LookingNorth: Hypocrites & Doozies
A couple more Monday night missives from our friend LookingNorth...
It's a really consistent quirk of the Gang of Three and, not so coincidentally, their sock puppet in our comments. When other people want to record meetings, it's totally unacceptable; when the mayor's husband wants to, it's a constitutional right. When a severance package is in Fursman's contract, it's "giving away the farm." When the same terms are in Copeland's package, it's just standard operating procedure. When a previous council and manager raise taxes, it's proof of their fiscal irresponsibility; when this council majority raises taxes even more, it's due to circumstances beyond their control, and they should be cut some slack because they're new. Monday night just gave us more examples to add to an already long list of Official Maplewood Double Standards.
I have to tell you, I'm honestly torn in my evaluation of Diana. Is she truly mentally muddled as she so often seems to be, or is that just an act to disarm people against her underlying malice and deceit? Even Hjelle can be seen rolling his eyes these days as she goes on and on belaboring one obvious point after another. Does she just love the sound of her own voice, or is she working on some Svengaliesque trick to lull everyone into a suggestible hypnotic state?
Kantrud's problem, of course, was that Longrie hadn't had a chance to tell him ahead of time what she wanted his legal opinion to be, so he naively provided the obvious and straightforward answer to Will's question. Whoops. Pretty funny how she tried to argue that Kantrud's opinion in this case doesn't matter because he hadn't taken time to research it (i.e., consult with Diana off the record and then go and try to find some contorted stretch of legal reasoning to support what she wants his opinion to be).
Subject: Hypocrites All
Frostbrand:
This follows a theme that has developed this past week or so. The threesome find some things more important only when it suits them. Also, when it is convenient, those things that were previously so bloody important are no longer so.
Two examples tonight, come to mind.
The first is diana needing to have all the info in front of her before she make a decision on the $5 million Desoto/Skillman project. However, when Will and Kathy were looking for more details before voting on the budget, then it was not important.
On the other end of the spectrum, hjelle goes ape (again!) when Will brings forth something that was not on the agenda. Where was hjelle's concern for the agenda the night of the 2:00 am stunt?
Is there a picture of the threesome in Webster's next to the word Hypocrite?
It's a really consistent quirk of the Gang of Three and, not so coincidentally, their sock puppet in our comments. When other people want to record meetings, it's totally unacceptable; when the mayor's husband wants to, it's a constitutional right. When a severance package is in Fursman's contract, it's "giving away the farm." When the same terms are in Copeland's package, it's just standard operating procedure. When a previous council and manager raise taxes, it's proof of their fiscal irresponsibility; when this council majority raises taxes even more, it's due to circumstances beyond their control, and they should be cut some slack because they're new. Monday night just gave us more examples to add to an already long list of Official Maplewood Double Standards.
Subject: Doozies
The last two items were doozies.
Does copeland even know what he is talking about when he talks about conflict of interest? It's amazing how he proves almost every week how much of a lackey he really is for the threesome.
And how about diana? Can someone confirm that she actually studied law somewhere in the continental US? Her delusional lines of logic defy belief. That business about the recording and waivers was amazing. Did I miss something or was I hallucinating like her? Dind't boy attorney confirm that the meetings could be recorded? And then she tries to weasel around it. Now I know why I stay up until 1:00 am. The endings are almost always show stoppers.
I might have to start attending more meetings. I would've loved to have been at the Mayor's Forum to see her and copeland stick thier feet in thier mouths. Oh yeah, copeland already has diana's toes in his mouth.
Remind me never to hire her for any of my legal battles.
I have to tell you, I'm honestly torn in my evaluation of Diana. Is she truly mentally muddled as she so often seems to be, or is that just an act to disarm people against her underlying malice and deceit? Even Hjelle can be seen rolling his eyes these days as she goes on and on belaboring one obvious point after another. Does she just love the sound of her own voice, or is she working on some Svengaliesque trick to lull everyone into a suggestible hypnotic state?
Kantrud's problem, of course, was that Longrie hadn't had a chance to tell him ahead of time what she wanted his legal opinion to be, so he naively provided the obvious and straightforward answer to Will's question. Whoops. Pretty funny how she tried to argue that Kantrud's opinion in this case doesn't matter because he hadn't taken time to research it (i.e., consult with Diana off the record and then go and try to find some contorted stretch of legal reasoning to support what she wants his opinion to be).
posted by Frostbrand @ 8:27 PM
32 Comments:
At 2:36 AM,
Anonymous said…
I don't know what meeting LookingNorth was at, but I saw things a little differently...
