What's Left of Maplewood (MN)

We can't draw, so we are left with verbal cartoons about Maplewood city politics.

Thursday, December 28, 2006

Civil Service Protections

This morning the Police Civil Service Commission had an emergency meeting about Banick's effective dismissal. While we wait for reports of what transpired, I thought I'd share a some thoughts on the whole idea of civil service protections.

I'm no expert on the history of this stuff, but I have a suspicion that a lot of the laws and rules about government employees were put in place precisely to prevent people from getting elected office just to execute personal vendettas. People who had a broader perspective than the narrow, self-interested views of Longrie, Cave and Hjelle, were aware that purges in the ranks and the installation of masses of new loyal toadies (who then would have to be purged again when power shifts hands) would create a cycle of instability and unpredictability, and would steer away a lot of talented people who would wisely not want to get caught up in that kind of mess. And that would not serve the good of the People.

Just as tenure in academic environments was created to give assure thinkers the freedom to express themselves without fear of reprisal, and to pursue threads of research that may not fit the agendas of political, religious, or other institutional authorities or popular wishes (though certainly tenure is an institution with its share of problems and imperfections as well), civil service rules are created to give government employees some security in enforcing the law even-handedly and speaking the truth, even when that is not what their elected bosses or the public mood of the moment might like. There are plenty of imperfections, and the systems can be abused to protect lazy or incompetent individuals. (There are also appropriate ways to respond to such abuses, and it's not by throwing the whole system aside.) However, like many things in our system of governance and law, we have gone down this path not because it is perfect but because its problems are less bad than the problems of alternative approaches. As Churchill famously said, democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that we've tried.

The Gang of Three and their supporters are asking for a world where every government employee needs to ask of every fact that should be shared with the public, "Will my bosses fire me for saying this, even though it's true?"; a world where every police officer and government attorney would weigh just application of the law against their own self-interest if the offender is a member or ally of the ruling group, or if following the law might go against the current sentiment of the majority.

If this were Rome versus Galileo, the Gang of Three is on the side of Rome, using whatever inquisatorial tools they can find to project their vision of reality and silence voices that question it.

There are plenty of people today who would still side with Pope Urban VIII, or who long for a world where all victors in war or politics are entitled to pillage and despoil the defeated. I just think that these people are wrong, and I think our society has come a long ways to limit the damage that their way of thinking does to us all -- including the very people who want to bring the world back to the bad old days.

19 Comments:

  • At 11:29 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    So let me see if I am getting this right. The meeting was held this morning. The results will be known in a few hours. In the mean time, we have to read this distribe based upon no facts or information. Maybe next time we should delay the blog discussion until we have some factual information to talk about. Just a suggestion.

     
  • At 11:50 AM, Blogger Frostbrand said…

    Hi, troll from 64.131.7.123. You're being lazy and not using the open proxies you learned about last night.

    Also, your comment is irrelevant. Nothing in my post is at all dependent upon what comes of this commission meeting.

    Again, look into getting some help with your reading comprehension skills.

     
  • At 11:55 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Hey, buddy. I've got a surprising revelation for you. You ready for this?

    This is a blog. A blog is a web log, internet column, cyberspace op ed piece, whatever.

    If you've got a problem with it... tough. Frostbrand and Drawnleftward get to write whatever they feel like, whenever they feel like. Morover, you don't *have* to read anything, and complaining about it is just dumb.

     
  • At 12:30 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Well, apparently there were 4 attorneys there on behalf of the City, Kantrud, Longrie (attorney wanna be), Bethel and an attorney from the League. How many attorneys from Maplewood does it take to read and comprehend case law? Hahaha...poor attempt at a joke. Regardless, I'm sure the Dean at Hamline is freaking out that such an idiot (Longrie) is an alumni of their fine (not) law school. Don't we miss the days of the old regime when the former City Attorney actually knew what they were talking about?

    Overall, it was decided that the Commission would have the issues reviewed by independent counsel of their choosing I believe. We should know their findings in about 21 days.

     
  • At 2:41 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I have been using relay servers in a sense the entire time. I just figured I would mix it up a bit. I think I am now on 208.68.something or other.

    So now that we know that there will be a 21 day wait before we get some hard core information, I guess that means we will have plenty of time to make personal attacks and accusations.

    Maybe by the time some useful information comes in, we won't even care because we will have been dazzled or maybe mesmerized by all the BS.

     
  • At 3:03 PM, Blogger Frostbrand said…

    > I have been using relay servers in a
    > sense the entire time. I just
    > figured I would mix it up a bit. I
    > think I am now on 208.68.something
    > or other.

    Sorry, your stealthy software isn't working the way you think it is. Is there a manual you could read to make it work right? You're still posting from what I believe to be your home IP address of 64.131.7.123. It's part of a block of addresses that USFamily.net assigns to the users of their ISP service.

