Breaking News: De Nile Rerouted to Flow Through Maplewood
Late-night watchers, or those with recording equipment, had a chance to see Diana Longrie voice a new opinion on the letter from former mayor Bob Cardinal to the Ramsey County Attorney, calling for investigation of possible open meeting law violations by the Mayor and her cohorts. Previously Diana's uncharitable view was that Cardinal was just "sour grapes," since he lost the primary election last year. Now Diana has a different theory that, because she and Mr. Cardinal are great friends, it's not possible that he actually wrote the letter.
I see a couple of lessons here. First is that Diana is maintaining her record of denying reality even when it's staring her in the face. Second is that in Diana's world, personal friendships and alliances (one might say "cronyism") are supreme; it is hard for her to imagine that a friend of hers would place principles of good governance and the rule of law above personal loyalty to her.
I see a couple of lessons here. First is that Diana is maintaining her record of denying reality even when it's staring her in the face. Second is that in Diana's world, personal friendships and alliances (one might say "cronyism") are supreme; it is hard for her to imagine that a friend of hers would place principles of good governance and the rule of law above personal loyalty to her.
posted by Frostbrand @ 11:17 AM
19 Comments:
At 1:26 PM,
Anonymous said…
Why hasn't anyone commented on Deputy Chief Banick being officially "reorganized" out of his position? They voted on it last night, gruesome threesome won, Banick lost. Not sure when his last day is. Just goes to show that doing your job can get you reorganized out of a job.
We all know that something came back on Copeland's background check. Longrie and Copeland claim that his case was dismissed. Not likely!!!
In case anyone doesn't know, there is a difference between having a case dismissed and having a case diverted. Any good, knowledgeable attorney would know the difference. All I had to do was call Washington County and they were more than happy to clarify the differences between the two.
At 1:41 PM,
Frostbrand said…
For my comments on the vengeful removal of Banick:
http://maplewoodmn.blogspot.com/2006/12/payback.html
On the topic of Copeland's background check and the semantic games (to pretend he was never indicted in the first place):
http://maplewoodmn.blogspot.com/2006/07/panning-for-dirt.html
Having suggested those links to past commentary, let me agree strongly that it's worth calling attention again to this despicable act of retribution. I guess I didn't really have any doubts that the triumvirate would pass their budget and reorganization, though.
At 2:01 PM,
Anonymous said…
OK...Mayor McCheese is "great friends" with the old mayor...
She has looked over Cardinal's statement and come to the conclusion its not his statement due to words used and general content...
Its been almost 2 weeks since this issue arose from Mr. Cardinal.
Question:
Why hasn't she talked with her "good friend" rather than analyze his handwriting?
At 2:12 PM,
Frostbrand said…
Honestly, I think she's just lying. We've seen her do it before. She just wants to put something out there so that her most deluded supporters will have something to cling to. Diana just makes things up on the spot and pretends that they're true, or have always been so. There were numerous other examples of this pathology on display last night -- the invention of new "always been this way" policies about visitor presentations, for instance, and the claim that senior staff has been planning to organize into a bargaining unit for years and just happened to actually do it under this council. Apparently the office of mayor comes with a magical power to rewrite the past (as we saw with the time machine re: Copeland's troubles with the law, which Diana says were erased so they never happened in the first place).
If you are the kind of person who puts personal loyalty above everything else, who you gonna believe, Diana or your own lyin' eyes?
At 2:12 PM,
drawnLeftward said…
time to paint herself as the victim of betrayal by a close friend. and the conspiracy that has lured him in.
At 3:58 PM,
Anonymous said…
Has anybody ever actually seen proof that Diana is an attorney? Her actions make you wonder which Cracker Jack box she pulled her law degree out of.
At 5:37 PM,
Anonymous said…
Just did a quick search on the MN Bar website and could not find any record of Longrie.
At 9:59 AM,
Anonymous said…
She is listed in the Bench & Bar as Diana L. Longrie with Patrick W. Kelly & Associates out of Woodbury. Interesting that she works with an attorney whose initials are almost exactly the same as those of the former city attorney.
At 10:57 AM,
Anonymous said…
Longrie's getting rid of Banick because he broke her husband's(Kevin Berglund) arm at the Maplewood Community Center.
At 12:35 AM,
Anonymous said…
As I stated in another post, I don't get it why you would file an open meeting law complaint with the wrong agency. Doesn't make sense.
On the issue of Banick's position being eliminated, well that's just the brakes. If people are looking for anyone to blame, they should look in the mirror. Anyone who voted to change the city to a Plan B government back in the 1960's gave the council the power to eliminate jobs. If the dumb dumbs back then would have switched the city to a charter city, they could have prevented this at the ballot box.
On Copeland's background check, same reply as the Banick issue. Plan B gives the council wide latitude to hire whoever they want as manager. Maybe some of the complainers in Maplewood should seek to become a charter city which would allow them to put some checks and balances into the system.
Whatever you want to say about the Maplewood elected officials, most of them probably had nothing to do with the change to Plan B government in the 1960's. Start blaming all of the old timers in the city. That's a start.