So Diana wants to have more info before spending $5 million. I don't have any problem with that.
Will and Kathy looking for more details before voting on the budget? What details? The budget book was before them several months in advance. What were they looking for? Were they trying to make changes at the last meeting of the year? A little too late at that point for the most part.
What did Will bring up that got Hjelle worked up? We all know that the 2am thing is a figment of people's imagination so that's a poor example. A manager decision was made under a manager discussion line item.
On the diatribe of random accusations, I will pick out a few to comment on...
From what I heard, private citizens did not want another private citizen to record a mayor's forum meeting. Maybe the opponents need to get a camera operator with a stronger backbone like Kevin Berglund has. He took on the police department twice, and won both times!
I found the conflict of interest discussion very interesting. I remember all of the people crying that the sky would fall if Eric voted. I could hear their screams all the way down here in the south leg. Well it now appears that it was laughable to think that a conflict exists. No conflict exists or ever existed.
If a full time employee in the city of Mound who works directly under a department head has no conflict, then Eric has no conflict. To put this in an example that people may understand better, if Banick ran for council, he would have no conflict in serving as both a council member and deputy chief. Personally I would love to see that race. (I guess we should thank the council, because now Banick can run and there will be no employee/elected official conflict claims levied against him.)
On the meeting recording issue, careful ears would have detected that what Diana was saying and her reasons for questioning the attorney's statement were very valid. The attorney was answering the question as it related to the ability to videotape a public meeting as defined by the open meeting law.
Thing is though, the open meeting law only applies to a meeting of a quorum of elected officials. Diana's mayor's forum meetings do not apply to the open meeting law because she is the only elected official there.
The issue of whether Diana can regulate who can and cannot attend one of her forums is a grey area. If she held the forum in her home than this would be clear, she could do what she wants. If she held it in a public park, then anyone could come. But when a person uses a room (like for a wedding reception or any type of a meeting) who has control over who can enter? If Diana paid a room rental fee ($10?) then who has control over who can enter? All good questions that no one has hard answers for, only accusations at this point.
One more thing to add in... Was the person who wanted to videotape the meeting being disruptive in her recording methods? Did they want to sit in the middle or front of the room with a tripod which blocked people's views? We don't know at this point. All I can say is that most public meetings I have been at, the camera people are segregated to the back of the room.
At 10:18 AM,
Frostbrand said…
Hello, familiar troll.
As I understand it, audio taping was the issue. Kantrud offered a broader opinion that any kind of recording had to be allowed, audio or video.
Kantrud clearly understood that he was talking about the mayor's forum (he specifically observed that it's called "the mayor's forum," is publicized by the city, takes place on city property, and features the mayor in her official capacity as mayor, being available to listen to citizen concerns).
I don't think he ever cited the open meeting law, so discussions of it in this matter are just a red herring.
> The issue of whether Diana can
> regulate who can and cannot attend
> one of her forums is a grey area.
This is also off topic, but a surprising claim. You're telling us that you think it's possible that the mayor could refuse to admit some citizens to attend "The Mayor's Forum," a monthly function announced and promoted in city publications and held on city property? You think she might be within her rights to allow some citizens to come and discuss their concerns with her, while refusing to allow others to attend? How would she be entitled to block them -- perhaps having police or other city employees physically remove them from the room if she doesn't wish to have them there?
That's an interesting point of view. It's frankly retarded, but actually consistent with your general authoritarian perspective.
At 11:20 AM,
Frostbrand said…
Our troll wrote:
> The budget book was before them
> several months in advance.
I was wondering if you could do us a favor, and replace "several months in advance" with the specific date that the completed budget was available to the council (and, for that matter, to the citizens). Maybe you could give us a link to the specific council packet that contained it, or the minutes of the meeting where a completed budget and reorganization was first discussed?
> What did Will bring up that got
> Hjelle worked up?
Weren't you there? Didn't you see?
At 11:35 AM,
Anonymous said…
Welcome back, Troll! We've missed your convoluted logic.
At 11:47 AM,
Anonymous said…
I suppose the reason Troll has been missing is cuz his wife has been too busy to write his comments for him.
