What's Left of Maplewood (MN)

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

Thursday, December 14, 2006

Nepotism Clause?

A comment anonymously submitted to an earlier thread shared this tidbit:

Not sure where to post this, but I recently found out that the City has removed its nepotism clause from its City Employment Agreement. Yeah, now Longrie and Cave's husbands can get a supervisory positions within the City.

How is Hjelle going to benefit? I'm sure the buffoon will figure out some way to make this work to his advantage. [...]

I think this rumor deserves a posting of its own. Can anyone confirm the change?

posted by Frostbrand @ 10:46 AM  

37 Comments:

  • At 11:28 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    What a huge step back that would be for the city! Hey, Corruption, enter here. We've just opened a huge window for you to enter.

     

  • At 9:23 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    The foursome don't even follow their own policy in reference to the revised personel policy.
    "City employees are expected to fulfill their duties and responsibilities at the level required,
    including observance of work rules and standards of conduct. Failure to do so may result in
    disciplinary action".

     

  • At 2:06 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Why don't we get some facts surrounding the issue rather than lobbing alligations and accusations.

    Also, maybe there needs to be a little discussion on Maplewood's form of government called Plan B, city manager form of government. What you would find is that there is a legal separation between elected officials and staff. In fact, you most certainly could have a situation where the manager hires Cave's husband as Fire Chief over council member Cave's objections. In fact, all 5 council members could complain. If the manager went and hired Cave's husband anyways, the only thing the council could do is fire the manager after the fact and pay him the big 6 month severance package that most of them have. The council couldn't fire the chief. There is no saying that the next manager they would hire would fire the chief either. That's Plan B government for you.

     

  • At 2:15 PM, Blogger Frostbrand said…

    "He gave my husband a new job, with a huge raise in salary and benefits, and I can't do anything to stop it! Oh woe is me! The only thing I can do is fire him to punish him for giving my husband a big promotion and pay raise."

    Bwahahahahaha... Right, that's exactly the scenario we're worried about.

    What really entertains me is that I can see them spinning it this way. "We didn't expect him to appoint Rebecca's husband, oh my! We must respect the plan B form of government, so we're powerless to stop it!"

    OK, seriously now, I'd be interested in seeing any evidence for this rumor about removing a nepotism clause. I can't say it would surprise me, but I'm also not willing to assume it to be fact.

     

  • At 4:14 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I have checked the personnel policies posted in Maplewood Voices, the new version compared to the old version, not sure if this was the document referenced, some language has been changed but nothing that would stand out. Could be city employee might have received wrong information.

     

  • At 9:51 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    This launguage is gone from the new manual:

    SECTION 4 - EMPLOYEE RECRUITMENT AND SELECTION



    SELECTION



    C. Relatives may be hired only if they are the most qualified and they will not be supervised by another relative. In addition, relatives may not work in the same department unless at least one of the two positions is a temporary or seasonal position and the appointment is approved by the Human Resource Director and the City Manager. Regular full-time and part-time employees may not be hired to work in the same department. For this policy only, relative does not include spouses.

     

  • At 9:53 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    This language is deleted in the new manual

    SECTION 4 - EMPLOYEE RECRUITMENT AND SELECTION



    SELECTION



    C. Relatives may be hired only if they are the most qualified and they will not be supervised by another relative. In addition, relatives may not work in the same department unless at least one of the two positions is a temporary or seasonal position and the appointment is approved by the Human Resource Director and the City Manager. Regular full-time and part-time employees may not be hired to work in the same department. For this policy only, relative does not include spouses.

     

  • At 1:45 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    One more factor to consider with this relative hiring issue are laws such as anti-descrimination, veterans preference, etc.

    If someone's relative tests the highest, can they be excluded because they are related to another employee? What about issues concerning minorities and equal opportunity hiring practices? While there are a lot of good things to say about having strict policies on the hiring of relatives, in some cases they may be discriminatory.

    It sounds like someone might have grounds for a lawsuit on an issue like this.

    Concerning the issue of Plan B government, you can laugh all you want with the scenario of the council members having no authority over who the manager hires. The law is the law. With all of the city manager cities out there, I am sure it has happened elsewhere, and probably many times.

    You know how politics works, people turn on each other in a snap of the finger.

