What's Left of Maplewood (MN): The Banick Case in the Review

Friday, December 22, 2006

The Banick Case in the Review

This week's Maplewood-Ramsey County Review has an article on the Banick firing and the lawsuit it is becoming.

Besides the usual song and dance (Copeland claims unprecedented, sweeping powers; outside experts interviewed voice "bewilderment" when asked what they think of it...you know how it goes), the article also gives us some meet on the perennial topic of lawsuits and insurance. Specifically, it reports that the city is liable for up to $50,000 per lawsuit, to a maximum of $200,000. It also suggests that the number of lawsuits we get embroiled in "could eventually affect the cost of the insurance premiums paid to the League."

I have no idea how that gets quantified, but if I were the insurer paying to defend Maplewood, I'd be pretty unhappy about their recent launch of what appears to be a major, ongoing lawsuit-creation program.

35 Comments:

At 10:42 AM, drawnLeftward said…

It looks like the way Longrie intends to reduce the risk of litigation is to make it a certainty.
At 4:06 AM, Anonymous said…

I find the whole situation troubling in that we have city employees who think that they can keep their jobs as long as they beathe air.

All 5 of our council members won their elections fair and square. If they choose to eliminate a job, they have the authority to do it.

I fear that these weak judges will let some lawsuit like this stand. Then we will be faced with a situation in government that we cannot restructure anything unless people quit or die.

The insurance issue gets complicated with the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMNCIT). Each city can have different deductibles. The article probably also forgot to mention that cities get rebates back depending upon how the fund does statewide. So while Maplewood is limited to $200,000 per year payout, presuming the article is correct, there is also rebate money that gets applied to lower that amount.

Just to make it more complicated, that rebate is not only calculated by how well the fund does statewide, but also how a city does from year to year. I have no idea how the formula works, except that I believe a city's own performance factors in little. I remember reading a lawsuit in Roseville which dragged on for 10 years and that costed the fund hundreds of thousands of dollars and it didn't affect Roseville much at all.

Another thing people need to keep in mind is that the city, actually all cities, get sued tons of times per year and most of the lawsuits you rarely hear about.

In Maplewood, we heard about this one and the one with the title insurance fraud on the part of the old city attorney, but I bet there are probably 10 more we didn't hear about. Examples are sewer backups into homes, slipping on sidewalks, etc.
At 12:31 PM, Frostbrand said…

4:06 AM wrote:

> I find the whole situation
> troubling in that we have city
> employees who think that they can
> keep their jobs as long as they
> beathe air.

If that were the case, I would find it troubling, too. But it's not the case. If employees are failing to do their jobs and doing nothing more than "breathing air," there exists a process for disciplining them (the way Cave's husband and Hjelle were disciplined, for example) or even firing them for cause.

As it stands, the situation is troubling to the rest of us because we have a mayor, two city councilors, and a city manager, who think that winning one election entitles them to ignore the law and, in the Banick example, its application to the topic of the Police Civil Service Commission.
At 3:18 PM, Anonymous said…

How about opening a political science or public administration textbook? The reason rules/laws were established for Civil Service employees was to protect them from being removed or "eliminated" at the whim of a newly elected body or individual. It takes the politics out of the conditions of employment. Something these people fail to grasp.

I'm not saying that restructuring the city administration is not within their power.

John Banick is a highly regarded Police Professional. Not just in the City of Maplewood.

He may have been "appointed" as a Deputy Chief by the Chief but that doesn't give these people the right to dismiss a dedicated 24 year employee who, in my opinion, doesn't feel he is entitled to a job just due to the fact he is breathing air. He, like others, just wanted to be treated fairly.

If in fact the Deputy Chief position is eliminated, or if the Chief chose to appoint another person, then Banick should have the right to return to his previous rank. I can't believe they are of the mind he can just be dismissed.

Either these rules of Civil Service are unique to Maplewood or they have been given bad legal advise. Or, they just don't care....the bullseye has been drawn on John Banick's back.

Wake up Maplewood. You won't get any qualified people willing to serve in your city if you allow politics to be the main condition of employment. You want the most qualified and dedicated you can hire, particularly in public safety.
At 5:00 PM, Anonymous said…

Frostbrand, you are confusing Banick as having been fired. Truth is that his job was eliminated. No one is being hired to replace him. There is no disciplinary action to be taken. To have your position eliminated, is not a disciplinary action.

As far as the cheap shots against Cave's husband and Hjelle, I will speak on the Hjelle case because I know more about that issue.

