation (as is seen in even-year elections, when there are national or state-wide races on the ballot), the less likely it may be that a group like them can hijack Maplewood's city government in the future.

Labels: campaign 2009, council politics

Posted by John Nephew at 1/07/2010 08:30:00 AM | Permalink | Comments

Mayor Rossbach and Councilmembers Juenemann and Llanas took their oaths of office at a special council meeting held this past Monday, January 4th. We also declared the vacancy of Mayor Rossbach's council seat, called for a special election to be held at the same time as this year's statewide primary, and discussed how to appoint a councilmember to serve in the interim.

For the interim appointment process, we decided that each councilmember will put forward the name of a qualified and willing candidate. We will ask these nominees to fill out an application or provide their resume, and we will interview them all together and discuss the appointment at a special workshop on January 12th. There was consensus that we would like to appoint someone with past city government experience, preferably a former councilmember but someone with experience serving on a city board or commission would be considered as well. The other criterion suggested by Councilmember Juenemann (and with which Councilmember Llanas agreed) was that we select someone who does not intend to run in the special election. I didn't think this was essential, but I also don't have a big objection to it and so I included it in the motion.

Ideally this process will result in an interim councilmember appointed in time to join our goal-setting retreat with staff, which we have scheduled to occur on February 5th.

Labels: campaign 2010, council politics, process

Posted by John Nephew at 1/05/2010 04:56:00 PM | Permalink | Comments

Over the weekend, the Pioneer Press ran an article headlined, "What will 2010 bring to Minnesota? Pioneer Press reporters share their predictions."

One of those predictions: "A Return To Civility" for Maplewood, with the swearing in tonight of Rossbach as Mayor, and Juenemann and Llanas to the city council. "A smooth-running council could ultimately save the city money," writes John Brewer, and observers should "Look for increased transparency in administrative and financial matters as well as low-key council meetings."

Today's Pioneer Press features a longer article by Nancy Ngo, "In Maplewood, it's a new city council minus the old animosities."

Labels: campaign 2009, council politics, media

Posted by John Nephew at 1/04/2010 09:11:00 AM | Permalink | Comments

In an e-mail addressed to the entire city staff as well as the city council, soon-to-be-former councilmember Erik Hjelle writes today:

I fully understand that this concept will shock most of you but I do not want a plague.

Obviously this is a typo concerning the plaques in Item I1 on Monday's agenda ("Presentation Of Plaques To Outgoing Mayor And Councilmember Hjelle From Ramsey County League Of Local Governments"), but a person could have fun speculating about what Erik's unconscious was trying to express through this parapraxis. Perhaps an apology for four years of metaphorical locusts?

Labels: council politics

Posted by John Nephew at 12/09/2009 04:13:00 PM | Permalink | Comments

According to an e-mail from the League of Minnesota Cities, Governor Pawlenty in a letter to the league has "announced that he would not use unallotment to further reduce or delay the December local government aid (LGA) and market value homestead credit (MVHC) payments scheduled for cities and counties."

This is good news for Minnesota cities in general. However, it appears not to make a difference for Maplewood. The governor's decision to reduce LGA/MVHC by $64 million back in June, which this announcement does not undo, already took away all of our MVHC. Further reductions to December payments, that were expected as a response the increased state deficit announced last week, could not have come at Maplewood's expense because we were already at $0.

The governor is not rolling back the 2009 and 2010 cuts that were already determined earlier this year (which would increase the state's deficit even more) -- he's just decided not to cut even further for now. He makes no such guarantee for 2010 -- though again, since our 2010 payments are already at $0, it makes no difference to Maplewood. For some of our neighbors who get LGA or MVHC even after this summer's cuts, this is good news, but it won't put any money back in Maplewood's coffers, this year or next.

Nonetheless, Councilmember Erik Hjelle, showing off both his typically poor reading comprehension and his habitual disregard for the Open Meeting Law, dashed off an e-mail to the entire city council as soon as he (mis-)heard the news, saying he "cannot wait to see how you liberals spend this" and that we should "give the money BACK to the taxpayers." Rushing to judgement and insults based on his own misunderstanding is vintage Erik, something I'm sure we'll all miss in a few weeks when Jim Llanas replaces him on the council.

Labels: council politics, finance

Posted by John Nephew at 12/08/2009 01:47:00 PM | Permalink | Comments

One prominent player from the previous two city election cycles was notable for its absence from the campaign this year — the Maplewood Firefighters Association, Inc.

The MFA appeared in 2005, campaigning on behalf of candidates Hjelle, Cave, and Longrie, and got right down to the business of flouting the rules. During that election, Hjelle, a city employee as a pay-per-call firefighter, ran afoul of the city's personnel policies by using the Londin Lane fire station to put together a mailing from the MFA on behalf of himself, Cave, and Longrie. An independent investigation concluded that Hjelle had knowingly violated city policy against using city buildings for campaigning. Hjelle told the investigator that he had every right to use the fire station for his election campaign, because "It's not the city's fire station. It's my fire station. The City technically owns it, but it's my fire station and my fire truck.” The MFA was also entangled in one of the 2005 campaign practices complaints against Erik Hjelle. The Office of Administrative Hearings determined that the MFA had made illegal campaign contributions to Hjelle ($2,228.84 versus the $300 allowed by law).

In 2007, the MFA was active again, producing lawnsigns in support of Rebecca Cave. Once again the group prompted a campaign practices complaint, and the OAH determined that the MFA had knowingly and falsely implied the Maplewood Fire Department had endorsed Cave, then fined them $1000 for breaking the law.