Ok, based on his comments relating to the 2:00 a.m. sneak attack to appoint Copeland, is Troll watching or attending the same council meetings that we are?
At 11:48 AM,
Anonymous said…
Troll:
Some of your twisted logic is so off-base it makes me completely angry. I am doing my best to not the f’n-heimers fly.
“the 2am thing is a figment of people's imagination so that's a poor example.”
The only one doing the imagining is you! That is, imagining it never happened. (You and maybe three others. Or is that two others…?) Have you seen the meeting with the 2am stunt yet? I hate to tell you, but it really did happen. They really did change him from being an interim city manager to (semi) permanent. Again, we have to rehash this since you managed not to read thru it last time.
Look at the agenda for October 9. See Item N-1. Does it state anywhere in there anything about changing the sitting city manager’s title from interim to (semi) permanent? I don’t see it. Furthermore, if you go to the minutes for that meeting, I don’t see anywhere in there that said agenda item was added, EVEN THOUGH HE WAS READING FROM A PREPARED STATEMENT. Hjelle castigates Rossbach for bringing forward his somewhat related item and being off-agenda. However, hjelle's short memory does not allow him to recall doing the same thing on October 9. I don’t necessarily disagree that Will’s item could have been off topic. I just can’t see how hjelle, the pot, can sit there and go ape about the kettle being black…
As for the conflict of interest…
If it was so much of a non-issue, and hjelle was so right, then why didn’t hjelle force it at the time? Where was his stellar legal council then? Oh, that’s right. He was probably listening to our attorney mayor who can’t figure anything out about recording public meetings. Instead, he tried to weasel around it by quitting and restarting. Technically, not against the LETTER of the law. Certainly against the spirit though. It's that attitude of trying to find SOME way around the rules that is so disturbing. Funny enough, the reorganization of the organized smells the same. Except that someone may be confused this time as to what is the letter and the spirit of the law. And that confusion is going to cost us real tax dollars.
As for the recording debacle…
If you show up at a PUBLIC meeting and someone is taping it when you don’t want to be taped, then leave! It’s that simple. If it is some sort of private issue, take it up with the Mayor, in private. Otherwise, if it is for the good of the city, then why not shout it out from the hilltops?!?
Or, am I way off base here? Was the forum simply a back patting session for the mayor and her lackey? If so, then someone must have been afraid to be recorded placing their hand in the wrong spot...
At 11:52 AM,
Anonymous said…
Can someone comment on the issues about audio or video recordings? It was my understanding that only one person has to consent to being recorded and that person can be yourself. So as long as you (the person making the recording) consent, thats all you need.
Longrie has used that argument in the past, doesn't seem to care for it too much when its used against her.
At 12:02 PM,
Anonymous said…
Oh, sorry, should post my comments all at once. Longrie is quite unglued about the Mayor's Forum being recorded because of the Forum that occurred in December. Copeland and Longrie were both recorded making statements regarding Banick's termination.
Statements that could prove to be very harmful to the City in defense of the lawsuit filed by Banick's attorney. Said injunction hearing is scheduled for January 16, 2007 at 1:30 p.m.
At 12:38 PM,
Anonymous said…
Something funny in this statement...
>"Maybe the opponents need to get a camera operator with a stronger backbone like Kevin Berglund has."
English dictionary states you can't use "Berglund" and "backbone" in the same sentence.
Unless your talking about the bone he's allowed to chew on the living room floor at night, in front of the fire.
At 4:31 PM,
Anonymous said…
Audio taping or video taping doesn't really matter.
Yes the open meeting law is the key to this discussion. All of the laws and AG Opinions are based upon the belief that "a quroum" is present. If a quorum is not present, then it is not a meeting of the council and these rules we all are commonly familiar with do not necessarily apply. So no this is not a red herring, it is the foundation of the issue.
Yes, it is quite possible for the Mayor to exclude people from something that she is doing in her capacity as Mayor and that is advertised on the city website. For example, if the Mayor decided to hold a meeting with residents who live in a specific neighborhood to talk about some issue, the media and any other outsiders quite possibly be excluded upon the Mayor's direction.
As I said earlier, the issue rests on what the meeting room use policy is for the city of Maplewood, since the open meeting laws and AG Opinions do not clearly apply.
I do not have a copy of the meeting room policy and have no idea if one even exists.
My personal opinion is that all of these meeting rooms should be rented out at a going rate. Then things would be crystal clear that anyone could be excluded.