     

  • At 2:34 PM, Blogger Frostbrand said…

    > Concerning the issue of Plan B
    > government, you can laugh all you
    > want with the scenario of the
    > council members having no authority
    > over who the manager hires.

    And yet...here we have a City Manager who is a close personal friend of the mayor, hiring and firing as she and her clique direct.

    Remember Erik Hjelle's hit list? He had a list of specific people, which he slipped out in an interview with the Pioneer Press, that he wanted to see fired or driven out. Copeland has been following through on that list. I think most of them now are gone.

    Also, I think you should have a debate with one of our other anonymous commenters (assuming you're not the same person), who seems quite certain that the City Council should, by right of election, exercise hiring authority on the whole city staff.

     

  • At 9:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Sorry, I don't have a split personality that likes arguing with myself. :)

    So what if the manager is a close personal friend of the mayor. Anderson Windows had a longstanding policy of only hiring people who received personal recommendations from other employees. Oooooh. I guess that means Anderson must be bad!!!

    Is the city manager hiring and firing whoever the mayor and her clique direct?

    Well let me rephrase this without the personal attacks... Is the manager doing what a majority of the elected officials want him to do?

    Well if you phrase it that way, I hope the manager is. I didn't vote for the manager. I voted for the elected officials. Last time I checked, the elected officials are supposed to be making decisions. As Truman said, "this is where the buck stops".

    Does Hjelle have a hit list? Who cares. I have found in life that just about everyone has a hit list of some sorts. I imagine that in politics the lists are longer. It sure seems like a lot of people have Bush on their hit list. Isn't his approval rating below 25%?

    So Hjelle thinks there are bad employees out there. Big deal. Every organization has dead weight. I guess the reason we have 5 elected officials instead of one is that we need three people to declair dead weight. Hjelle is just one person. Are the lists of the others the same? Doubtful, but I'm sure there are some names that cross multiple lists. Again, so what.

    I am kind of interested in finding out how many people are "gone". I sounds like 50% of the staff has been replaced from the big talk on this board. Are people still whining over less than a handful of people?

    If the Maplewood city council had the authority over the hiring and firing of all employees, then they would join about 740 other minnesota city councils across the state. 740 is about 86% of the cities in minnesota. They could join their friends in cities like Woodbury, Eagan (70,000 pop), Oakdale, and the list goes on and on. To my knowledge, those cities don't see any different of a turnover than Maplewood does. Just a hint as to the reasons for this... city councils typically only care about management employees. The lower level employees just do their jobs and stay out of the limelight.

     

  • At 9:32 AM, Blogger Frostbrand said…

    > So what if the manager is a close
    > personal friend of the mayor.
    > Anderson Windows had a longstanding
    > policy of only hiring people who
    > received personal recommendations
    > from other employees. Oooooh. I
    > guess that means Anderson must be
    > bad!!!

    If Anderson hired an electrician without any experience or training in that field, simply because he was a buddy of another employee, I would indeed say that's bad. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that a personal recommendation is necessary but not sufficient for employment there.

    The problem of course is not that Copeland is Diana's friend. It's that HE HAS NO QUALIFICATIONS, and so the ONLY reason he was appointed was that he is Diana's friend -- and, being unemployed, had nothing else on his schedule.

     

  • At 8:04 PM, Blogger drawnLeftward said…

    Maybe she created the opening just so she could hire Copeland. Do they do that at Anderson?

     

  • At 9:21 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I think the whole argument that it is perfectly fine for an incoming council to appoint their own "loyal" staff members is completely ridiculous. That is a system just crying out for corruption.

     

  • At 11:43 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    At this point, there are actually a fair number of officials who have been removed or have resigned.

    Assistant Fire Chief
    Assistant Police Chief
    Parks and Rec. Director
    Finance Director
    Assistant City Manager
    City Manager
    Human Resources Director
    Maplewood Community Center Manager
    Events Supervisor for the Community Center
    City Attourny

     

  • At 12:19 PM, Blogger Frostbrand said…

    Add to the list of departures:

    * Community Development Director
    * Executive Secretary

     

  • At 1:59 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Hmmmmm, methinks that the "anonymous" who is posting in favor of Larry Curly and Moe is none other than Hjelle. He does have a penchant for spelling errors and defending the wickedness being reaped upon the City by claiming that their evil is minimal compared to the evil works done previously.

    All I can say, is that before the likes of these 3, there was never the controversy regarding the City of Maplewood. I'm embarassed to be a resident and am considering my options.