    If you're saying that you've hacked their system and are masquerading as one of their users while not actually being one, perhaps utilizing an insecure open proxy server in their domain, I'm sure their security people would like to know about that so they can shut it down. Open proxies, such as the ones you we're playing with last night (the ones starting with 208), are vulnerable to use by spammers, worms, denial-of-service attackers, and so on. (If you run a search on the IP addresses you used, you'll find that your fellow users are largely concerned with selling viagra ch33p, moving General Abacha's millions out of Nigeria, etc.) This why identified open proxies are blacklisted by many sites. The existence of such blacklists is also why ISPs do not want to have any such open proxies or SMTP services on their systems, because it means that regular, legitimate users will have their e-mail bounce or have trouble getting some web pages, due to the whole IP block being blacklisted. Even if a customer of USFamily.net is hosting an open proxy service, it's probably a violation of their terms of service to do so, because of the security issues.

    Perhaps one of our readers should drop the ISP a line at abuse@usfamily.net or phone them at 763-521-0401 to let them know that their system is compromised.

     
  • At 5:01 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    11:29:

    I have to agree with you. Frostbrand's post had nothing to do with facts. The question is, did it need to be based on facts?

    I am confused...As you apparently are as well...

     
  • At 12:05 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    An interesting point got made at the meeting which I think should be noted.

    First, Banack said what he does with the dispatch center is oversee the actual supervisor of the center. So there's someone who actually supervises the center, and he just checks up on the supervisor every once and a while. He said 2% of his job is doing this, and the dispatch supervisor would probably say it wasn't even that much.

    However, he added, if it is such a big part of his job, as Longrie and Co. are claiming, why is he getting Das Boot now, when the dispatch center won't be transfered over to Ramsey Co. until the summer? What is the center going to do if he's so important to it's operations that he spends a lot of his work time overseeing it?

     
  • At 12:49 PM, Blogger Frostbrand said…

    > why is he getting Das Boot now,

    I'm intrigued by the image of a German submarine as a farewill gift. Just kinda hightens the surrealism of this council. :)

    But on a serious note, you bring up an excellent point. Once again close examination past the Longrista smokescreen reveals enormous inconsistencies, and shows that their "reasons" are usually just excuses, and flimsy ones at that, often based on completely fictional premises.

    The parallels keep recurring:

    - If so much of Banick's job is handling dispatch (as the Longristas claim), and that's why he's no longer needed, why is he being let go long before dispatch is taken over by Ramsey County?

    - If Copeland's wife's ongoing medical problems kept him from getting a job for all these years, why is he now able to work more than full-time, with no change in her status, as far as we've heard?

    - If CoPar was rejected on the grounds that they "ha[ve] not proven the use would meet all of the standards required," why was Longrie unable to provide a reporter any specific examples?

    These clowns -- Diana especially -- believe that it's sufficient to just say any old thing pulled out of the air. They are not concerned with facts or reality (remember Hjelle berating the city finance woman because she didn't agree with his completely mistaken belief that the tax rate was increased last year?); they just want to throw enough confusion into the public view that they can get away with doing what they want.

    It's hard to forget Diana's whoppers, like her claim that she didn't believe Bob Cardinal wrote that letter; or her claim that city managers may have been planning to unionize all along and it's just coincidence that it happened under her rule; or her claim that everyone else must be lying about her demanding that Copeland's background check be done in-house, against the advice of all the staff (even though the police chief could specify the day on which she so directed him); or her claims in that business about breaking into the city clerk's office; or her claim that of course she did her own background check on Copeland before appointing him (if so, why isn't that check in the public record, since she did it as part of her job as mayor?).

    It's remarkably similar to our troll, who made up numbers about voting patterns as a "counterargument" to the voting data that I actually researched by poring carefully over hundreds of pages of council meeting minutes.

    In Longrie Land, things you make up because you think they might be true or would like them to be true have the same value as things that people determine to be definitely or probably true on the basis of empirical evidence.

    For the Longristas, reality is just something that gets in the way of doing whatever they want.

     
  • At 3:44 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    www.maplewoodvoices.com has a message from Fowler (Banick's Attorney) - Get ready for the lawsuit, and remember what the League of MN Cities' Insurance trust deductable is.....

    Do a recall petition anyway, present it to the council and get it on the record. Phrase the petition as "We the undersigned ask Mayor Longrie, Councilmember Hjelle, and Councilmember Cave to resign and move to Pashtun".

     
  • At 4:33 PM, Blogger drawnLeftward said…

    ah, have you checked with Pashtun about that?

     
  • At 4:22 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I was right about this blog continuing on and on and on. I think the message was that we had to wait 21 days for an answer? I guess we have 18 more to wait? Those goofy Rossbachians!