At 1:40 AM,
Frostbrand said…
So...we're going to go back to the 60's to find someone to blame for bad decisions the council made this past month?
Good heavens, why stop there? Let's blame the Founding Fathers. We wouldn't be in this mess if we didn't have an elected form of government!
At 4:09 PM,
Anonymous said…
I am blaming the decision made by the voters in the 1960's who passed a ballot question which created the rigid system of government that exists today.
Had the voters in the 1960's followed the lead of cities like Minneapolis and Saint Paul and passed a city charter, maybe Maplewood wouldn't be in the mess they are in today. Maybe citizens could stop whining and take action today by making adjustments in the charter to address process issues that have been raised in this forum. That's what a charter is for.
At 10:13 PM,
Frostbrand said…
I have to honestly say I don't have a good understanding of how things work in a charter city. I'll have to add it to my list of things to research. :)
At 6:51 PM,
Anonymous said…
Cities can change to Charter cities by following whatever guidelines set out in law and rule by the state. Blaming today's problems on a nearly 50 year old decision is just ludicrous. That's like saying if GW Bush had gone to 'Nam, we would be in a war in Iraq. Oh, maybe that one is true. Regardless, no one in the 60s could have foreseen a 3-some bent on revenge. Perhaps the city should also go to wards so one neighborhood's issues don't decide the entire city's future.
At 3:19 AM,
Anonymous said…
Anonymous misses the point with the charter argument.
With a charter, the document evolves. It is not stuck in time.
As society evolves, as people evolve, as government evolves, the charter evolves.
When issues arise, the charter is a sound method the people can utilize to achieve certain desired results.
In the 1960's the people of Maplewood lacked vision that people in other cities had.
For everyone's information, city charters were authorized by the voters of the state of minnesota in either 1896 or 1898. Can't remember, I sometimes get the years mixed up.
For those who think that Maplewood has never had problems in government, you should look up articles from the 1960's and see the war that erupted when the change was made from Plan C to Plan B government. It makes Maplewood's current situation look like a sunday school picnic.
At 10:39 AM,
Anonymous said…
Whether or not the situation has stemmed from the 60s is really not the point. The issue today is a triumvrate taking advantage of the situation to further their own agenda.
And while I'm on it, all this talk about Bergeland getting his arm broken? Please. If I recall correctly, Bergeland was being a dick to begin with, and when he was escorted off the premises of the community center, he kicked, struggled and tried to bite Baneck. The officer followed procedure and twisted his arm behind his back to restrain him. It's something siblings do to each other all the time, not something that will break a bone. Maybe a sprain. Besides, there was a picture of him the next day in the paper getting his stuff from the police. His arm was wrapped in guaze, but there was no cast, and he was using it to fill out forms.
Sounds like one horrific injury to me.
At 4:41 AM,
Anonymous said…
I just have to laugh at this statement, "a triumvrate taking advantage of the situation to further their own agenda."
If I translate this into plain english, what we are saying is that "legitimately elected council members are utilizing the power granted to them to carry out the goals they campaigned on." I think this is how America works from Congress all the way down to the soil and water board.
So I guess it is ok for the police to break the arm of people who are attending a public meeting because they acted like a dick when they were improperly told to leave. Yeah I buy that.
I bet that if it has been someone bigger than Baneck, he would have thought twice.
If memory serves correctly, didn't the well respected Bob Cardinal testify in support of Berglund? Oh how memories are so short.
At 3:48 PM,
Anonymous said…
I think by "their own agenda" I meant realizing personal vendettas, not accomplishing the issues they campaigned on.
Also, like I said before, I doubt the police broke Bergelund's arm. Maybe a sprain, but the officer used a perfectly legitamate restraining hold to move a guy who had been asked to leave multiple times (and they didn't even ask them to leave. They asked them to pay the entry fee or leave. What's so bad about that?)
and refused. First he was thrashing about, then he was trying to bite Banick. Frankly it seemed like Banick was using restraint, to me.
(Keep in mind the only person who said Bergelund's arm was broken was Bergelund. I'd be a mite suspicious if I were you.)
At 4:14 PM,
Anonymous said…
So what we are saying is that the people who voted for Diana, Rebecca, and Erik had no idea that they were going to kick butt when they got into office.
Didn't surprise me by one bit.
Sprain or break, neither is acceptable.
Normally I would have no problem with a requirement to pay a fee, but this was an open meeting by law! You can't have a manditory charge for the public to attend an open meeting!
My understanding also what that this room was being used for this event at no charge. I as a taxpayer own this room. If they wanted to rent the room, then absent of open meeting issues, I could buy an argument of charges and regulation of admittance.
I have been to many of these functions over the years and this Maplewood thing is the only one that I have ever seen money collected at the door for. Most commonly, the city pays for it, or someone donates the money or cake, or they have a donation bowl.
The newspaper reported that Berglund's arm was broken. That makes it fact right? :)
Post a Comment
<< Home