I find it humerous that we say that Hjelle was diciplined because the law that former manager Fursman used to dicipline Hjelle didn't apply to him. Fursman said that Hjelle violated a civil service provision, and Hjelle was not in that classification. Then it was discovered at the meeting that Fursman never bothered consulting the city attorney before taking his action against Hjelle. Fursman screwed up big time. I found the situation humorous. Hjelle gets diciplined based upon a law which doesn't apply to him.

Winning an election doesn't mean that you can ignore the law, and I don't think that is what the council majority is doing.

What the council majority is doing is reorganizing city government which is their right as the winners of the election.

The question still begs to be answered that if Banick is such a awesome employee, why isn't he chief in a place like Roseville or New Brighton, etc. After all of his political games, I doubt he will have any career outside of Maplewood. What city manger or city council would want to hire a troublemaker like Banick after the stunts he has pulled in Maplewood. I think that Banick has terminally damaged his career beyond repair because of his shortsightedness.
At 6:11 PM, Frostbrand said…

> I found the situation humorous.
> Hjelle gets diciplined based upon a
> law which doesn't apply to him.

LOL! I find it humorous too, but that's just because anything bad that happens to Chumpelopithecus makes me laugh. :) It's kind of like watching Wile E. Coyote. Sometimes it's bad luck, usually it's a mess of his own making...
At 6:24 PM, Frostbrand said…

> Frostbrand, you are confusing Banick
> as having been fired. Truth is that
> his job was eliminated. No one is
> being hired to replace him. There is
> no disciplinary action to be taken.
> To have your position eliminated, is
> not a disciplinary action.

In tax matters, you may follow the letter of the law, and yet still violate it. For example, if the IRS can prove that you set something up just to avoid paying taxes, even though it follows the letter of the law in some very narrow sense, you could still be charged and convicted for an illegal tax shelter.

Similarly, the defense of the Triumvirate is that this is simply a reorganization, nothing personal, etc. However, their ignoring of the Police Civil Service Commission, and their refusing to offer him another position in the department when his was eliminated (what was that line about "are you eliminating the position or the individual" and Copeland answered "Both"? did I quote that right?), make it clear that their intent was targeting and firing this individual, and using the reorganization as the paper excuse to do so, to try and cover their butts.
At 9:34 PM, Anonymous said…

The posts from the know-it-all anonymous are getting tedious. To say the least, he or she is ethically challenged.
At 10:20 PM, Frostbrand said…

And yet, s/he has this pedantic, plodding method of pseudo-reasoning which is strangely compelling...just like watching Diana talk at council meetings...or hitting yourself on the head repeatedly with a brick...
At 12:14 AM, Anonymous said…

I was reading recently some posting blaming Longrie, Cave, and Hjelle for the litigation associated with the South Maplewood Moratorium.

Now I read that the vote was 4-0. I guess some of the LCH haters forgot to name that 4th council member buddy of theirs. Don't they have the same blame assigned to them?

Slanted political attacks. Not surprising.
At 1:35 AM, Anonymous said…

Why are "cheap shots" at Mr. Cave and Mr. Hjelle unacceptable?

It's apparently acceptable to go after Deputy Chief Banick for doing his job. Or, heaven forbid, sticking up for himself. I'd like to hear the facts of why he would be unworthy of employment, or his "political games," or the "stunts" he has pulled.

Oops, my fault, his job was "eliminated." It wasn't personal or "disciplinary."
At 2:56 AM, Anonymous said…

Cheap shots against only 3 of the 4 council members who voted for an issue shows great bias. In other words, you lose credibility.

I don't see anyone going after Banick for doing his job. I see the Cardinal council choosing to eliminate Maplewood's dispatch center, effectively eliminating most or a substantial part of what Banick was responsible for supervising.

So in other words, Banick can't do his job anymore, or at least a substantial part of it due to actions of the previous council.

If anyone should be blamed for Banick's job being eliminated, let's look at those council members who eliminated a substantial amount of his responsibilities. Maybe we should bring dispatching back to Maplewood so Banick can have something to do?

FYI, a lot of communities do not have deputy chief positions. I wonder if Maplewood PD is a little top heavy.
At 10:48 AM, Frostbrand said…

> effectively eliminating most or a
> substantial part of what Banick was
> responsible for supervising.

I'd heard that this was maybe 10% of his job, hardly "most" or "substantial."