What was interesting in 2007 was that, apart from an attorney, the only person who appeared before the Office of Administrative Hearings to speak on behalf of the MFA was Erik Hjelle -- though he was not, apparently, an officer or board member at that time. From listening to his testimony (42 megabyte MP3, about 46 minutes long, archived for posterity), I'm convinced that he personally torpedoed any chance they might have had at a successful defense. (As the judges put it: "He testified repeatedly that by using the phrase 'Maplewood Police and Fire Endorse Rebecca Cave,' he intended to communicate that Ms. Cave had the support of all Maplewood firefighters. Neither Hjelle nor the MFA have the authority to speak for the Department or the MPFA [the full-time firefighters' union], and the evidence is undisputed that neither of these organizations has agreed to endorse Ms. Cave.")

After two election cycles of active involvement, why was the MFA conspicuously absent in 2009? Was it a victim of the falling out between Hjelle's faction and the supporters of Longrie and Cave, as seen during and after the election? Was the MFA ever more than the "Erik Hjelle Political Action Committee" — just a means for Hjelle to claim falsely to speak for all firefighters as he pursued his own political agenda? Maybe in 2009, he realized that his public support was more likely to hurt than to help the candidates he favored. To the extent that Hjelle was visible in the campaign season, it was in launching attacks on Rossbach and Llanas, rather than openly campaigning for candidates as he had in the past.

In any case, if you search for the Maplewood Firefighters Association in the Minnesota Secretary of State's website today, you'll find that it says "Entity Status: Inactive." And if you're wondering about the trademark "Maplewood Fire" and its logo, the subject of contention in 2007, you'll see that it's now registered to the City of Maplewood, as it should be.

Labels: campaign 2009, council politics

Posted by John Nephew at 12/05/2009 10:06:00 PM | Permalink | Comments

On the agenda for Monday's special council meeting, after the staff's budget presentation and before public comment, is an alternate budget proposal from Mayor Longrie. The meeting packet is finalized and available online, yet the mayor's proposed budget is not in it.

My recollection from our budget discussion in September is that Mayor Longrie suggested that she had already worked out the budget cuts necessary to pay for the tax cut she proposed (in addition to the city's loss of state funds), but merely declined to share those with the rest of the council at that time. So I'm not sure why she has not yet provided that information, almost three months later.

Surely she does not expect the council to vote on her budget, without even giving us some time in advance of the meeting to review it? Or is the whole thing just another stunt, to create a campaign issue if, as she has threatened, she runs for office again in the future?

Labels: campaign 2010, council politics, finance

Posted by John Nephew at 12/03/2009 10:35:00 PM | Permalink | Comments

It sounds like there's been a search for scapegoats among the supporters of some losing candidates in last week's election. It didn't take long for the blame to be laid at two pairs of feet clad in big steel-toed firefighter boots: those of candidate Dave Hafner (for promoting the write-in candidacies of Smart and Rokke) and, in the background behind him, outgoing councilmember Erik Hjelle.

Check out this image, brought to my attention by a friend who spotted it on North Saint Paul resident Bob Zick's cable access TV show the night after the election.


Zick had been attacking Mr. Hafner for "going back on his word" by not supporting Longrie and Cave and having the audacity to criticize ("disparage") the incumbent mayor, etc. Then he welcomed a caller with uncomplimentary remarks about Mr. Hafner's abilities as a firefighter/EMT. The phrase "Hjelle torpedos election" started appearing on the screen, as you can see circled in the framegrab above.

Given his history with both of them, one might have wondered, in the fracturing of the Longrie-Hjelle alliance, which side Mr. Zick would come down on. I guess he decided to stick with the failed politician who is hinting at running for office again, rather than the one who's taking his ball and going home.

Labels: campaign 2009, council politics

Posted by John Nephew at 11/12/2009 07:53:00 AM | Permalink | Comments

In last week's election, sitting councilmember Will Rossbach won the race for mayor. This will mean a special election in 2010. Numerous residents have asked me about the mechanics of this, so I brought it up at Monday's council meeting. Here is the discussion:



To summarize:

• When Rossbach takes the oath of office as Mayor, it creates a vacancy in his council seat.
• Since more than 6 months remain in Rossbach's council term, the 2005 ordinance requires that we hold a special election.
• There is some flexibility as to when exactly to hold the special election.
• The earliest it could be held is about 90 days after the vacancy is declared, in order to comply with all the relevant state laws (notice, filing periods, etc.).
  
• If we combine the special election with another election (such as the state primary), we can save the $26,000 we otherwise would have to spend on a stand-alone special election.
  
• Regardless of when the special election is held, the ordinance requires the council to appoint a person to fill the vacancy until the winner of the special election is sworn in, just as happened in 2005.

From what I've read and a recent conversation with a legislator, it sounds like it is very likely that the primary date will be moved up from September to August. This change was in the elections reform bill that was passed and vetoed last session, but it was not itself a controversial provision. (Besides having bipartisan support, it will be needed in order to comply with pending changes in federal election law.) The idea of moving it forward is to protect the voting rights of Minnesotans overseas, especially the deployed members of our military. General election ballots obviously can't be printed and mailed until the primary results are finalized (sometimes including a recount, as in one of the judicial primaries last year).

Labels: campaign 2010, council politics, video

Posted by John Nephew at 11/11/2009 05:18:00 PM | Permalink | Comments

What might have happened if Will Rossbach and I had not won in 2007 and changed the balance of power on the Maplewood City Council?

Take a look at the City of Greenfield for an object lesson. This past summer the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust imposed special conditions on their insurance renewal, in response to a high level of losses and a perception that their mayor and city council were continuing on a path that was likely to bring more lawsuits.

Those conditions were comparable to the ones imposed on Maplewood in 2008, after the wave of costly lawsuits under Greg Copeland's management in 2006-2007. When the LMCIT imposed its conditions on our renewal, Maplewood had already taken steps in the right direction -- with the 2007 election results, the dismissal of Mr. Copeland, the start of a process for hiring a permanent, professional city manager, and so forth. As one would expect, those changes have since corresponded to a sharp drop in lawsuits and losses.

