Rebecca Cave's Spine
Our regular troll thinks that Rebecca Cave is not Diana's puppet, but is an independent thinker.
I thought it might be fun to quantify things a bit.
From the beginning of her term through November 30th (a date chosen because that's as far as the minutes I have on hand go), looking at all regular and special city council meetings, there were a total of 13 votes where Rebecca's and Diana's votes diverged. In other words, there's less than a 50% chance that Rebecca will vote differently than Diana even once in any given meeting.
The first time she voted differently than the mayor was Cave's 8th council meeting, on May 8th.
Starting with that, here are her diverging votes.
• May 8: Rossbach moved to waive the rules of procedure for a code revision requiring two readings of an ordinance. Cave seconded. Only Longrie voted against it. (She likes longer meetings, as we've seen.) Maybe Cave didn't realize how Diana would vote, and felt she couldn't vote nay after being the second.
• May 22: Jueneman moved a senior citizen deferral for Joseph Cote on the Kenwood Area Street Improvement Project. Rossbach seconded. Only Cave voted against it. (Maybe she doesn't like old people? I don't know the voting order -- maybe she went first and figured that if R&J favored it, she ought to oppose.)
• June 12: Rossbach moved to adopt the second reading of amendments to the noise ordinance. Hjelle seconded. Only Longrie voted against it. (She seems to have persistent trouble with listening, and certainly loves to hear herself talk, so maybe noise doesn't bother her.) Maybe Cave was following Hjelle's lead.
• June 12: Rossbach moved to authorize planning for a drainage improvement at Valley View Drive. Juenemann seconded, only Longrie voted against.
• June 12: Hjelle moved to adopt a resolution for Brand Avenue Draining Improvements. Longrie seconded "with a friendly amendment that community involvement be explored" (always looking for more chances to hear herself talk). In spite of her second, Longrie then voted against the motion, as did Rossbach. Cave was probably confused by Longrie's second and thought she was supposed to vote in favor.
Almost a quarter of Cave's divergent votes were at this meeting, which took place down at the Carver School. Maybe the unusual setting made it harder for her to read her cues? Afterwards, she went three meetings straight without contradicting the mayor. Maybe she got a stern talking-to.
• August 14: Rossbach moved to deny a building setback variance for Carpet Court. Hjelle seconded. Longrie and Juenemann voted nay. (As in previous cases, Hjelle's second may have given Cave mixed signals on how she was supposed to vote.)
• August 28: Rossbach moved to deny the removal of two stop signs on Atlantic at Leland and to approve the removal of two on Junction at Atlantic. Juenemann seconded. Only Cave voted against.
• September 29: Hjelle moved a four-way stop and stuff. Following his lead, Cave seconded. Longrie and Rossbach voted against.
• September 29: Rossbach moved a resolution authorizing preparation of a preliminary report on utilities and streets within the Crestview Forest Addition. Juenemann seconded. Longrie alone voted nay.
• October 23: Rossbach moved a substandard buildings finding, which keeps TIF open as a option for the St Paul Tourist Cabins site. Hjelle seconded. Only Diana voted against, allowing her to posture against TIF when she knew how the vote would go (given Hjelle's second).
• November 13: Juenemann moved awarding a contract for the new sewer cameras. Hjelle seconded. Only Longrie voted nay.
• November 13: Jueneman moved adopting assessment rates for 2007 street improvements. Hjelle seconded. Only Longrie voted nay.
• November 27: Hjelle moved that the city attorney research options dealing with liquor licensing. Juenemann seconded. Only Longrie voted nay.
So, we have 13 diverging votes. In 8 out of those 13, Hjelle either made the motion or seconded it. Moreover, in only two votes -- the senior citizen deferral on May 22, and the stop sign issue on August 28 -- did Cave vote against both Hjelle and Longrie. In both cases, the motions were made and seconded by Rossbach and Juenemann (which may have given the Longrie or Hjelle less opportunity to signal Cave how to vote), and in neither case was it a big or controversial matter.
Anyone have the tapes for those meetings? I wonder if Cave or Rossbach voted first, meaning Cave didn't get a chance to see how Hjelle or Longrie were going to vote.
In any case, I see a pattern here, and "independent thought" isn't the right description for it.
Don't mistake that for a spine on Rebecca -- it's actually Diana's arm stuck up there, moving her around like the puppet she is.
I thought it might be fun to quantify things a bit.
From the beginning of her term through November 30th (a date chosen because that's as far as the minutes I have on hand go), looking at all regular and special city council meetings, there were a total of 13 votes where Rebecca's and Diana's votes diverged. In other words, there's less than a 50% chance that Rebecca will vote differently than Diana even once in any given meeting.
The first time she voted differently than the mayor was Cave's 8th council meeting, on May 8th.
Starting with that, here are her diverging votes.
• May 8: Rossbach moved to waive the rules of procedure for a code revision requiring two readings of an ordinance. Cave seconded. Only Longrie voted against it. (She likes longer meetings, as we've seen.) Maybe Cave didn't realize how Diana would vote, and felt she couldn't vote nay after being the second.