Maybe you've heard otherwise. However, since we've well established across numerous comments that you can't understand the things that you read and are highly unreliable, I'm pretty much gonna believe the offhand remarks of random strangers over just about anything you tell us. Speaking of credibility. ;)
At 11:03 AM, Anonymous said…

While the clowncil does have the authority to reorganize, they do not have the authority to flaunt civil service rules and eliminate a 20+ year veteran. Banick has a target on his back because of his having to be the unlucky one to do the background on Mr. Brilliant and his previous run-in with Diana's goofy, wanna-be reporter husband.
At 11:08 AM, Frostbrand said…

On this topic:

> Cheap shots against only 3 of the 4
> council members who voted for an
> issue shows great bias. In other
> words, you lose credibility.

I don't expect all my elected officials to vote as I would on every subject. That would be silly.

It looks to me like Rossbach and Jueneman vote their consciences and with careful deliberation. So I give them the benefit of the doubt, as do others. The fact that they use a process of reasoning and consider the facts of each matter before them also means that they are open to persuasion.

On the other hand, the Triumvirate have a deal going to avoid discussion and to support each other without thought or questions on controversial matters. As you yourself have stated, you did not expect them to function in any manner other than lockstep when it came to firing Fursman and hiring Copeland. This behavior is evident on repeated occasions, when controversial matters come up; they actively dissuade debate and consideration of alternatives.

Look at how Longrie made a single motion to fire Fursman and hire Copeland, even though numerous people were advising that the two separate motions should be considered -- it would have given Hjelle and Cave a chance, if they had the capacity for independent thought, to examine the issue of Copeland's suitability, since apparently at least one of them (according to you) knew nothing about him before that evening and I think both denied ever meeting him before. They could even have moved the appointment of a different person as interim manager, and invited Copeland to submit an application for the permanent gig.

It's true, there are some times when the Triumvirate do not vote together. Usually this is in cases where one of them needs to posture on some pet issue or support an image they want to project -- Longrie needs to look cheap (thus she's the one vote against new sewer video equipment, the one vote against finding the tourist cabins substandard in order to keep the door open for TIF, etc.), for example.

To sum up, Hjelle/Cave/Longrie get cheap shots not because of just one issue, but because of their pattern across multiple issues and their underlying motives of personal revenge, etc.
At 9:03 PM, Anonymous said…

Again, characterizing Deputy Chief Banick with accusations as pulling "stunts," "political games," "troublemaker," and doubting he would be capable of a career any place outside the City of Maplewood, (without listing any facts to base them upon), sounds like a cheap shot.

If in fact the position he was working in was "eliminated," to reorganize the city, why the need for such comments.
Unless it was retribution to "eliminate," him, not just the position.

I'm sure if you take the time to examine the Civil Service rules, they should, in most cases, still allow Mr Banick to maintain his former rank after the D/C position is eliminated. To go as far as summarily dismissing him makes the whole situation look like political pay back--not just a restructuring of the police department.
At 3:09 AM, Anonymous said…

I have to say that for being a supposed professional, Banick should have farmed out the manager background check to some other department. Roseville just hired a manager and I am pretty sure that the firm they hired was responsible for the check. It is somewhat of a conflict of interest for a lower level employee doing a check on a boss. Not very professional in my opinion. Does anyone know where they do this in the business world? Where the lower level employee checks out the boss? Not likely.

I think that people are reaching for anything they can come up with on this Banick issue. If he would have done the proper thing and farmed out that background check, people would have found something else to point the finger at. In politics, I have found that if you try hard enough, you can find just about anything to point a finger at even if it is some red herring.

I don't expect that everyone would vote the same way I do on a particular subject, but if I disagree with a council decision, I name ALL of the members I disagree with. I don't go after three of them and conveniently overlook one of them.

This claim that Rossbach or Jueneman voted with their consciences and with careful deliberations and the others did not is just laughable. I guess the 4-0 vote tells me that careful deliberations or not, conscience or not, they got to the same conclusion. Luckily for us we have a few mind readers on this blog.

I agree that Longrie, Cave, and Hjelle needed little discussion when it came to firing Fursman and hiring Copeland. If anyone talked to them before the election or read their campaign literature, it was pretty crystal clear that they felt that new management was sorely needed and that Fursman needed to be replaced with someone who would do what the council told him to do, instead of acting like a 6th elected official. If they would have had a lot of debate about this once they got into office, I would have thought them to be idiots. I would have said to the three, "hey, you campaigned on this, knock off the talk and get voting!"

Frostbrand, how could anyone think that just because Longrie put the firing of Fursman and the hiring of Copeland into one motion that this somehow locked people into an all or nothing situation. Come on! Anyone could have made a request to divide the motion. If the mayor said no, then it is appealed to the body. If the body (i.e. a majority of the council says no) then the question is not divided. This isn't rocket science. If the motion was not divided, it was because the majority of council members did not want it divided. No one was locked into voting for it.