Greenfield has proven to be less cooperative. Without getting into all of the soap opera details, the result is that the LMCIT has chosen to cancel Greenfield's insurance coverage altogether, as reported by the Star Tribune and the South Crow River News, in order to protect the other member cities. If I understand it correctly, the LMCIT gave notice of across-the-board cancellation effective in 30 days. The board is then willing to offer a new coverage package limited to personal injury and property damage claims. Other types of lawsuits (e.g., employment, defamation, land use) that may occur will be at the full expense of Greenfield's taxpapers, both for the legal defense fees and the ultimate costs of any settlements or judgements.

For a city with a population under 3,000 and a tax levy under $1.3 million, such expenses could have a large and costly impact on taxpayers. The city might look to private insurers for coverage, but it is likely to be very expensive and in some cases (such as land use defense) my understanding is that no private insurers even sell such coverage.

I will be interested to see if the LMCIT's harsh decision results in any changes in the way Greenfield's elected officials govern, or if it will be left to the voters in their next elections.

Labels: council politics, media

Posted by John Nephew at 11/07/2009 09:59:00 AM | Permalink | Comments

The publishing cycle of the local weekly newspaper, the Maplewood Review, means that this week's issue doesn't include the election results (though their web page does have the story). What it does have related to Maplewood politics is an article about even-year elections, a topic that I brought up at the October 26 council meeting.

Labels: council politics, media

Posted by John Nephew at 11/06/2009 08:25:00 AM | Permalink | Comments

Erik Hjelle did bring up an interesting idea in his farewell editorial in the October city newsletter: Should Maplewood switch to even-year municipal elections? From my perspective, costs savings is the biggest likely benefit, especially now that the North St. Paul-Maplewood-Oakdale school district no longer has odd-year elections.

I've placed an item on the agenda for Monday, under Council Presentations, to sound out the rest of our city council and see if there's interest in gathering more information and discussing the idea, and wrote a one-page memo for inclusion in the meeting packet.

Labels: council politics

Posted by John Nephew at 10/22/2009 08:51:00 AM | Permalink | Comments

This week's Maplewood Review includes an article with the headline "Council member calls for maintaining police and firefighter levels."

On September 14th, the city council debated the maximum property tax levy for 2010. One option was a zero levy increase. Each department laid out the implications of that budget scenario, given the loss of more than half a million dollars in Market Value Homestead Credit from the state. For the police department, which uses a very large percentage of our property taxes and spends most of their budget on payroll, the impact included not hiring two new officers to fill vacancies created by recent retirements.

Even knowing the impact that a zero levy increase would have, Erik Hjelle and Diana Longrie proposed going even further in the revenue cuts, by offering a motion to cut more than $1/2 million more from the property tax levy. Had their motion passed, the city would need to consider a lot more than just leaving two officer positions vacant in order to balance the budget.

Two weeks after voting with Mayor Longrie against the funding needed to maintain Maplewood police and fire (and other property-tax-funded city services -- if you like having your streets plowed in the winter, for example), Erik brought forward his motion "that the city council support not cutting any police officer or fire staffing levels in the 2010 budget."

This was my response to his original motion:



In the end, we agreed on language to say that it is a priority of the council not to make cuts to police and fire, something that all five of us agreed on. It remains to be seen whether the whole council will step forward and take responsibility for paying for it as well when the final levy decision comes before us. In the meantime, Councilmember Hjelle and Mayor Longrie seem determined to have their cake and eat it too, taking symbolic votes in support of public safety while voting against the taxes that pay for them.

Labels: council politics, finance, media, public safety, video

Posted by John Nephew at 10/16/2009 01:07:00 PM | Permalink | Comments

In the Star Tribune earlier this week, there's an article about trash hauling. It reports that, according to a recent study by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, residents of cities with consumers choosing their own hauler pay on average 50% more than those with organized collection.

Our city council hasn't talked much about trash hauling, but it's a subject that the Environmental and Natural Resources Commission has investigated and discussed recently. In addition, the City of St. Paul is currently evaluating their open trash collection system. Proponents of organized collection cite the noise of multiple trucks, the extra fuel consumption, and the increased wear on city streets (meaning they have to be repaired and replaced sooner, at taxpayer expense). Opponents have usually argued that competition means lower prices, an assumption that the MPCA now calls into question. The fall-back argument of organized hauling opponents, according to the Star Tribune article, is that "They say the most valuable service isn't always the least expensive, and that competition fosters innovation and more environmentally sound practices."

City Manager Antonen brought this article to the attention of the City Council today, in his weekly "FYI." One council member was offended even to have the subject brought up: Erik Hjelle dashed off an immediate reply to the FYI, and copied the rest of the council, by telling Mr. Antonen, "...you really are a collectivist/socialist..." I guess that tells us how he would vote if organized collection came before the Council.

What might be more useful to know -- given Hjelle's lame-duck status -- is where the candidates for council and mayor stand on the issue of trash hauling. Perhaps someone will ask the question at the upcoming LWV candidate forum?

Labels: campaign 2009, council politics, environment, media

Posted by John Nephew at 10/08/2009 04:40:00 PM | Permalink | Comments

At our last city council meeting, there was a moment that I thought was a pretty revealing snapshot of Mayor Longrie's character.

Soon after I joined the council, we changed the discretionary spending limit for the city manager from $5,000 to $10,000. For expenditures over that amount, the city manager has to obtain prior approval from the city council. Two meetings ago, it came to light that we did this as a policy change in 2008, but the previous change (reducing it to $5,000 in 2006) had been done by means of an ordinance.

Given staff changes in relevant positions (city manager, finance director, city attorney) since the ordinance was passed, and the strangeness of doing it by ordinance in the first place, it's not too surprising that the current occupants of those positions were blindsided. Still, everyone but me on the council was there when it passed and voted on it, for or against, and they all seem to have forgotten too. Or did they?