    Can anyone please find out what we can do to remove the hideous picture of Longrie from the city website and her painting from City Hall. My eyes hurt when I look at it.

     

  • At 4:32 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I actually have had the same thought that the "defender" is none other than Hjelle himself.

     

  • At 6:32 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    )ver 30 years, I have worked in both plan A and plan B cities and I haven't seen such ruthless revenge in a long time. Typically in a plan b city, the manager hires, disciplines and fires staff without interference from the council. In plan A cities as *hjelle?* comments on, the city administrator is usually left to deal with staff issues again without council interference. Woodbury is one such city. The council there hasn't 'gone after' a list of employees in my working career.
    In Maplewood, the Council Bi8g 3 apparently has chosen to fire the former manager because he wouldn't fire selected staff at the council's direction. Then they hired a hack to fire those they had 'issues' with. This is not normal council behavior in any form of city except the most corrupt.
    BTW: the Strib had Maplewood on the top half of the front page this morning.

     

  • At 3:06 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Is Copeland qualified? Well I checked Minnesota Statutes and as far as the law is concerned, the answer is YES.

    Does this job require an advanced degree? Heck no.

    Does everyone who holds this job hold an advanced degree? Heck no.

    Does this job even require a degree at all? Heck no.

    I don't think the previous commenter meant that Anderson was going to hire unqualified pepople for jobs that legally required certain skills (like that of an electrician). I think his/her statement was that all employees hired had to come with a reference from within the company. It doesn't seem unusual to see an Anderson electrician recommend a fellow electrician for a job opening. I think the point is being missed that in the corporate world, hiring people you know is not a problem. In fact in some companies, it is a preferred method.

    Last time I checked, I see nothing in state law or city ordinance that says it is illegal to hire someone you are friendly with. Sounds to me like that a good idea if you want to bulid a good team.

    Concerning the list of employees, I see a little bit of embellishment going on. First, isn't the community development director and assistant city manager the same position?

    Didn't I read in the Maplewood Review that she was looking for a job in the summer of 2005? I do know I read that she specifically said that she was not leaving due to political issues in Maplewood. Why would she lie after she already left Maplewood and already accepted her next job? Doesn't make sense.

    Assistant Fire Chief and Police Chief got left behind in a reorganization. Too bad. They will get chief's jobs in neighboring cities. I hear that Roseville's chief has been looking for a job for over a year.

    The Human Resources Director got fired for doing a lousy job. So what.

    The City Manager got canned, which he by law is an at will employee who didn't understand that he works for the council and not himself, the people, or the employeees. Maybe in his next job he will get it. Apparently he didn't get it in his last job in Andover, so I am not holding my breath.

    It was a crime that the city attorney had worked for the city as long as they did. Talk about a dependency factor. You need to move these people around for the same reason you hire different auditors for the books every few years.

    So bottom line is that out of maybe 350 employees we have 9 that are no longer with us? Let me do the math on this one. That's 2.5% of the workforce of the city. Heck, a couple of companies this year laid off 5 times that percentage. Speaking of layoffs, you aren't fired if they are not replacing you with another person for that same identical position. Last time I checked, the word was layoff.

    One more question, did any of these people get fat 6 month severance packages? Did they get 1 month packages? Do they get unemployment? Do they get extended health benefits? I am still crying over the treatment of poor Fursman who only got $65,000 in severance. Last time I checked, that would buy a nice piece of property up north. Maybe two Caddies?

    Concerning Woodbury, I haven't seen their tax rates climb like Maplewood. I also haven't heard of any episodes of Woodbury employees breaking the wrists of citizens attending meetings. Also no stories of Woodbury cops driving people out to the middle of nowhere Washington county and dumping them in the bushes. And no stories of Woodbury squads driving through the front door of homes. Yeah Maplewood is on the same level of Woodbury. Let's keep on telling that to ourselves... Maybe that's why there is no "list" the council has in Woodbury.

     

  • At 9:22 AM, Blogger Frostbrand said…

    > Does this job even require a degree
    > at all? Heck no.

    Well gosh, by your very minimal standards of "qualification" we could have saved a bundle if Diana had just picked up a random bum wandering the streets of downtown, offered him a $20,000 salary and a hot meal, and hired him instead of Copeland.

    Come to think it, we might be better off...