• May 22: Jueneman moved a senior citizen deferral for Joseph Cote on the Kenwood Area Street Improvement Project. Rossbach seconded. Only Cave voted against it. (Maybe she doesn't like old people? I don't know the voting order -- maybe she went first and figured that if R&J favored it, she ought to oppose.)
• June 12: Rossbach moved to adopt the second reading of amendments to the noise ordinance. Hjelle seconded. Only Longrie voted against it. (She seems to have persistent trouble with listening, and certainly loves to hear herself talk, so maybe noise doesn't bother her.) Maybe Cave was following Hjelle's lead.
• June 12: Rossbach moved to authorize planning for a drainage improvement at Valley View Drive. Juenemann seconded, only Longrie voted against.
• June 12: Hjelle moved to adopt a resolution for Brand Avenue Draining Improvements. Longrie seconded "with a friendly amendment that community involvement be explored" (always looking for more chances to hear herself talk). In spite of her second, Longrie then voted against the motion, as did Rossbach. Cave was probably confused by Longrie's second and thought she was supposed to vote in favor.
Almost a quarter of Cave's divergent votes were at this meeting, which took place down at the Carver School. Maybe the unusual setting made it harder for her to read her cues? Afterwards, she went three meetings straight without contradicting the mayor. Maybe she got a stern talking-to.
• August 14: Rossbach moved to deny a building setback variance for Carpet Court. Hjelle seconded. Longrie and Juenemann voted nay. (As in previous cases, Hjelle's second may have given Cave mixed signals on how she was supposed to vote.)
• August 28: Rossbach moved to deny the removal of two stop signs on Atlantic at Leland and to approve the removal of two on Junction at Atlantic. Juenemann seconded. Only Cave voted against.
• September 29: Hjelle moved a four-way stop and stuff. Following his lead, Cave seconded. Longrie and Rossbach voted against.
• September 29: Rossbach moved a resolution authorizing preparation of a preliminary report on utilities and streets within the Crestview Forest Addition. Juenemann seconded. Longrie alone voted nay.
• October 23: Rossbach moved a substandard buildings finding, which keeps TIF open as a option for the St Paul Tourist Cabins site. Hjelle seconded. Only Diana voted against, allowing her to posture against TIF when she knew how the vote would go (given Hjelle's second).
• November 13: Juenemann moved awarding a contract for the new sewer cameras. Hjelle seconded. Only Longrie voted nay.
• November 13: Jueneman moved adopting assessment rates for 2007 street improvements. Hjelle seconded. Only Longrie voted nay.
• November 27: Hjelle moved that the city attorney research options dealing with liquor licensing. Juenemann seconded. Only Longrie voted nay.
So, we have 13 diverging votes. In 8 out of those 13, Hjelle either made the motion or seconded it. Moreover, in only two votes -- the senior citizen deferral on May 22, and the stop sign issue on August 28 -- did Cave vote against both Hjelle and Longrie. In both cases, the motions were made and seconded by Rossbach and Juenemann (which may have given the Longrie or Hjelle less opportunity to signal Cave how to vote), and in neither case was it a big or controversial matter.
Anyone have the tapes for those meetings? I wonder if Cave or Rossbach voted first, meaning Cave didn't get a chance to see how Hjelle or Longrie were going to vote.
In any case, I see a pattern here, and "independent thought" isn't the right description for it.
Don't mistake that for a spine on Rebecca -- it's actually Diana's arm stuck up there, moving her around like the puppet she is.
posted by Frostbrand @ 6:54 PM
15 Comments:
At 9:27 PM,
Anonymous said…
Frostbrand, talk about slanted bias by skewing numbers. Do you think that the rest of us are this stupid to believe this garbage? You know that others in this community weren't born yesterday. Maybe the day before, but not yesterday.
Now if you wanted to present readers a clearer, honest, and accurate picture, you would voluntarily tell us how many times the council voted 5-0.
Let me just take a stab as to what the complete numbers probably said, and I will put it in percentages so the general readers can follow along...
90% of the time, the council voted unanimously in 5-0 votes or maybe 4-0 votes if a member was absent.
5% of the time, Rebecca, Diana, and Erik voted opposite of Rossbach and Jueneman.
4.9% of the time some of the members voted in opposite to other members in a random fashion.
AND FOR THE DRUMROLL AND SUBJECT OF THIS BLOG... 0.1% of the time, Rebecca voted opposite of Diana.
Hold the presses! This is front page news! 0.1% deserves a front page headline above the fold!
This is the headline I see... Clearly since Rebecca Cave voted with Rossbach 90% of the time, Cave must be Rossbach's puppet. Or do I have it mixed up and Rossbach is Cave's puppet. Hmmm... let me think about that for a while. Maybe there is a 6th mysterious person who is pulling the strings behind the scene since the council votes together 90% of the time.
This is giving me a headache... Give me a break!
At 10:25 PM,
Frostbrand said…
Sorry to give you a headache. I know hard data and analysis do that to you.