How does one interpret this? Is Diana saying that she knew all along it was an ordinance, and was just hanging on to that knowledge as an "ace in the hole" to spring on the council at a politically opportune time (like this election season)? Or is it just pride, not wanting to admit an imperfect memory like everyone else?

Labels: campaign 2009, council politics, finance, video

Posted by John Nephew at 9/12/2009 11:47:00 AM | Permalink | Comments

In our last audit, one issue that was of great concern to me and other council members was a discrepancy between the city's books and our bank balances to the tune of about $93,000. On Friday we heard from Assistant City Manager Chuck Ahl that the accounting errors had been tracked down by the Finance Department and the accounts are now balanced.

He explained in an e-mail to the City Council:

The memo report provides an explanation of the $93,000 issue that was raised as part of the 2008 audit. In summary, it reveals that an accounting error [or actually accounting errors] explain the discrepancy between the cash that the banks report is available for the City and the cash that our accounting system indicates that we should have.

In very rough terms, a major accounting error involved the receipt of funds from the Republican National Convention for the Police overtime services. In effect, it was double counted as cash received and an accounts receivable. That payment was for over $126K, but after the other adjustment calculations, it amounted to the $93,000+ issue.

I'm very pleased to know that this has been resolved. We had assumed that it amounted to a data-entry error like this, but it's still good to have it tracked down definitively.

In the bigger picture, this is an example of the ways the city is still recovering from the damage done in the disastrous period of Copeland's mismanagement, at the behest of Longrie, Cave and Hjelle. That triumvirate came into office with a hit list of people they wanted to see fired -- Erik Hjelle notoriously listed his personal targets in an April 8, 2006 Pioneer Press article. After the city's finance director (one of the people Erik was quoted as wanting to see driven out) resigned in late 2006, the assistant finance director did not stay for very many months longer before she took a job offer from another city. Ultimately I believe we lost something like 75% of the employees in Finance, and as this reconciliation demonstrates, this department is still in the process of recovering.

This is something to keep in mind when you hear about would-be mayors and councilmembers who, like Erik, seem to be assembling their own hit lists of employees they would like to get rid of, should they be elected. Besides the institutional damage, it's also of course worth remembering the costs of legal fees, settlements, judgements, and insurance increases that Erik's hit list brought upon the city.

Labels: campaign 2009, council politics, finance

Posted by John Nephew at 9/09/2009 11:27:00 AM | Permalink | Comments

This week's Maplewood Review covers a number of city topics, including the candidates for the primary election that is now just two weeks away. Our printed copy hasn't arrived in the mail yet, but I can see quite a few new articles on the Lillie newspaper's website.

Under the headline "Seven vie for Maplewood mayor," the newspaper's managing editor, Holly Wenzel, offers profiles of six candidates, drawn from questionnaires filled out by the candidates. One candidate, Fran Grant, did not submit a questionnaire.

All eleven city council candidates did fill out their questionnaires, and the result is another article, "11 file for 2 Maplewood council seats." Candidates Julie Binko and DelRay Rokke also make an appearance on the letters to the editor page. Rokke observes that "Maplewood’s elected leadership has been sorely lacking in the eyes of the entire metropolitan community for a number of years," a chord similar to the "not been proud of our government" comment from running mate Dave Hafner in the Review two weeks ago. Binko, whose small claims suit and its failure have gotten her attention in recent newspapers, expresses her outrage that our legislators introduced bills to fund acquisition of land for conservation in Fish Creek, and that Peter Fischer and I testified in favor of one such bill earlier this year. Another letter that touches on the election appears from resident Christeen Stone.

"Applewood trail construction reaching conclusion" discusses the sustainable trail at Applewood Park, which was the topic of an informational presentation from city staff at our August 24 council meeting. Other article topics include the city manager's spending authority and when or if issues involving councilmembers should be referred to outside agencies for investigation.

Labels: campaign 2009, council politics, finance, media, parks

Posted by John Nephew at 9/03/2009 06:57:00 AM | Permalink | Comments

One of the articles in last week's Maplewood Review, "City Council candidate suing Maplewood," described the frivolous small claims action brought against the City of Maplewood and the Friends of Maplewood Nature by current city council candidate Julie Binko.

According to the article, when asked for comment, Dr. Binko told the reporter by e-mail, "You sat in the courtroom -- you tell me what the case was about." I found this response comforting, since I think everyone present at the hearing was wondering what the case was about, as the referee struggled to nail down just what exactly Binko meant by her vague allegations.

In any case, the conciliation court ruling has been issued, entering judgment in favor of the City and Friends of Maplewood Nature.

Labels: campaign 2009, council politics, media

Posted by John Nephew at 8/17/2009 07:43:00 AM | Permalink | Comments

Maplewood provided plenty of material for this week's Maplewood Review. Headlining above the fold is an article entitled “Maplewood politics reaches new low,” describing the shameless efforts of Councilmember Erik Hjelle to connect the tragic, accidental death of a Maplewood resident to mayoral candidate Will Rossbach.

Given this willingness to dishonor his firefighter's uniform (he was one of the emergency responders to the scene of the accident, and knows full well the story he's pushing is false) in order to defame a political rival, I guess it's not surprising that even some of Hjelle's long-time political allies seem to be hinting at backing away from him.

Labels: campaign 2009, council politics, media

Posted by John Nephew at 8/13/2009 09:09:00 AM | Permalink | Comments

One of the things I find most interesting about this year's primary ballot is the divisions it shows among what had been the Longrie-Hjelle coalition. I guess it's not terribly surprising, as Erik Hjelle's contempt for Mayor Longrie is often apparent. Their alliance has always seemed to be one of convenience founded upon mutual enemies (such as all the people Erik went into office intending to fire, as he told the Pioneer Press way back in 2006), not mutual respect.