    > I think the point is being missed
    > that in the corporate world,
    > hiring people you know is not a
    > problem. In fact in some
    > companies, it is a preferred
    > method.

    I think the point you may be missing is that this is not the corporate world; Diana & Co. do not actually own Maplewood. If the owner of a private company wants to appoint his dog to be the corporate Vice President for Canine Relations, that's their right. But winning a seat to the City Council is not a corporate takeover, and this is one of those cases where the "let's run government like a business" meme runs into problems.

     

  • At 10:23 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Actually, I think the job did require an advanced degree, under Maplewood's own hiring policies. These were changed by the "gang of three" when they were discussing whether to hire Copeland permenantly or look for someone else.

    And the comment that only 9 out of 350 employees have been fired/resigned/restructured is misleading. The employees who have left or been given the boot are all upper and middle management, meaning that the employees who are best at coordinating and directing the city are gone. Of course a majority of the employees (secretaries, police officers, municiple workers) aren't going to be fired. But pardon my bluntness, but it's a lot easier to replace someone who who drives the street sweeper as opposed to someone with 30 years of experience in a managment or administrative position.

    As far as the last parts of the comment about hwo we shouldn't feel sorry for the employees who have gone, because they've gotten nice severance pay and will undoubtably find jobs elsewhere, don't worry, I don't feel sorry for them. Instead, I feel sorry for the city, which has lost those years of experience and talent. (And don't even try to tell me about the money saved. Besides the severence pay they'll be taking, the city is already talking about hiring three new middle managers to aid Copeland and help run the city. There go your savings right there. And let's not forget the lawsuits, hmmm?)

     

  • At 4:19 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Let's change gears from accusations to facts on this issue...

    Selection C, page 18 of the Maplewood Employee Handbook is the section on this Nepotism issue that is ACTUALLY used by employees, and signed for by them. This is the November 2001 edition which was adopted by the city council.

    It states that relatives may only be hired if they are the most qualified and they will not be supervised by another relative. In addition, relatives may not work in the same deprtment unless at least one of the two positions is a temporary or seasonal position and the appointment is approved by the Human Resources Director and the City Manager. Regular full-time and part-time employees may not be hired to work in the same department.
    For this policy only, relative does not include spouses.

    Again, this is from the Nov 2001 version which employees ahve signed off on every year since.

    In April 2006, Sheri Le created her own version which was not given to the council for review, not released to city employees, and not authorized by Fursman. The "changes" that people on this blog are discribing are from this "fantom" version. Copeland brought forward changes to the council which were made from the only legally opted edition which was from November 2001.

    For some background, at the September 23, 2002 city council meeting, Sheri Le brought a minor revision of the handbook to the council for action. If she did it in 2002, then why not in 2006? She changed the status of employees from at-will to protected, cause status. That is huge, and she never followed her own precedence...

    Bottom line is that changes in the employee handbook cannot be done at the whim of any city employee. They require adoption by the council members to make them legally binding, and to most importantly make sure the council is fully knowledgable as to the changes.

    Don't blame any of the 5 current council members on this Nepotism issue. The blame falls squarely on the shoulders of certain departed staff members.

     

  • At 4:40 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Could a bum on the street run the city of Maplewood? Who knows. It depends upon what their background is. I look at a person's character, not their choice of lifestyle.

    Are the fire trucks still answering calls in Maplewood? Yes. Are the police still arresting shoplifters at the mall? Yes. Are the parks well maintained? In my neighborhood the answer is Yes. Seems like Maplewood is still running just fine under Copeland.

    The last poster clerly is not familiar with the corporate world because it is indeed very similar to the Maplewood city government model. In a corporate world, directors are elected by shareholders. In Maplewood, we call these shareholders citizens. In both scenarios these boards change from time to time and have a responsibility to their customers to do what they think is in the best interests of the majority of the shareholders or citizens.

    As in business and as in city government, there are takeovers. The two are more similar than they are different.

    Concerning Jackson's comments, state law only describes the job functions of one city employee. That is the city manager. The council sets the standards. No one council can bind a future council to these standards. Only a vote of the people through a charter form of government could apply standards which could not be altered by the elected officials. Maplewood does not have a city charter.

    If Maplewood did indeed have council adopted requirements for city managers, please someone show us the language! No accusations, just show me the language!