For those wondering about the process, if the room was rented, which makes this all much clearer, then the cops would arrest anyone who wouldn't leave. It would be no different than having the meeting in your home.
Is it unusual for a city to advertise things that might not be open to all members of the public? No it is not. It all depends upon the city's policy. The city just has to be careful that its advertising policy is uniform and is not based upon the content of the organizations message.
If memory serves correct, the budget was presented on September 11th, and was addressed at every meeting all the way up to final adoption in the middle of December. So I guess we are talking about 8 council meetings and 4 work sessions? Maybe more?
I missed part of the Hjelle thing because I was getting a beer and some popcorn.
On the point of whether Hjelle's complaint was comparable to Rossbach's complaint on the manager hiring, Lookingnorth still hasn't provided even a fuzzy picture as to how they are the same thing. Still waiting...
So the question is why didn't Hjelle force the conflict of interest issue all the way to the AG's office. Well very simple. Politics often times is like electricity, which always travels the shortest distance to ground. It was much easier for Hjelle to just quit the FD, fire Fursman, and get rehired by the FD a week later.
In many ways I consider Hjelle's actions to be brilliant. He showed how idiotic this conflict of interest thing was. Think about it, how can you have a serious conflict of interest charge when you can do a goofy micky mouse manuver like that without violating any laws.
On the recording issue, the question remains as to whether this was truly a PUBLIC meeting in the general terms that state law talks references.
Let's not forget that all people have certain rights. If it was a council meeting with a quorum present, then the public has a right to record, even if the majority says no. If it was at the Mayor's house, she could have the cops remove anyone she wanted. What we have here is a grey area and as I stated before, I would like to read some of the policies around city meeting room space.
On the comments about who can record conversations, the rule ofthumb is that one party has to know about it, and that typically is the person who holds the tape recorder in their jacket. A warrant is needed if neither party know they are being taped. But this all assumes that you have a right to be part of this conversation.
This argument though doesn't directly apply to the situation at hand. The primary issue is whether a person can be removed from these meetings, tape recorder or not
There we go with taking cheap shots against people like Berglund. It just lowers the credibility of the users of this forum.
At 5:55 PM,
Anonymous said…
"But this all assumes that you have a right to be part of this conversation."
I would think that a meeting termed "Mayor's Forum" would be open to all the voters of Maplewood. The mayor cannot decide who has the right to talk to her and who doesn't. Despite what she thinks, she is not queen of Maplewood. She is there to serve the peoples' interests of Maplewood. I would think that all the citizens of Maplewood have a right to the "conversation".
"For those wondering about the process, if the room was rented, which makes this all much clearer, then the cops would arrest anyone who wouldn't leave."
Such as Berglund from a banquet?
At 6:09 PM,
Frostbrand said…
The entire budget approved in December is structured around the major reorganization of the city staff.
There were earlier, sketchy budget documents. You may recall that on the September 11th special meeting where the maximum tax levy was set, based on preliminary budget documents, Juenemann and Rossbach abstained "due to insufficient information" (to quote the minutes of the meeting). During the meeting they called specific attention to the fact that they did not have a complete budget to examine in deciding whether or not to accept the huge levy increase Copeland proposed.
I don't recall the reorganization being revealed until early December, when it came up in the packet for the Dec. 4th special meeting. Here's a link to my posting from the time:
http://maplewoodmn.blogspot.com/2006/12/petulant.html
Given how much attention and controversy the reorganization attracted, and how central it is to the budget, it's a real stretch to claim "the budget book was done several months in advance."
If there was a budget book, either it had little relationship to the final document, or it was concealed from the public and at least two members of the council. The other three either had access to all the information, or felt that they just didn't need that level of detail in order to sign off on Copeland's plans.
At 6:28 PM,
Frostbrand said…
As for the meeting/recording topic -- our troll is really stretching.
We're supposed to imagine the mayor is paying to rent a room in city hall for a PRIVATE function called the "Mayor's Forum," to which she invites all citizens (but then only lets in the ones she wants to talk with), using the city newsletter and her comments in city council meetings promote it?
Uh....sure.
Even Kantrud found Longrie's "no recording" argument to be laughable on the face of it. (Before he knew it was her argument, at least.)
The fact that you are trying to find imaginary, counterfactual conditions that would make her position remotely possibly tenable in some alternate reality...well, there's a reason I call you Diana's sock puppet.