There seem to be more Longrie allies running in the council primary than there are spaces on the general ballot. But two former Longrie supporters -- Dave Hafner and DelRay Rokke -- are now running as a slate with a different mayoral candidate, Ken Smart. They filed rather late, and my speculation is that they're the slate that Erik supports. If Erik has contempt for Diana, his distaste for some of her supporters -- particularly the ones who filed for office relatively early -- is even stronger. (Notice that Hjelle is the sole member of the council who voted against reappointing council candidate Robert Martin to the planning commission earlier this year.)

By way of example, here's a passage from an e-mail that Erik wrote to me (dated 2/12/09, 8:33 AM, and copied to city staff) when, at the request of Environmental and Natural Resources Commission members, I had asked for the council to consider removing Frederica Musgrave from that commission. He wrote:

And let me be clear, I view this "tiff" amongst the DFL liberal/progressive/environmental nazis your guys' problem, not mine. This is what happens when you coddle and enable victims on every scale. Just because your DFL progressive environmental/greens don't get along with Diana's DFL progressive environmental/greens is NOT my problem.

(What's with Erik's gang's fascination with Nazis, anyway?)

Just like Erik promised in his e-mail, there was a frivolous lawsuit from Ms. Musgrave. When her request for a temporary injunction was denied in no uncertain terms, she dismissed her own suit shortly thereafter. A few months later, Musgrave's housemate, former parks commissioner and current council candidate Julie Binko, filed her own frivolous small claims action against the city on a different matter.

As an observer, I'm curious to see how Erik's contempt for the "victims" and "environmental nazis" in Diana's camp balances against his hatred of fellow councilmember and mayoral candidate Will Rossbach. Will Hjelle go for the trifecta, violating campaign finance/practices laws in a third consecutive municipal election cycle -- and if so, which candidates will his violations be supporting or attacking this year?

Labels: campaign 2009, council politics, Dave Hafner

Posted by John Nephew at 8/10/2009 11:02:00 AM | Permalink | Comments

For a contrasting view, after seeing the performance reviews done by Diana Longrie and Rebecca Cave, here is Kathy Juenemann's evaluation from the same June 11, 2007, workshop.



Juenemann is currently on the council and a candidate for reelection.

Labels: campaign 2009, council politics, video

Posted by John Nephew at 8/09/2009 09:36:00 AM | Permalink | Comments

As a follow-up to the previous video of Mayor Longrie reviewing the performance of former city manager Greg Copeland, I thought that I should also post the evaluation done by former councilmember and current city council candidate Rebecca Cave. This too is from the June 11, 2007 council meeting.



Cave immediately followed the evaluation done by Will Rossbach. Rossbach was rightly very critical of Mr. Copeland, and described his perception that Mr. Copeland served the majority of Cave, Longrie, and Hjelle, to the exclusion of Rossbach and Juenemann. Of the roughly 2 1/2 minutes that Cave speaks, about the first 30% is spent attacking Will for his criticism of Copeland. She says Will's critique was "inappropriate," "juvenile," and "pathetic," and suggests that he needs to "get some self-esteem classes."

For the rest, her only criticism of Mr. Copeland and his epic mismanagement of the city was apparently that he didn't say enough good things about himself in his self-evaluation.

Labels: campaign 2009, council politics, video

Posted by John Nephew at 8/07/2009 11:13:00 AM | Permalink | Comments

At the DFL screening for resolutions of support, one audience member asked mayoral candidates what they would do about the city's increased insurance costs due to wrongful termination lawsuits. Diana Longrie, under whose watch as mayor the illegal firings (e.g., John Banick and Sherrie Le) took place, disclaimed responsibility by stating that Maplewood is a "Plan B" city in which the council has no control over personnel matters.

Denial of responsibility for the messes of the Longrie-Copeland years is also one of the messages in Longrie's taxpayer-funded, two-page campaign literature editorial in the August Maplewood Monthly. She writes:

Occasionally, citizens may hear individuals accuse certain council members or the mayor of terminating past Maplewood city employees. However, more and more of our citizens are coming to realize that as a result of Maplewood being a plan B city, organized under MN Stat. §412.611, that all city staff employment questions they may have should be directed to the City Manager – the person with the real authority to evaluate staff, terminate city workers or manage the day-to-day affairs of the City.

Citizens may ask questions of the city manager -- but of course it's the mayor and city council who have authority over the manager. So as Greg Copeland was running up our insurance tab with illegal firings, what did Mayor Longrie do to exercise her limited but important role in a Plan B City, to hold Copeland accountable for his performance?

Here's the evaluation she gave Mr. Copeland at the June 11, 2007 workshop:



At this point, the insurance trust had already, multiple times and in writing, communicated its concerns about litigation. Mayor Longrie did not question Mr. Copeland's performance with respect to actions that had invited personnel litigation and made it hard to defend the city in court (e.g., "publishing a budget document that explicitly linked the reorganization to unionization activities").

Instead, she basically worried that Mr. Copeland worked too hard and too long while doing a wonderful job for the city, and wasn't taking enough time for himself. And she thought he needed to do more mentoring of his subordinates.

Labels: campaign 2009, council politics, video

Posted by John Nephew at 8/06/2009 09:02:00 AM | Permalink | Comments

During the June 13-14, 2009, discussion of the proposal to suspend the Council Corner editorials during election season, city council candidate Robert Martin read a prepared statement opposing the resolution. Remarkably, he suggested that to limit elected officials' taxpayer-funded communications with voters would be unconstitutional. Denying Mayor Longrie her newsletter column (she is the only incumbent who had not said she would voluntarily abstain from writing), he warned, was likely to bring a lengthy and expensive lawsuit against the city.

Here's video of his statement and the ensuing discussion:



The court case that Martin reads from concerns an alleged violation of the Texas Open Meetings Law. An article summarizing the decision explains that, "the U.S. Court of Appeals in New Orleans (5th Cir.) held that elected officials have First Amendment rights to speak to each other in private. As a result, open meetings laws that prohibit private speech between elected officials have to pass stringent constitutional muster, the court said."