    I also have to strenously disagree with Jackson on his comments concerning the replacement of management employees. I believe that replacing lower level employees is where the difficulty. That street sweeper might require a special drivers license, or the electrician requires years of apprenticeships. To be a good firefighter you need hundreds of hours of training.

    When it comes to management though, anyone can push around paper and set budgets. Look at the corporate world. How can a guy go from managing a car company to managing a soap company?

    Replacing people in city government with 30 years experience is a piece of cake. Has anyone looked at Maplewood's pay scale versus other cities? Maplewood employees make even more than Roseville. They make more than state and county employees.

    Jackson I believe is correct that three middle managers are supposed to be hired. But let's tell the whole story. These three middle managers are replacing five that were eliminated? Sounds like a savings to me.

    The lawsuits? Let's all get real. Are we as citizens going to be held hostage every time the people we elect want to make management changes? Let them sue and I hope the city grinds them into the ground. Maybe a lesson needs to be taught to a few of these city employees that they work for the council. God did not grant them these jobs for life. Who do these people think they are? If my wife cocked and attitude like some of these Maplewood employees have, she would be thrown out of her firm out on the street. If any other firm found out about her attitude problems, they would never hire her either.

     

  • At 5:09 PM, Blogger Frostbrand said…

    "Don't blame any of the 5 current council members on this Nepotism issue. The blame falls squarely on the shoulders of certain departed staff members."

    I'm confused.

    According to Maplewood Voices, the Section 4.C. language you describe is in the Nov. 2001 handbook "Last revision: April 3, 2006", but is REMOVED in Copeland's new version.

    So regardless of whether Sherrie Le did something else in the handbook, she did not tamper with this clause. You're saying it was in the old Nov. 01 handbook; apparently it was still in the very same place and form after Le's April revision. Still, you blame her for removing it?

    How does that make sense?

    I don't know if we can blame the current council members (though knowing how Copeland is their marionette, I assume they're behind it), but it makes no sense at all to blame Sherri Le for a change made after she was fired.

     

  • At 5:17 PM, Blogger Frostbrand said…

    > As in business and as in city
    > government, there are takeovers. The
    > two are more similar than they are
    > different.

    I'm starting to come around to the idea that this may be an icognito Chumpelopithecus hjelle we're talking with here. Look, he really DOES believe that getting elected means he now personally owns Maplewood! :)

     

  • At 5:47 PM, Blogger Frostbrand said…

    > If Maplewood did indeed have council
    > adopted requirements for city
    > managers, please someone show us the
    > language! No accusations, just show
    > me the language!

    Did you miss the meeting last night? A citizen read the list of MINIMUM qualifications, made in a motion by Erik Hjelle and passed unanimously at the August 7th council-manager workshop. You can find Hjelle's motion in the minutes from that meeting.

    And they really lowballed it, compared to the requirements the council set the last time they did the job search. I guess, since they were unhappy with Fursman, they wanted to set their sights a lot lower.

    Even so, Copeland doesn't measure up. So implicitly, by making him permanent, they set their sights even lower.

    Like I said, if we're gonna aim low, why not go all out? Let's pick someone out from the homeless shelter, or maybe a kid fresh out of high school, and save the city another $50k. All they have to do is run back and forth performing whatever tasks the mayor instructs.

    > Replacing people in city
    > government with 30 years
    > experience is a piece of cake. Has
    > anyone looked at Maplewood's pay
    > scale versus other cities?

    The only comparisons I've seen are the selective data pulled out by Copeland for the city newsletter, using unknown criteria and unrevealed raw information, tailored to suit the message he/the mayor wanted to push.

    Come on, in one column they show salary alone for last year; in another they show salary + benefits combined for the next year...and we citizens are supposed to figure out what the actual rate of increase is? For all we know the budgeted salaries may be flat year-over-year!

    If you can point us to a public source of that information, I'd love to see it. So far, I think the Mayor has proven herself to be a shameless liar, and Copeland has proven himself to be her groveling lapdog, so I really can't believe either of them on what the weather is like outside without some kind of independent verification.

    I'll be really interested to see the quality of people willing to apply for Maplewood jobs under this council. Maybe altruists out there should be sure to find and warn them about what they're getting into.

     

  • At 5:59 PM, Blogger Frostbrand said…

    Our guest expert on the business world says:

    > When it comes to management though,
    > anyone can push around paper and set
    > budgets. Look at the corporate
    > world. How can a guy go from
    > managing a car company to managing a
    > soap company?