     
  • At 12:06 PM, Blogger Frostbrand said…

    Hello, late-night troll from 64.131.7.123.

    Seems to me like Copeland didn't wait 21 days to say that Banick is still fired. And certainly Banick's attorney isn't waiting 21 days before filing for an injunction to keep his job. In the meantime, as he pursues that case, he now has the Commission on the record in support of Banick and advising the city not to fire him.

    So actually, it was your claim that there would be "a 21 day wait before we get some hard core information" that was mistaken. A judge might issue an injunction much sooner than that, for example, and there are plenty of other developments that may occur.

    As for the blog going "on and on" ... um ... what were you expecting? We'd all stop talking about Maplewood politics for three weeks?

     
  • At 4:45 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Who said 21 days would be carved in stone? My experience with the legal system has shown me that trying to guess the speed in which the courts operate is a bigger gamble than going to Las Vegas. It might be 21 days, I hope, or it might be longer. I'm sure the Juenemanites are hoping for shorter like I am.

    I think that the Rossbachians missed the point which was that rather than play arm chair quarterback, we should hold our accusations and finger pointing until we get some more concrete information.

    I think you are misreading the commission's position. From what I gathered from the article I read, they needed to consult with an attorney to figure out what was going on and that in the mean time the city should hold off on dismissing Banick. Clearly the commission members had personal opinions that they let interfere with their work as evidenced in their childish act of not letting the mayor speak. But the position of the commission is a legal one which should be based upon a legal position drawn up by their attorney. My understanding is that they do not have this opinion in hand. It seems like this is one of the pieces of information that we are waiting for.

    Sincerely,

    69.46.25.42

     
  • At 5:52 PM, Blogger Frostbrand said…

    Our troll, still actually posting from 64.131.7.123, wrote:

    > Who said 21 days would be carved in
    > stone?

    If anyone did, it was you. In in your 2:41 PM comment above, when you wrote, "So now that we know that there will be a 21 day wait before we get some hard core information," for example.

    > I think that the Rossbachians
    > missed the point which was that
    > rather than play arm chair
    > quarterback, we should hold our
    > accusations and finger pointing
    > until we get some more concrete
    > information.

    Mwahahahaha. This is coming from the troll who pulls "facts" out of thin air, can't be troubled to research information before making claims about past tax levies, inserts undocumented fabrications and opinions into Wikipedia, rounds 64% up to "70%" and 38% down to "30%," etc.

    What are you, if not an armchair quarterback? The mayor of Maplewood?

    > Clearly the commission members had
    > personal opinions that they let
    > interfere with their work as
    > evidenced in their childish act of
    > not letting the mayor speak.

    What was that you were just saying? Something about "accusations and finger pointing"? Oh dear.

    Let me remind you, the mayor had no official role in that meeting, and the chair of it was entirely within his rights not to recognize her, just as he would have no requirement to recognize a random citizen who wanted to speak for or against Banick.

    The mayor chairs council meetings (and poorly, as anyone versed in Robert's Rules would know). She is not God-Queen of Maplewood, whose Divine Word overrules all others. Copeland may run to do her bidding in every minute detail, but that's because he's her simpering toady, not because it's the way a Plan B city is supposed to run.

    I don't know if I've said it lately, but I really do appreciate you stopping by. If you didn't exist, we'd have to make you up -- you're like a typing internet zombie parody of Diana herself. Without your voluminous contributions, we'd have to wait for council meetings to get so much inspiration.

    So really, thank you again, and Happy New Year!

     
  • At 8:50 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "Clearly the commission members had personal opinions that they let interfere with their work as evidenced in their childish act of not letting the mayor speak."

    This is the most hilarious sentence I've read. I think if the troll wants to see personal opinions resulting in childish actions s/he should re-watch a clowncil meeting from this year. My beverage almost came out my nose I was laughing so hard. Good one, troll!!! You should seriously consider stand-up.

     
  • At 10:06 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "Clearly the commission members had personal opinions that they let interfere with their work as evidenced in their childish act of not letting the mayor speak."

    Au contraire mon lonrista amie...I do agree that the commission members likely did have personal opinions about the situation. However, I would argue that they set aside those opinions for the time being to wait for a legal opinion. No need to cloud the waters with a running incoherent diatribe from someone who likes to listen to herself sound important only to her.

     
  • At 10:09 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "childish act"...

    For a clear definition, please watch the meeting with the 2am stunt. In that particular meeting, we were able to see childish at it's best. Just watch Hjelle go ape on the Xcel rep. That was a classic 2-year-old tantrum.

     
  • At 10:32 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Looks to me like they are trying to attack and discredit the Civil Service Commission as is their typical behavior.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home