The Rossbach/Juenemann Statement
The concerned citizens at the savemaplewood.com website have been busy lately. Sometimes their site organization is a little confusing to navigate, but they've gotten some really juicy stuff online recently. This weekend's most interesting offering is a copy of the Rossbach/Jueneman statement about the Copeland background report. I blogged about this back in July after the council's special meeting, but my notes could hardly cover all of the details -- and after Longrie ran out the clock as long as she could to keep material from getting on the record, Rossbach had to cut and summarize a lot.
Right now the blurb is on the top of "Lead Stories," but in case it's harder to find in the future, here are the direct links to the scanned pages of the redacted statement (Sherrie Le and then interim attorney Kantrud went through to eliminate information they think needed to remain confidential):
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Juicy stuff, and remember that the triumvirate voted their confidence (3-2) in Mr. Copeland after being given all these details about his circumstances and qualifications. Apart from a couple of minor quibbles (Copeland spent a lot of time at the meeting talking about clearing up some minor point about incomplete coursework at Hamline), keep in mind that the content of the background check is not in dispute. (Though it may have cost a city hall job or two -- you are supposed to shoot the messengers, right?)
Right now the blurb is on the top of "Lead Stories," but in case it's harder to find in the future, here are the direct links to the scanned pages of the redacted statement (Sherrie Le and then interim attorney Kantrud went through to eliminate information they think needed to remain confidential):
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Juicy stuff, and remember that the triumvirate voted their confidence (3-2) in Mr. Copeland after being given all these details about his circumstances and qualifications. Apart from a couple of minor quibbles (Copeland spent a lot of time at the meeting talking about clearing up some minor point about incomplete coursework at Hamline), keep in mind that the content of the background check is not in dispute. (Though it may have cost a city hall job or two -- you are supposed to shoot the messengers, right?)
posted by Frostbrand @ 8:34 PM
2 Comments:
At 11:20 AM,
Anonymous said…
Any idea what the large tracts of redaction might have pointed to?
At 5:55 AM,
Frostbrand said…
The big section on page 2, you mean? My guess would be that it describes some debts and court judgements.
Some of the redactions are just bizarre. Like the short part missing in "This would indicate that Mr. Copeland ___ of the educational background which would be desired in a person holding the position of city manager." The "__" is only room for two or three words. Maybe Kantrud thought it would be litigation-bait to include the words "comes up short" or something like that?
I imagine that if the sentence "Mr. Copeland is a very bad manager" were in the report, Kantrud would have redacted it to "Mr. Copeland is a very __ manager."
I guess Maplewood is now adopting the Bush Standard for security classifications: if it looks bad for us, it needs to be marked SECRET.
Post a Comment
<< Home