A Reader Comments on the Comments
A reader sent us an e-mail to synopsize a lot of recent activity in our comments, with added commentary:
Reading the postings of the supporter of the three musketeers is getting tiring. In fact, the whole debacle is getting tiring. We stay up way too late every other Monday to watch at least 3 people who really don't care that much about the WHOLE city of Maplewood. The only things they are interested in is their little corners of the city. The discussion of the Open Meeting Law illustrates this perfectly.
For the poster who appears to be one of the sitting three musketeers...
You simply cannot deny, as Frostbrand has put it before, that one of two things has happened. Either the three musketeers are really irresponsible council people or they have certainly violated the open meeting law.
Frostbrand has brought up the issue of Copeland's unveiling by Diana and how Erik and Rebecca simply passed muster without so much as a question. Please Mr/Ms musketeer, explain your interpretation of this event. How is it that, if you are a responsible council member, you don't ask any background questions? Could it be that you have already asked your questions in a meeting outside of the council chambers? Was it just a passing question in the grocery store? Or perhaps a few words at a basketball game? Or a full blown backroom discussion about the direction of the city?
Another event that has, to a certain degree flown under the radar was the vote to (temporarily) remove the interim tag from Mr. Brilliant. Again, a motion put forth by one of the musketeers and not so much as questioned by either of the other two. If either Diana or Rebecca cared at all about the city, wouldn't either of them want to discuss this motion and it's ramifications at length? Wouldn't we be concerned about the ethics of the situation? Apparently not. Couldn't one of you at least appear to be concerned about the process? Please, just once...Fake it at least. Then again, I have been told directly that at least one of the threesome does not care about the process.
It's really too bad. Each of the musketeers has had a chance to become a leader and do something really good. They have had at least two glorious chances as illustrated above. And they each have failed.
These two events in and of themselves represent how little the threesome cares about the city.
People have been run up the pole. Facts have been twisted...The three of you keep taking care of your own little corner of the city. For the rest of you...you can wait for Erik's spot in 3 years...
posted by Frostbrand @ 12:03 PM
14 Comments:
At 1:37 AM,
Anonymous said…
I find it to be a pretty big statement to say that three of the council members don't care much about the whole city. I bet that if I took a detailed look at meeting minutes, I would find ample information which shows that they have been involved in issues throughout the community.
I will deny that there are two possible scenarios with this Copeland hiring issue. There are more possibilities than irresponsibility or open meeting law violations. The most probable explanation and the one which follows common sense the best is that Rebecca and/or Erik just told Diana to get someone who would work for the council.
When I take a look at Rebecca and Erik, I do not see two people who buy into that phony belief that the city manager job is some super skilled position like that of a nuclear engineer. I also do not believe that they buy into the claims that you have to do big national searches to find someone who can do the job. They are too practical of people to buy all of that hype that is put out there by guess who? The Minnesota Manager's Association.
Diana brought forward the name of a guy who could do the job. Plain and simple. There were probably dozens of people around town who could do the job. Heck, they could have brought someone in out of retirement for a few months if needed. Maybe they should have hired that relative of Bob Zick who is a retired city manager, and comes with all of the degrees, bells, and whistles.
How would some of you liked having a relative of Bob Zick running Maplewood? You sure couldn't have attacked the guy on experience or education. I'm sure some of the posters on this blog would have found something to complaint about. Maybe his hair color or choice of ties.
On the issue of removing the title of "interm" from Copeland, there is nothing unethical about it. There is also nothing unusual about it. In Falcon Heights, Heather Worthington was hired as an administrative assistant a few months before their city manager Sue Hoyt quit. The council temporarily put Worthington in as acting manager. Now note that Worthington had no manager degree or city management employment experience. After a few months, the council decided to skip a hiring process and just removed the word "interim" and made her the permanent manager. No one said anything about this being unethical, illegal, or anything of the sort.
I think that Frostbrand misses the fact that the three new council members have shown strong leadership under unending personal attacks. I saw at one council meeting staff verbally attack elected officials. The staff has this attitude that they do what they want, and not what the elected officials want. Our three new council members have stood up for democracy and have said NO, those who are elected by the people are the ones who set the policies of this city. That takes a lot of guts to do. Someone had to put their foot down and stop some of these staff members from trampling every elected official that comes down the road.
At 9:19 AM,
Anonymous said…
In response to the comment posted all I can say is...hahahahahaha. Dreams are free so keep on dreaming. I for one do not feel safe knowing the new City Manager has a history of writing/forging bad checks. The guy couldn't even get a job at Target, but yet the gruesome threesome seem to think that he is the most qualified candidate for the position.
Here's a thought, how about hiring someone who actually has completed their schooling and has a degree? I agree, you do not necessarily have to do nationwide searches, but could we at least have more than one candidate to choose from? How about someone with credentials, no criminal history and experience?