On the characterizing of Banick, I can't figure out why he doesn't get a chiefs job in some other city. What is the deal? Since these jobs are appointed by city managers and city council members, I can't for the life of me figure out why he is shooting his career in the foot by positioning himself as someone who fights with city managers and city councils. This guy is committing career suicide.

Let me give you an example of career suicide from a story one of my Roseville friends told me. A former manager in Roseville named Jim A. decided to take a hostile position to their city council in the late 1980's. He got fired. He protested and created political havoc for a year. He never got a job again as a city manager because no council would ever hire him after the stunts he pulled. He became a low producing real estate agent. Career over.

On this issue of whether Banick should get a lower level position, it appears to be a pretty technical question that none of us have the answer to. But from what I have read on this topic, I question whether this fight is all about this issue. What I am reading is that Banick is trying to claim that his current Deputy Chief position cannot be eliminated at all. I hear very little about him fighting to get a different position within the department. There appears to be two different issues at work here.
At 10:40 AM, Frostbrand said…

> I have to say that for being a
> supposed professional, Banick should
> have farmed out the manager
> background check to some other
> department.

It was not his decision to make.

If you believe the police chief, the former city attorneys, and the former HR director, it was the Mayor who insisted it be done in-house.

If you believe the mayor and think those three made the decision (rather than, as they say, strongly advising her to hire an out-of-house investigator), it *still* was not Banick who chose to do the investigation -- he was given orders, and he followed them.
At 10:45 AM, Frostbrand said…

> On this issue of whether Banick
> should get a lower level position,
> it appears to be a pretty
> technical question that none of us
> have the answer to.

It seemed pretty clear under the old employee handbook (which was still in effect when Banick was "reorganized" away, I think), and under police civil service rules.

> What I am reading is that Banick
> is trying to claim that his
> current Deputy Chief position
> cannot be eliminated at all.

Can you give us a citation for that?

What I'm hearing is not that his position can't be eliminated, but that eliminating his position can't be used as a pretext to eliminate him personally, which is the intent of the vengeful three.

I'm also hearing (from the police chief, for example) that the department itself would prefer that the position not be eliminated. But saying it's a bad idea is different from saying it's not legal.
At 4:10 PM, Anonymous said…

Most agencies have police officers/investigators, (trained in employment background investigation), conduct these if the position requires it.

I can only guess that it was assigned to part of the police department's management team because of the position that was being filled, (city manager).

No rank and file officer would volunteer for that task. I can only guess that Banick didn't either. He was probably assigned it. I can only further guess that he wishes he never was assigned to do it.

Who will do Mr. Hjelle's or Mr Cave's background check in their quest for full time employment with the city? Any volunteers?
At 9:20 PM, Anonymous said…

Wikipedia now has the story on their Maplewood, MN page
At 3:30 AM, Anonymous said…

Background checks on people who are in a position of potentially supervising those doing the checks should be sent outside the department.

Cities routinely have handshake agreements to carry out these tasks. I remember reading that thing about the Roseville manager breaking the law. I believe Maple Grove investigated the case. I assume that they did this because the city manager supervises the police chief in Roseville, just like Maplewood.

Why put yourself in a bad position when you can have someone else do it.
At 3:53 AM, Anonymous said…

FYI, note that on Banick’s job description, he spent 25% of his time with Dispatch.

Banick also costs the taxpayers approximately $155,000+ a year according

I am also wondering that if Banick has as much support as people claim, then why didn't 1 single cop show up at either meeting in support of him?

Maybe the Police do not support Banick or Thomalla because they do not support their officers. Just look at Marino, the guy who supposedly kidnapped the druggy and dumped him in Lake Elmo. Banick and Thomalla turned their backs on him.

Is Marino supporting Banick?
At 10:38 AM, Frostbrand said…

> Background checks on people who
> are in a position of potentially
> supervising those doing the checks
> should be sent outside the
> department.

I strongly agree. So did Kelley (city attorney), Le (HR director), and Thomalla.

> Why put yourself in a bad position
> when you can have someone else do
> it.

The answer would be, because you have no choice and must follow orders given to you.

How many times do we have to repeat ourselves? Banick did not request or demand to do this background check -- it was assigned to him and he did his job, and for that he is being punished.
At 1:12 PM, Anonymous said…

I know for a fact that there is an emergency meeting of the Police Commission on Thursday to discuss Banick's "reorganization". Apparently, Bethel Law (their new labor law specialists)advised the City incorrectly about the City's authority in reorganizing Banick out of a job.