    I just wanted to highlight this because it amuses me so very much.

    Yep, anyone can be a manager. No skill required. That's why so many CEO's get appointed fresh out of college to run Fortune 500 companies. And since any old person can do the job, they're always hiring new folks just for big $$$ savings. The supply of qualified labor so outstrips the demand for managers, CEOs hardly get paid anything!

    Why, I'll bet YOU were a manager, back when you had no marketable job skills and couldn't do anything else! Now that you've studied hard and learned how to work a meatpacking assembly line, however, you're all set to get one of those competitive, high-paying jobs opening up at the Swift plant.

    Welcome to the Longrie-Cave-Hjelle-Copeland World, where up is down, and no point of reality is too big to be denied.

     

  • At 4:01 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Oh where to begin. First I think if I weed through the childish personal attacks on Diana, Rebecca, and Erik, and get to the meat of the discussion, there isn't much left but bone, so let me say the following...

    The point on managers being a dime a dozen went completely over the previous reader. The point is that management is about budgeting, goals, leadership, etc. These are general skills that apply across the board to many positions. A really good manager could run a parks department or a chopstick factory. If Maplewood needs a good manager, in this job economy, and with Maplewood's high pay, there will be many applicants.

    I saw the meeting where the council talked about manager requirements. The council voluntarily set a baseline. So what. Did they lowball it? By who's standards? In Roseville, their last manager didn't have a management degree. The last manager in Falcon Heights didn't even have a college degree in anything related to city government. She was a Saint Paul neighborhood community organizer. As I said earlier, the test is whether the firetrucks still roll and the shoplifters keep getting booked. Last time I checked, this still is happening like clockwork. I.e. I don't care how my road gets paved, just as long as the cost is reasonable, and the road lasts a long time. I personally could care less about the education level of the workers. I judge a product on its output.

    On the issue of the salary list, I just took it as it was, a salary list. State law requires disclosure of top salaries. If employees were embarassed by this, then apparently they think they are getting paid too much. Employees I know at the legislature have no problem with people talking about their salaries. They think they are low paid and work very hard. If anyone complained about their pay, I know they would respond by asking you to work 60 hours in a 6 day work week, getting paid for 40, with minimal to no overtime or comp time.

    I will be interested to see who applies for jobs in Maplewood. I suspect they will be coming out of the woodwork. Not too many jobs available in this world where they pay you $80,000+ a year, day shift only, weekends off, holidays off, guaranteed pension which will never disappear, good health benefits, and 3% raises that you will never find in the private sector. Yup, coming out of the woodwork.

    I just love it when people take that high horse by talking down upon people like Copeland because he only has his bachelors degree. They act like you are stupid if you don't have an advanced degree. So does that make 95% of Maplewood residents stupid also since they don't have advanced degrees?

    I guess that means that college dropout Bill Gates is an idiot. And how about that other idiot dropout Richard Branson. Maybe we can tear him away from running Virgin Atlantic Airways to visit Maplewood. Then that Ray Kroc guy who sold a lot of hamburgers.

    This criticizm of Copeland for only having a bachelors degree is childish. Grow up.

     

  • At 9:38 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Replacing lower level employees is harder than replacing management employees is the most ignorant comment I have read on this blog. That has convinced me that Hjelle is indeed posting on here. It's just the kind of stupidity he is capable of.

     

  • At 10:16 AM, Blogger Frostbrand said…

    > As I said earlier, the test is
    > whether the firetrucks still roll
    > and the shoplifters keep getting
    > booked. Last time I checked, this
    > still is happening like clockwork.
    > [...] I judge a product on its
    > output.

    As you imply by the words "still is happening," the "product" was just fine under the previous council and manager. Only now we get to pay 10% more, with Copeland the Incompetent making up the budget.

    > They act like you are stupid if
    > you don't have an advanced degree.

    No, Copeland is stupid on his own merits. He'd still be stupid if he had a Ph.D. (there are plenty of stupid people in the world with advanced degrees), but it wouldn't be as easy to point out the obvious shortcomings of his resume.

    The world is indeed full of people who have been very successful without higher education. However, their lives typically provide evidence of that success, rather than a long track record of failure.

