Monday Night Reader Commentary
Another council meeting, another batch of mail from our readers with their running observations:
Early musings from tonight's meeting...
On the topic of the Ramsey County Attorney's letter: I see that Maplewood Voices has a digital copy online this morning.
Our same reader has more thoughts on the letter and Kantrud's interesting interpretation of it:
This isn't really surprising. The old attorneys resigned because the Gang of Three refused to heed their advice. Who would they hire except someone who would give them the advice that they want to hear? Kantrud must realize that his job is only secondarily to give sound legal advice; it's mainly to provide cover for the Gang. His misreading of the county attorney's letter is only the most egregious example to date.
Early musings from tonight's meeting...
- John Nephew for Mayor! Or, maybe better yet, John Nephew for President! He deserves something for making Hjelle look like the fool that he is. Do these people not pay attention to what they have said in the past?
- Oh no. I thought the we were done counting at 4. Based on the comments of Mr. Kantrud on the County Attorney's Open Meeting letter, it sounds like he is in on the gig as well. Make it a fivesome. I can hardly wait to see what is in the County Attorney's letter (if it ever shows up on the website). Is Will right? Or is it our new fangled city attorney?
- Poor Strib reporter. He will probably soon be reorganized out of his job for disparaging our interim (yes, he will be gone sooner than he thinks) city manager.
- Diana saved the best for last. I guess if Diana says that something didn't happen, then, aw shucks, we should definitely believe her. And that's that. I am not sure I understood her math. Then again, she is a lawyer, not an accountant. Unless Schulz is lying, someone admitted that the open meeting law was violated. Also, has Diana (or any of the fearsome foursome for that matter) read all of the way thru the law. Consecutive meetings/phone calls/e-mails consitute a violation. She demonstrated CLEARLY that she does not understand that part of the law...even though she claims to be a lawyer.
On the topic of the Ramsey County Attorney's letter: I see that Maplewood Voices has a digital copy online this morning.
Our same reader has more thoughts on the letter and Kantrud's interesting interpretation of it:
It's official. Kantrud is in. He is a member of the club. After reading the response from the County Attorney's (CA) office and comparing it to the analysis of our shiny new city attorney, there is a bit more clarity.
One of two things is happening. Either Mr. Kantrud has some trouble with reading comprehension and is unable to follow along with the logic in the letter. Or, he is doing what he can to keep a listing ship afloat. I tend to think it is the latter since he made it all the way thru law school.
Mr. Kantrud vigorously insisted that, based on the letter, the Open Meeting Law issues were baseless when, in fact, it was the conflict of interest issues that were baseless. The only thing the letter from the CA's office said about the Open Meeting issue was that the CA's office was not the place to take this up. THAT'S ALL.
Maybe he HAS to defend the threesome/foursome because it is his job as city attorney? Someone help me with this one.
Either way, the soap opera continues. Except we now have a new character in the story...
This isn't really surprising. The old attorneys resigned because the Gang of Three refused to heed their advice. Who would they hire except someone who would give them the advice that they want to hear? Kantrud must realize that his job is only secondarily to give sound legal advice; it's mainly to provide cover for the Gang. His misreading of the county attorney's letter is only the most egregious example to date.
posted by Frostbrand @ 10:08 AM
14 Comments:
At 10:58 AM,
Anonymous said…
On the issue of the County Attorney not having jurisdiction on open meeting law violations (drum roll please), I was right! Yes apologies will be accepted.
I felt weeks ago that the reporting to the County Attorney was a political stunt designed to smear Diana, Eric, and Rebecca. Sure seems I was right. After all, it isn't too sensational to send a letter to some guy named Bob or Mike who works in the back room of some city prosecutor's office.
I think that STrib reporter should be slapped. That article was crap from a journalistic viewpoint. There was a lot of allegations, hearsay, and finger pointing, but I kept reading on and on for the hard evidence. I got to the end of the article and came up empty. I remember the good old days back in the 1970's when these articles always had some hard hitting concrete facts in them. They used to hold these politicians accountable and point out their flip-flopping on issues. Now they just smear them. It isn't the same thing. The STrib lost credibility in my opinion with that non-news article they recently published.