If they want to eliminate a position, why not eliminate that of the Chief's secretary? Svendsen I think her name is. Apparently after 35 years with the City, she pulls down a huge salary for doing nothing but delivering the mail and performing minimal secretarial duties.
At 1:21 PM, Anonymous said…

There are discussions of someone replacing Banick but not in the same official capacity as Deputy Chief of Police. Apparently, former St. Paul Police Chief Finney is being considered for the Public Safety Director position.

He's an excellent candidate for this position, especially if you need evidence removed and a cover up done. Seems like a perfect arrangement for Finney, Copeland and Longrie.
At 1:26 PM, Anonymous said…

"Just look at Marino, the guy who supposedly kidnapped the druggy and dumped him in Lake Elmo. Banick and Thomalla turned their backs on him."

Do you really want your police chief and deputy police chief supporting this kind of behavior? They have done exactly as they ought to do. The guy is on leave pending the investigation. If the clowncil is allowed to have their way and the police department is politically appointed, we will definitely end up with more people like Marino. I would hope that someone like him does not support Banick or Thomalla. We need honesty and integrity in our police department.
At 1:28 PM, Frostbrand said…

> Apparently, Bethel Law (their new
> labor law specialists)advised the
> City incorrectly about the City's
> authority in reorganizing Banick out
> of a job.

Waitaminnit. Are you telling us that the Gang of Three hired an incompetent, sycophantic hack, at considerable expense (anyone have the running tally of Bethel's billings on hand?), to handle an important and delicate job, and they're screwing it up by telling the Gang of Three what they wish were true rather than what is actually true?

Gosh, that's so implausible.
At 1:28 PM, Anonymous said…

I wonder how much the city is really "saving" by doing away with the Human Resources Department? It would be interesting to know how much Bethel has made so far and if it would compare to what Sherrie Le would have made in these last few months. My guess is that they are shelling out big bucks to Bethel
At 1:36 PM, Anonymous said…

You know how law works. You can get a room full of attorneys and everyone of them will have a different opinion. Seems that way with judges also. Wait a minute, they are the same people!

Before we attack Bethel Law, shouldn't we at least find out who they are? I can't find them on the internet. Anyone have a website?

I think that Finny would be great. About time they get a manager in there who will crack the whip. Too many donuts being consumed in that department for too long.
At 1:42 PM, Frostbrand said…

The above posting at 1:36 PM was made by our troll at 64.131.7.123, in case it wasn't clear by the message itself.
At 2:02 PM, Anonymous said…

-Before we attack Bethel Law,
-shouldn't we at least find out who
-they are? I can't find them on the
-internet. Anyone have a website?

You can find them at bethellaw.net.

As for Officer Marino and his upcoming trial. A good officer, bad judgment call and definite violation of protocol. The alleged victim is the drug dealing/using son of a St. Paul police officer with a city wide reputation for taking advantage of his father's name and badge by being a real SOB to local law enforcement agencies.

Rumor has it the officer tried to give the guy a break and give him a ride home, and the alleged victim wasn't very nice and well, you know the rest of the story. I think the kid deserved it. I guess time will tell and hopefully the truth will come out.
At 2:08 PM, Anonymous said…

When calculating the savings from eliminating the human resources department, there are a lot of factors that have to be added in. You have salaries, benefits, office space, secretarial support, insurance/liability issues, etc.

Sometimes cities do not farm out stuff to the private sector because it is cheaper. Sometimes it boils down to liability. Let's take the Banick case as an example. If Sherrie Le gives bad advice that costs the city money, the city can't sue her for damages because she is an employee. But if you hire this job out to the private sector, now there is a corporate entity which can be sued for damages. This is just the way the system works.
At 2:09 PM, Anonymous said…

On the Marino issue, I thought you typically stood behind your people unless proven guilty. I thought that was what good bosses did.
At 2:11 PM, Anonymous said…

"In Maplewood, we heard about this one and the one with the title insurance fraud on the part of the old city attorney"

Ok, please, let's be real. How many cases have these nut jobs filed in court which have been dismissed? All of them! Including the one where they sued Judge Marrinan for 5 million dollars. Bunch of nut jobs who are mad that daddy cut them out of his will when he remarried only to find that the land was worth millions. Folks, all the more reason to be nice to your parents!!

What's Left of Maplewood (MN)

Friday, December 22, 2006

The Banick Case in the Review

35 Comments:

Contributors

Be a Contributor

Previous Posts