At 10:42 PM,
Anonymous said…
Dear Troll:
"Lookingnorth still hasn't provided even a fuzzy picture as to how they are the same thing."
Evidently, after 3 tries, I still have not made myself clear. The point I am making in this case has little or nothing to do with the change of title for the sitting long-time unemployed individual. It's about the goose and the gander. Or, like I said, it's about the pot and the kettle and some name calling. Let's try this again...
As I stated earlier, on October 9, with agena item N-1, hjelle goes off-agenda. The agenda item at the time was to decide on a search firm to find a permanent city manager. Reading from an obviously prepared statement, hjelle motions to change mr. brilliant's title. The point of the "obviously prepared statement" statement is that hjelle could have (should have?) added this to the agenda at the beginning of the meeting and chose not to.
Then, at the last meeting, when Rossbach brought up an item that was marginally related an item they had just passed, hjelle really did go ape about Rossbach not adding the item to the agenda at the beginning of the meeting.
My point dear troll is something we have all supported recently with very strong facts. That something is the double standard.
It's OK for hjelle to bring up an off-agenda item. But when someone else does he, he had a hissy fit.
It's like when the mayor's housemate insists on recording a meeting and now his wife will not allow it.
Does that clear it up for you?
At 11:05 PM,
Anonymous said…
Dear Troll:
"In many ways I consider Hjelle's actions to be brilliant."
I too consider hjelle's actions to be brilliant. That is, brilliant like the sun.
Just as the sun illuminates the shadows of the earth, hjelle's actions illuminate some of the darker areas of his principles.
Instead of meeting the challenge of the conflict of interest head-on and breaking down what appears to be a meaningless policy, hjelle decides instead to take the easy way out and do an end-around, just skirting the law. Legally it may have been correct. The question though: Was it the RIGHT thing to do? Just look at the person from Mound. He didn't have to perform "a goofy micky mouse manuver". He confronted the issue and resolved it in reasonable manner.
I keep asking myself whether any of the members associated with the council are doing the RIGHT thing. And each time the brilliance reveals more darkness from at least 3 of you.
At 8:47 AM,
Anonymous said…
I have a hunch this dope defending the maplewood mayor has a history with roseville.
I've heard roseville is glad the winds blew him our direction.
At 3:20 AM,
Anonymous said…
The term "Mayor's Forum" probably means that it is open to all voters as much as me putting up a sign on my home that says "open house." As long as I do not discriminate based upon protected classes, I can let people into my open house as I so choose.
The mayor can choose who she wants to talk to. Just because you are elected mayor, doesn't mean that you lose constitutional rights. No one has a right under law to talk to any of their elected officials. I don't recall seeing that in the constitution.
Berglund at the banquet isn't anything like the Mayor's forum. To refresh memories, the banquet had one extra critical ingredient. The banquet had a "quorum" present.
On the budget issue, people seem to forget that the September levy vote was to set a maximum not to exceed number. It did not set the levy. It simply set a number that they could not exceed in December. It doesn't take much information to set this number. In many cities, this number is not set based upon the budget, but instead based upon the desire of the council members as to how much they want to increase taxes. It establishes a maximum cap and that's it.
It is correct that parts of the reorganization didn't appear until after September 11th. I don't recall specifically the date. But I do remember that it occurred after the council tabled the utility franchise fee, which essentially cut $700,000 out of the budget.
Several months in advance is an accurate description. I believe 4 months fits the word "several." If the council wouldn't have changed revenue sources, maybe the budget would not have changed towards the end.
On the recording issue, I pointed out the several different factors that go into an analysis of the situation. As I said before, there is grey area. I wish it was more clearer also.
If Rossbach is so concerned about double standards, then why does he have the people here doing his talking?
It is so funny how people won't get over this Hjelle/Firefighter thing. Just face it, he won and you lost, issue over and dead.
I have a history with several different cities in more than one state. I also read several newspapers since you get slanted information if you rely upon only one. Maybe some others should do this from time to time.
Speaking of hypocrites, since this is the subject of this posting, why haven't the Rossbachians made an issue out of Rossbach supporting this thing where the cable company bribes the cable commissioners by providing them free cable? How could Rossbach vote to support this! Hjelle had it right in that this is outrageous.
At 10:34 AM,
Frostbrand said…
> On the budget issue, people seem
> to forget that the September levy
> vote was to set a maximum not to
> exceed number.