Copeland's ONLY qualification for this job is the fact that he and Longrie's husband are business partners.
As far as the comments about the ethics involved in appointing Copeland during the wee hours of the night, without the full council present, and it not being on the agenda that he was going to be appointed......need I say more?
Anonymous, whoever you are....your perception of ethics and your belief that the 3 councilmembers have been strong while being attacked is crap. ALL THE VERBAL ATTACKS ON THE 3 ARE A DIRECT RESULT OF THEIR ACTIONS. All their pain is self-inflicted. This group of 3 is the most dishonest, unethical, vindictive group of people that the City has the misfortune of claiming as their own.
If a bus hit the 3 of them while they were violating the open meeting law, all I would say is, ah ha! Told you so and warn the devil that they are on their way and plan on taking over.
At 10:12 AM,
Anonymous said…
Wow! What a gem. Your latest babel is a beauty. You just don't get it.
You state…“Rebecca and/or Erik just told Diana to get someone who would work for the council.” If this doesn’t smack of personal agenda, then I don’t know what does. If this isn’t a perfect illustration of irresponsible, then I don’t know what is.
Fine. Erik or Rebecca tells Diana to find someone. That could indicate that one of the three was not involved in an Open Meeting law violation. But then, why wasn’t the other questioning the decision? As I recall, there wasn’t so much as a single meaningful question by either of the other two. Are they blindly following their leader? If so, then that is irresponsible.
This post continues your theme in previous posts. The council people don’t need to be prepared for items that come before the council. They can just vote along the same lines as the other members. It's efficient. But, how responsible it that? Why do we elect these people? It is their individual responsibility to take care of the city. To be informed. IT IS THEIR F’N JOB TO COME TO THE MEETINGS PREPARED TO DEAL WITH ALL OF THE ISSUES OF THE CITY. They are not there to take care of personal agendas!
If for whatever reason, they can't (or according to your arguments) won't do the research and work that it takes to be prepared, then don't run for office. I don't go to the polls to elect placeholders for city offices. I don’t vote for people who are in it to take care of a few personal items (theirs or mine) during their term. I vote for someone who is going to take responsibility for the city. The WHOLE city! Not just a small corner of it. I won't agree with that person on some issues. However, if what they do really is for the good of the city as a whole, then perhaps I need to adjust my perspective.
Yes, I know what your response is…Mr. Brilliant and his reorganization IS good for the city. After all, fires are still fought and criminals are still caught. Yes, that is true…for now. Let’s see in 2 years what a shambles things are.
If anything, the argument you have put forth in your latest post is a perfect illustration that the three musketeers don't really care about the WHOLE of Maplewood. They don't care about the big picture. Just having Diana go out and find someone who will do what they “need” to do is all about the personal agenda…
At 10:30 AM,
Anonymous said…
Anonymous 1:37...
Does leadership involve shutting two of five council members out of the process? Does leadership involve unprovoked yelling at Xcel about petty personal agenda issues? Does leadership involve going against the comp plan, which the courts almost always favor in land disputes? Does leadership involve throwing away years of experience? Does leadership involve forcing employment issues to court? Does leadership involve cutting off your nose to spite your face?
If so, then we have not just one leader for the City of Maplewood. We have three great titans of leadership.
They WILL go down in history...Just not for what you are thinking.
At 3:17 PM,
Anonymous said…
Leadership is about getting the votes necessary to achieve a goal. That is what is done in all elected levels of government across the country. Clearly Longrie, Cave, and Hjelle can count to three. Apparently some others can't and seem to think that you need 4 or 5 votes to get things done.
If two of the five members are shut out of a certain issue, they have two options before them. First, they can sit there and cry. Second, they can choose to be a participant with the recognition that they are not going to be calling all the shots.
In the legislature, you have Republicans in the Senate who just sit there and sulk because the DFL has been in the majority since 1972. But on the other hand, you have some members (typically moderates) who choose to be participants, but do so recognizing who the majority is.
As I have said earlier, Rossbach has stated in that written manifesto of sorts, several goals he has, including making the community center profitable. That sounds like a goal everyone can agree with. Why doesn't he step forward? Why doesn't he call up someone like Rebecca and say "hey, we need to study this, would you like to join me and some mutually agreed upon staff members and citizens and find some solutions." Rossbach has options to become a participant if he so chooses.
On the Xcel issue, I didn't witness that in person, I just read about it. All I can say is that it does trouble me that we have to pay fire department employees a lot of money because Xcel has cut back on the number of maintenance people, therefore lengthening the time it takes them to fix downed lines. I had a power problem at my place a few years ago and they told me over the phone that they don't have the personnel to do preventive maintenance. They simply wait for things to break.