    If Copeland had a history of launching and running one or more large, successfull, innovative businesess (like Bill Gates), that would indeed change my opinion of him. As it stands, his consulting "business" of recent years apparently had two clients total, neither of which actually paid him anything. Is that the kind of untutored genius you'd hire to run a company for you?

    Let's be clear. The only reason people support Copeland is because he was chosen by Diana, and they support her with blind loyalty. Any objective observer who looks at him on the merits agrees that he is laughably unqualified for this position.

     

  • At 2:05 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    To clarify for Mr. Nephew, the section of the handbook I quoted was correct, Sheri Le brought that to the city council on 9-23-02 and changed it to allow relatives to work in the same department. That is how Ron Svendsen was hired as a full-time firefighter when his brother was Deputy Fire Chief. They hired him the first week of October 2002. They changed the policy to allow the Nepotism. If she brought this change to the council, why not her April 2006 Phantom version???

    On the issue of the old manager being just fine, well excuse me but last time I checked the manager worked for the council not for me or you private citizen. I never hired Fursman. I never hired Copeland. It is not my job to hire or fire the manager. It is the sole responsibility of the city council.

    As I have pointed out in other posts, Copeland has the same qualifications as many managers working in other cities. He also is qualified under the law. These personal attacks against him are just childish.

    As I have said before, but seem to have to say again and again, as citizens, we judge the output of the product. Every city service I recieved from Maplewood this year has been no different from services I recieved last year or the year before.

    As I have said before, I find it personally troubling that people attack Copeland and his resume by saying that he hasn't done much over the past years.

    Maybe someone should crash their car into your spouse or your parents or someone you are close to and care for, leaving them in a position where they require constant care. Then maybe you will know the situation that Copeland is in. Maybe none of you want to admit it but being a full-time caregiver is a full-time job. Maybe the reason Copeland doesn't have a list of personal accomplishments 5 feet long was because he focused on the most important thing which is caring for his wife.

    Maybe if life would have dealt Copeland a different hand, he would have a bunch of advanced degrees and dozens of personal accomplishments in government or business. I happen to judge a person on who they are and what they have personally accomplished with the cards dealt to them in life. I think that Copeland is better grounded than most people. I think Copeland has been more successful than most of us, especially when taking into account the challenges he has worked through.

     

  • At 9:12 AM, Blogger Frostbrand said…

    > To clarify for Mr. Nephew, the
    > section of the handbook I quoted was
    > correct,

    Nephew said nothing about the handbook; he was talking about this council's motion about qualifications for the city manager when they still had a hiring process going.

    As for the nepotism clause -- look, I'm no expert, but it seems like there was a clause in there before (whenever it is that it was put there, and for whatever reason), even if it was not an especially robust clause, and since Copeland rewrote the book, now it's gone.

    You're throwing a lot of smoke grenades around to say when unrelated things happened or who is to blame for this and that, or whether a nepotism clause is a good idea, but it appears that (a) there was a clause against nepotism, and (b) Copeland got rid of it.

    Is that mistaken?

    Seems like a simple question of fact.

    Why do questions like this that should get very simple answers present such difficulties for Diana and her supporters?

    As for Copeland and his personal tragedies, since you want to talk about them:

    > Maybe none of you want to admit it
    > but being a full-time caregiver is
    > a full-time job. Maybe the reason
    > Copeland doesn't have a list of
    > personal accomplishments 5 feet
    > long was because he focused on the
    > most important thing which is
    > caring for his wife.

    When did he stop? I mean, now he has time to run a city. Did his wife die? Or get better? Or maybe fire him from this full-time job?

    Maybe with city health insurance and city salary he can now afford to have someone else work as a caregiver now.

    If that is so, wouldn't the same sterling qualifications you say he has have been able to land him a job a decade ago that would have allowed him to do the same thing? There have been lots of metro area openings in the city manager business over the past decade.

    Again, honestly, this supports the belief that he is not qualified and only got the job, which he desperately needs for the good of his family and personal financial situation, due to a friend handing it to him.

     

  • At 3:54 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Frostbrand, what I see is Copeland taking a job because he was asked to. He wasn't job hunting. These clearly are two different things.

    So now you are an expert on what Copeland and his wife desperately need. How insensative. I hope Santa delivers you a piece of coal.