Not at all; I know full well that was what it was about. You are the one who was claiming that the entire budget document was done at that time and available for the council to review. I recall clearly that there was only sketchy budgetary information at that meeting -- a fact that Rossbach called critical attention to, because normally there would be a complete budget for the council to be working with by then, not five pages of what were basically sketchy notes.
> It is correct that parts of the
> reorganization didn't appear until
> after September 11th. I don't
> recall specifically the date.
I do -- it was in December, because that's when the firestorm ensued when something more like a complete budget first appeared, and the full extent of the reorganization first appeared.
> Several months in advance is an
> accurate description. I believe 4
> months fits the word "several." If
> the council wouldn't have changed
> revenue sources, maybe the budget
> would not have changed towards the
> end.
You are wrong.
Here are the budget documents that were made available to council members (at least those council members who did not have privileged access to or control over Copeland) for the first time on September 11th, a date which I will point out is less than four months before the end of the year:
http://www.barkbay.com/coord/storyDetail.asp?story=125&league=voices
You claimed, earlier in the comments, that "the budget was presented on September 11th, and was addressed at every meeting all the way up to final adoption in the middle of December." So when you talk about "the budget book," it's this sketchy handful of papers -- five pages in all, compared to the 197 or whatever of the final draft budget that didn't appear until December. (Or if it DID exist, it was not shared with all members of the council nor with the public.)
Here is what you said, in your first comment of this thread, about this five-page so-called "budget":
> Will and Kathy looking for more
> details before voting on the
> budget? What details? The budget
> book was before them several
> months in advance. What were they
> looking for? Were they trying to
> make changes at the last meeting
> of the year? A little too late at
> that point for the most part.
Your position is ludicrous.
This budgetary process was a complete clusterfuck, if you'll pardon my language. Copeland didn't know what the hell he was doing. The budget and the whole story of its evolution are all the proof anyone needs to see that Copeland is in over his head, and does not have the skills necessary to manage a city or oversee the creation of its budget.
The council majority either are negligent in going along with his incompetence without having the time to actually review the budget, or they were colluding with him to work out the budget in private amongst themselves, violating the open meeting law. Or maybe they stayed on the right side of the law by just trusting that Diana and Copeland worked out the budget between the two of them, and trusted that their sock puppets would vote in favor of whatever Copeland put in front of them. (Even so, Erik Hjelle seemed pretty dubious, and was trying to leave the door open for amending the budget in January, even as he voted to approve it in December when a state-mandated deadline was forcing them to act on the levy issue.)
At 10:49 AM,
Anonymous said…
Okay, Troll, here's the deal.
First of all, Rossbach isn't "having" anyone do anything for him in this forum. A more reasonable conclusion than the Rossbach underground is that Rossbach, Frostbrand and Drawnleftward (and myself, I suppose) share a concerned veiwpoint of the city.
Secondly, there's a perfectly reasonable explaination for the cable commission issue. If the commission is supposed to keep an eye on cable channels like their website says, it might be easier if they have.... (drum roll please)... cable access! And giving them free cable access means a spot on the commission is theoretically open to anyone, not just people who have cable.
As far as papers go, I actually read three, the Review, the Strib, and the Press. (more, if you count things like City Pages) Funny, all three of those papers have articles about Maplewood, and all three have come to the same conclusions.
And stop splitting hairs. This is a forum called "The Mayor's Forum." She's calling for residents to meet with her in public, in a public, group setting. If a resident wants to bring an issue to her in private, there are easy ways to do it, namely the telephone. But if it's a public meeting, people have a right to record it.
(And just to point things out, it's being recorded. Even if not through a audio recording device, the transcript was still written down for others to read. Frankly, a recording device would simply insure greater accuracy.)
At 10:54 AM,
Frostbrand said…
As for the Mayor's Forum...
It seems to me that if we are to accept your arguments, then the mayor needs to start paying to rent the space where she holds her private functions. She should also be paying for the city media she uses to advertise these private parties (such as the City News, city website, and city council meetings). And if not everyone is welcome, she shouldn't be extending the invitation to all citizens of Maplewood, as she does in all these city media.
At 8:01 PM,
Anonymous said…
(This post may get me banned from the blog. But it has to be said…)
Troll:
It is getting ever more difficult to be civil with you. Your reasoning seems to be getting more convoluted as you progress, the ice on which you stand thinning as if it is mid-April.