I don't care what level of government the newspaper is writing on. All I ask is that they actually do some investigation and report some verifiable concrete facts rather than unproven allegations. Why is it that the only decent reporting can only be found in the NYTimes and the WPost. Where is Bob Woodward? We need you in Maplewood!
At 11:18 AM,
drawnLeftward said…
Can't forget Bethel in the count with Kandotrud.
At 11:37 AM,
Anonymous said…
I actually thought that the story was pretty good, considering they had to sum up the last year in one story.
At 11:51 AM,
Frostbrand said…
> On the issue of the County
> Attorney not having jurisdiction
> on open meeting law violations
> (drum roll please), I was right!
> Yes apologies will be accepted.
It's gracious of you to accept them, but none are offered. I for one never asserted that the county attorney DID have jurisdiction. I said it was a civil matter, not criminal (you claimed it was a misdemeanor, and thus a criminal matter -- care to apologize, since the CA's letter has proven you wrong?) I said that in cases I was aware of the plaintiffs were individuals, and I did not know if this was because it only could be that way or just incidental.
> I felt weeks ago that the
> reporting to the County Attorney
> was a political stunt designed to
> smear Diana, Eric, and Rebecca.
> Sure seems I was right. After all,
> it isn't too sensational to send a
> letter to some guy named Bob or
> Mike who works in the back room of
> some city prosecutor's office.
I agree, it was a political stunt. I disagree with the term "smear." Rather, it's just an effective political maneuver. A former mayor publicly writing to a high-profile law enforcement authority put a spotlight on the shameful behavior of this council. Politics is more than elections, and the democratic process is not limited to election day.
Cardinal may have known that the county attorney would do nothing, while really intending to get metro media to focus on what's going on in Maplewood. As we can see from the media coverage in the past few weeks, and the skyrocketing traffic on this blog for this matter, his tactic worked.
While the county attorney will not do anything, the increased awareness through the media might lead to a private attorney concerned about Maplewood prosecuting the suit on a contingency or pro bono basis, for example.
Heck, there are already people suing the city; maybe some of them will add open meeting law violations to their suits, if this public debate of the issue has made them aware that they can do it.
At 12:23 PM,
Anonymous said…
Quoting: "Where is Bob Woodward? We need you in Maplewood!"
Would YOU move to Maplewood willingly right now? You couldn't pay me enough.
At 1:03 PM,
Frostbrand said…
Just to return to "the issue of the County Attorney not having jurisdiction on open meeting law violations" -- let's quote the county attorney's actual words:
"With respect to the alleged violations of the Minnesota Open Meeting Law, the statute provides that actions to enforce the penalties for a violation of the law may be brought by "any person". Usually, the action is brought by taxpayers, the media or somebody directly effected by the violation. There are no reported decisions involving cases brought by a County Attorney."
I don't think this says what you claim it says.
Let's go through it slowly.
- "Any Person" can bring an open meeting law case
- Usually taxpayers, the media, or somebody directly affected by a decision has brought cases in the past (so clearly "person" doesn't only mean individual people, but corporate entities as well)
- There is no case that the attorney could find of a county attorney bringing an open meeting law case to court
It would be flawed logic to infer from these points that a county attorney COULD not bring such an action. However, since there is no precedent in the record, this county attorney is rightly unwilling to insert itself into a matter that traditionally is handled by other means.
(Let me highlight the difference between the restraint exercised by our county attorney's office with respect to precedent, versus our city council's penchant for parsing the letter of the law in whatever way serves their passing needs, precedent and established procedure be damned.)
If there was a clear statute or case law to cite, establishing that a county attorney is prohibited from filing an open meeting law suit, I would have expected the attorney to say so.
At 3:00 PM,
Anonymous said…
[comment received by e-mail]
Frostbrand:
To further flesh out this discussion of the Open Meeting Law and who can
bring it forward...
From the text of the law:
----------
Since 2003, an individual who disagrees with the manner in which
members of a governing body perform their duties under the open meeting law may request the Commissioner of Administration to give a written opinion on the governing body’s compliance with the law. A governing body or person requesting an opinion of the Commissioner of Administration must pay a $200 fee if the commissioner issues an opinion.