If you wanted to present a clear, honest, and accurate picture, however, you would download the council minutes, read over the hundreds of pages, take careful notes, crunch the actual numbers, and report back to us with facts rather than figures that you pulled out of the air.
I might get around to doing that, sooner or later, but it's not a trivial project.
It is valid to ask what level of divergence there is among the other council members.
It's also valid to ask whether purely formal motions (such as approval of minutes and agenda) should be counted. Do we count it as noteworthy independence if Rebecca abstains from voting to approve the minutes of a meeting she did not attend?
My sense is that Hjelle exhibits much more independence than Cave ( I think he's a jerk, but he's his own jerk, not Diana's in the way that Cave is), and Rossbach and Juenemann have a lot less correlation between them than do the other three.
> Maybe there is a 6th mysterious
> person who is pulling the strings
> behind the scene since the council
> votes together 90% of the time.
Interesting thought! Maybe it's that loser ex-mayor from Roseville who has been reported skulking around council meetings. I guess he got run out of his own town, so now he has to stink up ours!
At 12:35 AM,
Anonymous said…
My bets are still on Berglund. You know, I hear he has an office in City Hall. I also hear that he is very good at working with staff. Apparently they all know him on a first name basis. You know it would look bad if the husband of the mayor was actually given the title of city manager, so he has to be the "ghost of the city manager". I bet that Berglund has a "Copeland" suit and face mask in his closet which he wears to city hall every day. Remember the Mission Impossible movies where Tom Cruise wears those realistic face masks. Yup, same thing. The next person who sees Copeland should squeeze his cheeks to see if they have a rubber feel to them. That's the dead giveaway! :)
At 1:38 AM,
Frostbrand said…
In case anyone is wondering, the above comment was posted by our troll from 64.131.7.123.
At 1:54 AM,
Anonymous said…
Whoever this 64.131.7.123 person is seems to know more than the rest of the people commenting on this blog.
I have to agree that this highlighting of 6 or 8 lousy votes in the course of a year and making grand conclusions about voting patterns seems bogus to me. I think that Frostbrand better come up with something better than this before I become a believer of his.
At 9:35 AM,
Frostbrand said…
Hello, Troll! Thanks for posting this. It's exactly what I was hoping for.
At 12:28 PM,
Anonymous said…
Some blogs require you leave an email adress before you can publish a comment, as well as give some sort of handle.
Could be something useful here.
At 12:49 PM,
Frostbrand said…
True enough, and we could consider moving to that system when our fun with the troll is done.
My original thinking was that allowing anonymity would be a good idea. I know that there are owners of businesses in Maplewood, for example, who have strong negative feelings about this council and its shenanigans, but they also are subject to city ordinances, conditional use permits that come up for periodic review, a need for zoning changes or variances, and so forth. Given this council's pettiness, they have to worry about speaking publicly because an unhappy mayor may send Copeland to make their lives difficult any way he can.
At 1:46 PM,
Anonymous said…
I'm not saying people can't be anonymous, but since the system requires people to submit an email adress (not visible to the public, just the moderators), as well as identify themselves with a handle of some sort (like yours, I doubt Frostbrand is your actual name), it means that people like the troll have a slightly harder time playing shadow games and posting pretending to be different people.
Personally, I think he or she should pick a handle and start claiming some responsibility for their comments. After all, the more ringamarole they go through, the less creditable they seem.
At 3:15 PM,
Anonymous said…
I have had no problems with some of the anonymous postings here. In fact, I find more useful information in the anonymous entries than I do from the named ones, Jackson excluded. I have found some of Jackson's posts very informative.
At 3:33 PM,
Frostbrand said…
64.131.7.123 writes,
> I have had no problems with some of
> the anonymous postings here. In
> fact, I find more useful information
> in the anonymous entries than I do
> from the named ones
Let's suppose for the sake of argument that you're not just patting yourself on the back, since the overwhelming majority of anonymous posts in the past two weeks have been from you.
What are some of the anonymous entries -- that you did not write -- that you liked?
I am genuinely curious, in part because I wonder what common ground there may be here.
At 9:10 AM,
Anonymous said…
I think I sent you this theory before, but look who has a USFamily account - just like our troll.
http://www.usfamily.net/web/johnk/Kysylyczyn.com/index.htm
You do know who this is, right? Former nutjob mayor of Roseville. I understand he is a friend of Longrie's. And he is long-winded, just like our troll.
At 12:18 PM,
Frostbrand said…
Or...
What's the mayor doing surfing the web at 4:00 AM all these nights at Kysylyczyn's house?!
;)
At 5:26 PM,
Anonymous said…
Now all we have to do is see if he is the only customer that this usfamily.net place has. Then we will have him nailed.
Maybe the better question we should ask is if he is Longrie's only friend. That's the other way we could nail him.
I wonder who our council members have for internet service?
At 6:51 PM,
Frostbrand said…
Hey, Diana's Sock Puppet! You're doing a better job! You managed to successfully post through an open proxy again.
However, it's still obvious that it's you. (Besides the content of your message, there are technical reasons to know it's you as well.)
Post a Comment
<< Home