On the comp plan issue, that requires 4 votes to change. Over in Roseville, they just had a big argument over that. You had their clown mayor (he looks like Howdee Doody) and two other council members, along with staff, say that no comp plan change was needed for Twin Lakes. An District Court judge agreed. Then an Appelate Court judge overturned the city, and the Supreme Court let it stand. This Comp plan stuff is not black and white.
This claim of "throwing away years of experience" is a rather loaded statement. Employment changes are made in every organization. I certainly hope that we aren't keeping people employed at the city just because they have been their since dirt. I think there is more to it than that.
Has anyone cut off their nose? Not that I have seen. Again, the police are still arresting shoplifters at the mall and the neighborhood fires are still being put out.
Maybe we have three great titans of leadership. I think we have to wait and see. Right now I see the ship sailing at sea at the same speed and direction as in the past. If the delivery of my services remains at status quo, then they will not be considered great titans. They will just be average councilmembers. If the delivery of my services improves and the costs reduced, then maybe they will earn the great titan title.
The 2007 budget is their first budget which will be all their own. It will take several months to determine which category they are in.
On the other hand, if they keep squad cars out of people's homes, and limit the trips to the great ditches of Washington County, I will give some bonus points even if city services remain the same.
At 10:36 AM,
Anonymous said…
Anonymous 3:17...One thing that is becoming obvious in your posts is that you just don't get it. In fact, not only might we have Erik posting here, but we might have Mr. Brilliant himself. This last post sounds more and more like him.
You talk about Rossbach participating. How can he participate when Hjelle pulls one from the dark side at 2:00 am while he is not there?
A good LEADER would've recognized that this stunt was wrong. No, it was not illegal. But it was unethical for so many reasons. Then again, as I read one of the definitions on the web for ethical...
conforming to accepted standards of social or professional behavior;
...perhaps it was not unethical, according to the fearsome threesome. After all, their accepted standards of professional behavior are obviously not the same as most everyone else. If you want a demonstration, go to the city and pull the video of Hjelle wigging out on the Xcel rep. Then you can see it for yourself. If that is your definition of acceptable professional behavior, then I'll put my 6-year-old up against you for Rebecca's seat next year. She won't make nearly the fool of herself...
At 4:15 AM,
Anonymous said…
I await your 6 year old on the ballot.
I bet she would get more votes than Trippler.
At 12:34 PM,
Frostbrand said…
Well, a 6 year old would be in first grade, right? That's a step forward from the Kindergarten Klowncil Kids now running the show! :)
At 3:17 AM,
Anonymous said…
Again, I see a lot of complainers, but no one willing to step up to the plate.
At 11:13 AM,
Frostbrand said…
Do you expect people to have filed for next years elections already? There's a month or two left before the filing deadline, isn't there? How can you be so sure that no one is preparing to "step up to the plate"?
At 3:43 AM,
Anonymous said…
I have heard it before about how all of these good candidates are going to come out of the woodwork and file and run super campaigns and win.
In the end, most of the complainers figure out that it takes a lot of time to be a crappy elected official, and even more time to be a better one. Often times the complainers are lazy. Yes, they can show up to a council meeting or two and shoot their mouths off by booing or cheering someone. They can also call the papers from time to time and make accusations.
When it comes down to it, putting up a few thousand dollars for signs and lit, and having to get off your duff and door knock, the complainers end up doing nothing. All mouth, no action.
At 1:30 PM,
Anonymous said…
Sorry anonymous. My six-year-old is too busy to run for office. She is out in the yard picking up dog poop. She will not have enough time to clean up the mess being left behind the three musketeers...
At 1:58 PM,
Anonymous said…
I better see Bob "lookingnorth" Longfellow on the ballot in July. Otherwise the word hypocrite comes to mind.
At 3:18 PM,
Anonymous said…
Oh, please. Just because he may or may not be willing to run to replace Cave doesn't make him a hypocrite. It may be that he doesn't feel he would make a good council member. (no offence, lookingnorth. For all I know, you may make a *great* council member.)
I freely admit that I wouldn't run for council. I wouldn't have the dedication or patience to do a good job, and actually run this city as it should be. Does that make me a hypocrite? Heck no. I can still look at the job the council's doing and recognize that it sucks worse than my Hoover back home.
Or to put it into a context even Hjelle could understand...
A guy walks down the street, and sees some firefighters trying to put out the fire, except they're not wearing certain parts of their gear (a mask on one, an O2 tank on another), the truck is crashed into a parked car, water's spewing out of the hydrant from an improper join with the hose, and the actual hose is being sprayed everywhere but the fire.
The guy stops and says to another bystander, "boy, those guys really suck at what they're doing. They should probably be booted in favor of someone who knows how to fight fires."
Then the other guy says, "Oh yeah? Well why don't you do it yourself if they're doing it wrong?"
Post a Comment
<< Home