     

  • At 11:40 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "I will be interested to see who applies for jobs in Maplewood. I suspect they will be coming out of the woodwork. Not too many jobs available in this world where they pay you $80,000+ a year, day shift only, weekends off, holidays off, guaranteed pension which will never disappear, good health benefits, and 3% raises that you will never find in the private sector. Yup, coming out of the woodwork."

    As a former public management level employee (NOT in Maplewood) I would like to say B*T! Management level employees generally work far more than 40 daylight hours per week. They get no overtime benefits and raises are more dependent on cost of living adjustments than any private employers pay. (I have also worked in the private sector and know the diferences.)

    Management level employees generally have to attend council meetings. They also attend advisory commission meetings and act as liason to 0ther public groups like the school district. They meet with citizen groups, attend open houses sponsored by the city and are pretty much on call for issues and problems that come up at any time. Weekends are not 'off'. Special Events on holidays (doesn't Maplewood still have a 4th of July Celebration?) mean management staff is working. Any one who thinks as the person quoted above does, has no concept of the work load of a municipal manager.

    I worked 60 - 80 hours a week for the privilege of being paid far less than an equivalent management level in the private sector with no bonuses, profit sharing or other such perks. Public pensions are subject to the vagaries of the investments in which they are held. To get full benefits in public employment, the employee must work a combination of 90 years work and age. It is a job for people dedicated to serving the public for less than they could earn in the private sector. Anyone saying otherwise is sadly mis-informed.

     

  • At 3:43 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Management employees sometimes do work more than 40 per week, but as someone who has signed the paychecks of management employees, I know that I had a responsibility to make their work weeks as close to 40 hours as possible.

    As far as these management employees attending council meetings, I have to ask myself why? I have been to council meetings in a few dozen cities over the years and I have never seen so many management people standing around doing nothing as I have seen in Maplewood. They don't just edge in at #1, they have twice as many people standing around than #2.

    And cost of living adjustment? Not quite. The cost of living adjustment is based on the warped Stanton Index which is at least 1% higher than inflation. City employees salaries are never compared with county, state, or private sector employees. In Maplewood they are compared with cities like Roseville, Edina, Shoreview, etc. Just look at Maplewood salaries. They are not too shabby at all.

    These claims about having to attend all these extra meetings? Well maybe someone should tell these elected officials that some of this is their job. Nothing gets me more irked than seeing these management employees show up to citizen meetings and try to run the show. More often than not, they should stay home from my experience at attending well over 100 of these kind of meetings.

    Don't forget to mention that when these employees spend the evening of July 4th, supervising the fireworks, they take off hours later in the week.

    Obviously the previous writer hasn't worked in the public sector for a few decades. You are vested in PERA retirement system in just 5 years. You can leave your Maplewood job and continue in just about any other Minnesota public sector job and pick up right where you left off as far as the pension is concerned. So in other words, you can work 5 years in 5 different cities and collect a full pension.

    Last time I checked, I think that only WWIII could cause your secure government PERA pension to disappear. At Northwest, all it took was a bankruptcy filing after years of CEO's robbing the piggy bank. This counts as something.

    Yes the writer is correct that government work is for those who believe in serving for the public good. For doing that, they get rewarded in ways that are sometimes similar and sometimes different than the public sector.

    Private sector may have higher wages, more opportunities for advancement.

    Public sector offers guaranteed pensions, better job security, no possibility of going through a bankruptcy, opportunities to work for multiple government agencies under one pension system.

    Neither system is better than the other, they are just different.

    Don't give me, a former government employee myself, that swan song that government employees are treated bad.

     

  • At 11:28 AM, Blogger Frostbrand said…

    > better job security

    Except in Maplewood, apparently. :)

     

  • At 3:43 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I left public employ in 1999. I worked at 4 cities and the state for a combined total of over 25 years. I have retired, but do not get full retirement as I have not reached the rule of 90. One of the reasons I left public employment is narcissists like anonymous at 3:43 am. S/he is arguing for the sake of being right, not for information or logic. His/her impression is of city staff wasting time being at meetings. S/he may have been a public employee, but I'm betting it wasn't management level.

    Staff does the day to day work of the city. They need to hear what citizens and council persons are saying. They need to be available to inform council members and citizens of the progress on projects and activities. If they are not welcome at meetings, tell them so. They would much rather be at home or at their children's activities than going to those meetings.

    I didn't say public employees had it worse or better than private employees. They just don't have it as good as anonymous at 5:59 pm indicated.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home