Labels: campaign 2009, council politics, video

Posted by John Nephew at 7/30/2009 09:00:00 AM | Permalink | Comments

The Maplewood Review has an online update to the story about the Council Corner, entitled "Maplewood Council Corner Columns a go." The article describes at some length the unusual, off-agenda presentation from city council candidate and outspoken Longrie supporter Julie Binko on July 20. For those who have not seen Dr. Binko in action, I thought I would share a video clip of the exchange.

Labels: campaign 2009, council politics, media, video

Posted by John Nephew at 7/25/2009 08:16:00 AM | Permalink | Comments

The council meeting on July 13th was very long. Even after tabling many agenda items, we didn't adjourn until nearly 2 AM on the 14th. One reason for this was the unreasonable and unnecessary length of time spent on many agenda items.

As an example, the discussion of the Markham Pond retaining wall ran for more than 40 minutes. This included 22 minutes of one resident (a long-time supporter of the mayor, it may be noted) recounting the history of his family, which used to own the land in question, and its legal disputes with the school district and the City of North Saint Paul prior to the incorporation of the City of Maplewood. Most of the other discussion was irrelevant or a rehash of points argued at numerous previous public meetings as the city sought to resolve this particular issue.

Eventually Will Rossbach called the question, asking that we vote on the matter and move on already. Unwilling to simply call the vote, Mayor Longrie insisted on a formal procedural motion to call the question and a vote on it. After the motion to call the question passed, Mayor Longrie proceeded to ask if there was any further discussion on the main motion!



This whole meeting demonstrated Maplewood's need for a new mayor. Part of the extreme length of this specific meeting was, I believe, Mayor Longrie's wish not to see a timely vote on the Council Corner issue. But in any meeting, she seems to lack the desire or ability to use her authority as chair to keep the meeting on track -- for example, by courteously insisting that residents keep their remarks brief and relevant to the issue under discussion.

I think that in Longrie's view, this "talk as long as you want about whatever you want" approach demonstrates her supposed commitment to openness in government. I'm sure that's what she's saying on the campaign trail. The problem is that while she repeatedly gives the podium camera to some people with axes to grind, the result is to make government less accessible to others -- the people who have actual business before the council. These residents and businesses are forced to sit through long and irrelevant tirades, sometimes from people who are not residents of the city (but who know that the way Longrie runs meetings lets them generate a lot of footage of themselves for their cable access TV shows), before we get to real business.

If you want efficiency and good government from your city council, we need a new mayor.

Labels: council politics, video

Posted by John Nephew at 7/24/2009 07:52:00 AM | Permalink | Comments

Our discussion of the Council Corner did not finish on the meeting of July 13-14. The mayor's delaying tactics -- running the clock out as long as possible on every item that night, keeping the meeting going into the wee hours, even attempting to continue discussion on an item after we had voted to call the question -- worked. Kathy couldn't stay around to the end of the meeting. A vote on the resolution was delayed until this week, at which point the mayor's own article had gone to press. Will and Kathy both indicated that they would voluntarily not write their scheduled columns during the election campaign. So for this year the issue was a bit moot.

This past Monday, I read the following statement into the record and withdrew my support for my own resolution:

I hereby withdraw my second for the resolution in item L5 to suspend the Council Corner column. To explain my decision, I am submitting this statement for the record. I ask that this statement be included in the minutes in its entirety.

I still support this resolution in principle. However, I can no longer vote for it in good conscience, because to do so would mean giving an even greater advantage to the person who manipulated the rules and her authority as chair for her own benefit, to prevent it from being passed a week ago.

This episode makes clear to all observers the power that a mayor holds simply by being chair, even if she has a minority of support on the council. I believe that, by keeping last Monday's meeting running long into the night, inhibiting its progress at every step, even going so far as to spend twenty minutes reading an extended version of the lengthy letter she wished to publish in the August newsletter, she purposely delayed a timely vote on this resolution.

The result of the delay, as I am sure was intended, was that the August newsletter already has gone to press with her article included. To pass the resolution now would only serve to magnify her unfair advantage over others.

As individuals, councilmembers may choose not to run columns as they are scheduled this fall, if they feel it is inappropriate. I believe both Will and Kathy indicated at our last meeting that they would voluntarily abstain from writing in the newsletter during their campaigns. They should be given the opportunity to make that choice and to receive credit for doing the right thing, just as the mayor made her choice to get her taxpayer-funded campaign message out by any means necessary.

In the place of the original motion, I would like to offer a substitute motion to table this resolution until January 2010. At that time the council takes up its annual review of council policy and procedures. Long ahead of the next campaign, the new council can engage in a discussion about what is or is not appropriate use of the city newsletter during election season.

After I withdrew my second, Will withdrew his motion for the resolution. The substitute motion to table passed 4-1. While the resolution was blocked for this year, my hope is that we can adopt this as a standing policy for the council newsletter editorial in future election years.

Labels: campaign 2009, council politics

Posted by John Nephew at 7/23/2009 08:14:00 AM | Permalink | Comments

Beside the Pioneer Press story I referenced this morning, a few other Maplewood-related news articles are in circulation today.

The "new media" takes a look at the Maplewood elections, though the byline is a familiar name for those who have followed Maplewood over the past few years: Paul Demko now writes for the Minnesota Independent, with a preliminary survey of the candidates. Demko's "Welcome to Maplewood" article from City Pages, March 2007, remains an indispensible introduction to the Longrie-Copeland era.

Meanwhile, the local weekly Maplewood Review has two front page articles related to the city council in this week's issue. One covering the Council Corner editorial discussion is not yet online as I write this. [Update, 7/23: It's now online.]