The commissioner may decide not to issue an opinion. If the commissioner decides not to issue an opinion, the commissioner must notify the requester within five days of receipt of the request. If the commissioner decides to issue an opinion, it must be done within 20 days of the request (with a 30-day extension possible for good cause and notice to the requester). The governing body must be allowed to explain how it performs its duties under the law.
Opinions of the Commissioner of Administration are not binding and a
court is not required to give the opinions deference. However, a governing body that conforms to an opinion is not liable for fines, attorney’s fees or any other penalty, or forfeiture of office.
----------
I'm in for $50 toward the $200 if there is someone who is confident they can find all of the necessary and supporting info.
At 2:50 AM,
Anonymous said…
Since we now have people admitting that Cardinal did this as a political stunt, he now loses all credibility. I doubt the newspapers will want to get burned a second time.
At 9:32 AM,
Anonymous said…
I don't see how it makes Cardinal look bad at all. People who don't know him are speculating it was a political stunt. He's never said that. Plus it got the media to look at the circus going on here in Maplewood. If it makes anyone look bad and lose credibility, it's the three stooges.
At 9:38 AM,
Frostbrand said…
First of all, none of us are in a position to "admit" on Cardinal's behalf.
I'm just saying, even if he thought it unlikely that these charges would be taken up by the county attorney, it was a politically savvy move to write the letter as a way to call attention to the issues.
The newspapers didn't get burned. They got a juicy story. The public didn't get burned, they got better informed about what goes on, and even got to learn more about the open meeting laws and remedies we may have against the triumvirate.
If you want to talk about ludicrous stunts that call into question someone's credibility that Bob Cardinal could never have written the letter in the first place? Was she lying in front of the city council and citizens, or just delusional?
At 1:42 AM,
Anonymous said…
I guess we all have to decide whether we want a see better government, or just politically savvy moves that personally attack others. I choose better government, and I don't think that sensational accusations equals better government.
The newspapers may have not gotten burned if you take the position that all that counts is the selling of papers. If they have any journalistic integrity, then they got burned.
The people on the other hand got shafted no matter how you look at it. They got finger pointing, accusations, name calling. As a citizen, I want the facts. The article had none. I want serious analysis. The article had none.
If I want show, I will buy People magazine over at Cub Foods.
At 9:21 AM,
Frostbrand said…
Anonymous-at-1:42 AM, given your previously demonstrated incapacity to reason logically or to comprehend the obvious meaning of words in front of your face, I hope you'll understand when the rest of us don't put a lot of stock in your analysis of the media.
At 10:23 AM,
Anonymous said…
Anonymous-at-1:42 AM, I really don't see how the papers got burned at all. Political stunt or not, it's a big deal when the former mayor of the city accuses the current council of violating the law. Even if Cardinal didn't expect anything to come of it, he still made a very public accusation through his letter. That's news.
No doubt at some point, the papers (at least the local ones) will print that the County Attourney will not be pursuing the case. That is also news.
And also Anonymous-at-1:42 AM, I'd be careful what you wish for. The article certainly had facts, but seemed to avoid analysis in favor of objectivity and "just the facts" reporting. Who knows what the writers might say if they added some "serious analysis" to their work.
At 3:24 PM,
Anonymous said…
A big deal to see a former mayor make accusations? Not in this situation.
Let's keep in mind that the former mayor didn't retire on his own after years of service to the city.
The mayor's former supporter Longrie, ran against him in the primary, and the former mayor lost. Had Longrie not entered the race, there would have been no primary, and I am confident that the former mayor would have beaten Rossbach probably by the same margin that Longrie did.
We can't ignore the historical facts of this situation.
The newspaper complaint I have with their lack of facts and analysis goes well beyond Maplewood issues. These newspaper reporters for these local cities are second rate and lazy. Facts and analysis help me decide who is right or wrong. This extensive reporting on finger pointing and accusations is just a waste of good paper products and ink in my opinion. Maybe the dumb dumbs suck up this kind of reporting. I don't.
Post a Comment
<< Home