The other article discusses a deceptive flyer that was brought to the council's attention at our July 13th meeting, and which witnesses report was being distributed by the mayor's husband in the neighborhood affected by the Holloway/Stanich Highlands street project.

Labels: campaign 2009, council politics, media, public works

Posted by John Nephew at 7/22/2009 08:05:00 PM | Permalink | Comments

At last night's meeting, Councilmember Hjelle took exception to a comment I made at our previous meeting, suggesting that Mr. Hjelle has a history of lying in his newsletter column.

He apparently intended to read every single newsletter column he has written in his four years on the council (to follow Diana's lead in further delaying any vote on the resolution to suspend the Council Corner editorial during the campaign season), and sidetrack discussion into a long and irrelevant argument about whether the statements in each were accurate or not.

Thus:



Here's the official record. November 28, 2005, city council minutes, page 21:

7. Moving Visitor Presentations to Beginning of City Council Meeting

a. City Manager Fursman presented the report.

b. Councilmember Rossbach presented specifics from the report.

Councilmember Rossbach moved to approve moving visitor presentations following item D (Approval of Minutes) and limit the total time to 15 minutes. with the time being divided equally among the people who wish to speak.

Seconded by Councilmember Bartol

Ayes-Councilmembers Bartol, Juenemann and Rossbach
Nays-Mayor Cardinal and Councilmember Koppen

Absent from the list of votes: Councilmember Erik Hjelle, who would not be sworn in until January 2006.

It would be a major project to document all the false statements in Erik's columns over four years (to say nothing of the whoppers I'm sure will be coming in his October letter), but the fact that (a) he lied within the first few lines of his very first one, and (b) is utterly convinced that what he wrote was true in spite of the record (haven't we been here before?), gives us an idea of what to expect.

Labels: council politics, video

Posted by John Nephew at 7/21/2009 01:42:00 PM | Permalink | Comments

At the July 13th council meeting, we awarded bids for work in a couple of city parks, including resurfacing a basketball court in south Maplewood. Councilmember Hjelle suggested that we should just remove the basketball court entirely, because of the sort of people it attracts. In his own words...

Labels: council politics, parks, video

Posted by John Nephew at 7/20/2009 11:39:00 AM | Permalink | Comments

We didn't get around to voting on it, but we had a lengthy discussion in the wee hours of the morning about my proposed resolution to suspend the Council Corner column during the election campaign season.

The people who stayed around long past midnight to address the city council on this topic were almost all opposed to the resolution. I was amazed that a recurrent theme was their mistaken belief that suspending the Council Corner would be a violation of the First Amendment guarantee of free speech. (There seems to be confusion about the meaning of "free" as in "unrestricted" versus "paid for by someone else," i.e., taxpayers.) One resident called my resolution "censorship," and compared it to Russia. I think I remember another speaker even suggesting that the city should be required to mail a letter on behalf of the mayor to all residents of Maplewood, at taxpayer expense, if she wished to during the election campaign.

Since some people considered it unthinkable that government would not fund currently elected officials' communications during their reelection campaigns, I thought it might be instructive to look at the franking privilege for members of the United States Congress.

Specifically, Congress has set rules for itself to prohibit taxpayer-funded mailings during election campaigns (quoting a 2007 Congressional Research Service document):

Senators are currently restricted from mass mailing during the 60 day period prior to federal elections, and during the 60 period prior to primary elections in which they are a candidate for any public office. The restriction for Representatives is 90 days prior to federal or primary elections in which they are a candidate for any public office.

Note that this prohibition on using the franking privilege at all during a reelection campaign is in addition to the regulations on content of franked mail at any time (including a prohibition on mailings that "relate to political campaigns, political parties, biographical accounts, or holiday greetings").

If somebody really thinks this poses a constitutional problem, perhaps they should let the U.S. Congress know.

Labels: campaign 2009, council politics, process

Posted by John Nephew at 7/17/2009 11:48:00 AM | Permalink | Comments

One of the items I submitted for the agenda of Monday's council meeting is a resolution that would suspend the city council column in the city's newsletter through the election campaign season. This is in response to a citizen petition submitted to the city council at our last regular meeting. (I've uploaded my agenda report to this website.)

I admit that I'm of two minds on this. On the one hand, I recognize that the blatant use of city resources for campaigning, as we saw in the 2007 election season, is unseemly. On the other hand, I also remember how each monthly newsletter with the writings of Longrie/Hjelle/Cave/Copeland would bring my campaign fresh volunteers and unsolicited contributions from angry residents. Residents continue to tell me about their visceral negative reactions to the mayor's cloying prose and Erik's frothing, paranoid hyperbole. So I find myself a little torn between the sense of what is proper, and the political value of giving Diana and Erik the rope with which to do her reelection campaign the most harm possible.

In any case, it seems only fair to put our citizens' request in front of the whole council for a vote. I figure the result is pretty good either way -- either we make the city newsletter less of a source of resident anger during the campaign, or the council votes down this resolution and then Erik writes a rant that's even more over-the-top than usual, which is sure to help motivate people to get out and vote against his ally, the mayor. (Assuming, of course, that he's still afraid to run for reelection himself.)

Labels: campaign 2009, council politics, process

Posted by John Nephew at 7/08/2009 11:09:00 AM | Permalink | Comments

In my time observing Maplewood's city council, I've generally come to regard Diana Longrie as a mediocre lawyer at best. But when it comes to the traditional lawyerly skill of twisting language to make a statement narrowly true, while conveying a fundamentally misleading message, I have to give her credit. Her lengthy article in the latest city newsletter contains a great example:

Just last month (April 2009), Council member John Nephew brought forward his theory contending some of Maplewood’s publicly owned open spaces or parks are destined for private ownership.

Of course, the actual theory in my article was that the Mayor herself is laying groundwork to privatize city parks and open spaces, starting with her long-running scheme to put control over them in private hands via conservation easements. This theory stems, of course, from the observation that you can't really take Ms. Longrie's statements at face value, as she has once again demonstrated.

Labels: council politics

Posted by John Nephew at 5/02/2009 02:39:00 PM | Permalink | Comments

At last night's meeting, Erik Hjelle suggested that councilmembers should abstain from voting on matters affecting individuals who had given them political support (for example, by allowing lawn signs on their property) or legal campaign contributions. Obviously he was riding his favorite hobby horse, which is retaliating against people for political differences. (It seemed that his only reason for voting against the renewal of one Conditional Use Permit was that he disapproved of the applicant's political donations.)

I suggested last night that the city attorney should send the council a copy of the League of Minnesota Cities' guide on the topic of conflicts of interest. This morning Mr. Kantrud e-mailed that document to the council. I replied with a couple of follow-up questions. Below is the text of my e-mail.

---

Hi, Alan. Thanks for sending that. I think we may need a clearer answer, however.

As I understood his remarks, Erik was asking about two things that he thought would be conflicts of interest that should require a councilmember to abstain from voting.

The first was campaign contributions. So, for example, because Erik received campaign contributions from the Maplewood Firefighters Association (setting aside the detail that the OAH determined them to be illegal excess contributions beyond the $300 limit), the question would be: Should Erik abstain from participating in discussions and votes on any and all matters pertaining to Maplewood pay-per-call firefighters?

(Similarly, given that Frederica Musgrave was the largest individual campaign donor to Mayor Longrie's failed run in last year's 55A DFL primary, should the mayor abstain from any discussions or votes relating to Ms. Musgrave? Did she violate conflict of interest rules by participating in closed meetings related to legal strategy in Ms. Musgrave's short-lived suit against the city?)

The second was the question of political support in a more general way. For example, if an individual or organization has publicly supported a councilmember in non-financial political ways. Again to use Erik himself as an example -- since he was formally endorsed by AFSCME in 2005, should he have abstained from participation or votes on any and all matters having to do with AFSCME members, such as the reorganization in late 2006 or discussions about and votes on AFSCME contracts?

Obviously these are not the examples that Erik brought up when he was looking for ways to punish Mr. Brandt and Mr. Schreier for exercising their First Amendment rights. But I think it's important to realize that if Erik's absurdly expansive notion of "conflict of interest" has any validity, it would apply equally to Erik and his own political supporters (such as people who hosted his lawn signs) and contributors. At least, that's what I would suppose, assuming the courts do not share Mr. Hjelle's pathological conviction that rules apply only to other people and not to him.

I would be grateful if you could provide a clear answer to the council on whether (1) legal campaign contributions and (2) expressions of political support, endorsement, etc., create a conflict of interest for the elected official who received them. I'm pretty sure the answer is "no," but Erik seems to have a lot of ongoing confusion about these issues.

Finally, reading that document raised a question to me about Erik's status as both a firefighter and as a councilmember. The relevant passage (page 37) reads:

The statute remains unclear on several points, however. It does not address council positions other than the mayor. It also appears to be limited to independent, nonprofit fire departments, so city departments (whether volunteer or salaried) are not addressed. And although it outlines general criteria under which there will not be incompatibilities, there is still some vagueness regarding what functions between the two offices would be considered inconsistent.

Because each city may have a different relationship with its fire department, a city may want to get a legal opinion from its attorney or from the attorney general before allowing a councilmember to serve as a volunteer firefighter with any sort of supervisory powers.

Obviously Mr. Hjelle was on the city council before me, so perhaps this was already addressed (besides that point where he resigned the department in order to fire Mr. Fursman and then rejoined). Is there a formal opinion on the record as to whether or not Mr. Hjelle holds incompatible offices? On p. 36, the LMC document states, "However, when an official qualifies for a second and incompatible position (by taking an oath and filing a bond, if necessary), he or she automatically resigns from the first position, which then becomes vacant." If the offices are found to be incompatible, wouldn't that mean that by reapplying and being hired back as a firefighter back in 2006, Mr. Hjelle actually created a council vacancy due to automatic resignation?

Thanks for your help in understanding these issues, and I'm sure the entire council will be interested in the response.

-John Nephew, Councilmember

Labels: council politics

Posted by John Nephew at 4/28/2009 01:30:00 PM | Permalink | Comments

I have to confess, I was a little disappointed to read in the April city newsletter that Erik Hjelle is not planning to run for reelection. But I can understand it -- if he's listened to anyone beyond the protective circle of pom-poms of his small band of loyal cheerleaders, he has probably picked up on how incredibly unpopular he is. It's only natural that he would not want to put himself out there to suffer a humiliating defeat.

Of course, I've also learned that we can't trust anything Erik says or writes. (That very same column repeats his frequent yet false claim that he has never accepted political contributions.) So I won't actually believe his promise not to run until the filing period is over in July.

Labels: council politics

Posted by John Nephew at 4/25/2009 10:39:00 AM | Permalink | Comments

Sometimes it's easy to tell that something is a prank on the first of April. Other times it's not.

My colleague, Will Rossbach, takes the mayor to task for writing an e-mail to the House Minority Leader, opposing a bill that would fund land acquisition for conservation in the Fish Creek Natural Area Greenway -- and actually opposing the very idea of buying this land from its owner.

But can we be sure that the mayor actually wrote and sent this e-mail? Even though I'm told it first appeared on websites friendly to the mayor, might it be an April Fool's joke, or an impersonation?

On March 9, we directed the city staff to work on this. The mayor even asked staff to get a written agreement from CoPar to extend the time we have to purchase the land from them. Here's the video:



At our last meeting, on March 23, the mayor herself requested that staff post information on the progress of the Fish Creek Greenway bills on the city website.



It's hard to reconcile these statements on the record with the e-mail attributed to the mayor that has been circulating.

Labels: council politics, video

Posted by John Nephew at 4/01/2009 04:09:00 PM | Permalink | Comments