I must say this...
Your "Rossbachians" moniker is wrong.
I don’t know that I know Frostbrand, Drawnleftward, Jackson, or any others who have posted in this space. Could be that they live next door. Could be that one of them is Rossbach himself. Due to the anonymity of the blog, I have no idea. And, since I have no idea of anyone's true identity, I cannot speak for them.
Like many others in the city, I too thought it was time for a change. Actually, I too thought that Fursman may have been riding the gravy train and had become lazy. Perhaps some of the staff may have become lazy with him. I cannot say for sure since I don’t know the inner workings of City Hall. I didn’t think that change would come so soon and so drastically. I didn't think that we needed to gut the place, though.
Since I thought it was time for a change, I voted against Jeuneman. I really hate to say it but, I also voted FOR Hjelle. I likely would have voted against Rossbach at the time had there been someone other than Longrie running. (She gave me the creeps even then.) So, really, don’t tag me with your “Rossbachians” crap. It just doesn’t fit.
And, even though I cannot speak for the others on this blog, I don’t think the label fits anyone here. I don’t see anyone singing the praises of Rossbach (or Jeuneman for that matter). All of us are railing against the transgressions of the three plus one. That is it.
I have said this in various forms here before…For me, it is not about taking sides. I really don’t care about sides at all. I only care about who’s doing the right thing. Sorry, but the threesome aren’t doing the right things, at least not when it matters. And many of your comments (and their actions) prove this.
PS: Yes, it kills me now to say it. I did vote for Hjelle and Cave. Go ahead Frostbrand and Drawnleftward, ban me from the blog or flog me publically if you like. I probably deserve it.
At 8:39 PM,
Anonymous said…
"issue over and dead."
Like Hjelle's & Longrie's ethics.
"...the cable company bribes the cable commissioners by providing them free cable? How could Rossbach vote to support this! Hjelle had it right in that this is outrageous."
Let's see...Our choice is free cable for the commissioners "paid for" by the cable company or free cable provided by the taxpayers. I'm with Rossbach. Save me the tax dollars.
I applaud erik for trying to appear as a watchdog. However, something smells fishy here, as in Red Herring...again.
Please troll, save us your hot air.
At 8:45 PM,
drawnLeftward said…
LookingNorth says 'All of us are railing against the transgressions of the three plus one.'
Kantrud and Bethel don't count?
At 8:53 PM,
Anonymous said…
Drawnleftward:
I failed accounting...
At 10:05 AM,
Anonymous said…
I'd actually say that they don't count, not really. Kantrud and Bethel are hired guns, more of a symptom of a problem than the problem itself. They'll do what Longrie and co. want, as long as they're paid. But remove Longrie and co. and Kantrud and Bethel are no longer a problem.
At 9:59 PM,
Anonymous said…
I voted for Hjelle as well. He lives in my neighborhood, and seemed (still does, in some ways) like a nice guy. I think his politics suck (I'm a lifelong Democrat and he's very definitely not), but I figured City Council was non-partisan. Holy shit, was I ever wrong. Longrie gave me the creeps, and I voted against Cave largely because Hjelle campaigned for her. Yes, I know that makes me inconsistent -- I can vote for the guy I know whose politics I dislike, but not for the woman he endorses.
At 6:58 PM,
Anonymous said…
I like how we brush off Rossbach's actions in allowing the cable company to buy our cable commissioners.
The question we should be asking of Rossbach is why the cable commissioners have to be paid anything in the first place from anybody.
Doesn't Jueneman serve on that 800 mhz commission? I bet she doesn't get paid. No one on our citizen commissions gets paid do they?
Our choice isn't between who should pay for the free cable. The question is why is free cable needed.
I bet if Rossbach would have stepped forward and said no free cable from anyone period, Hjelle would have jumped up in support and with Jueneman would have had the votes to pass it.
On the person who is concerned that Hjelle doesn't appear to be a Democrat, what non-Democrat votes has he taken?
It sounds to me like Hjelle's cable tv vote was pretty Democrat in my opinion. Sincerely, Trollette.
At 12:46 AM,
Anonymous said…
Okay, Trollete.
Point 1: the reason that cable commissioners need cable, as already noted, is that they're supposed to monitor cable content. It's hard to do that without cable. Requiring cable commission members to pay for their own cable would tend to limit commission membership to those able to pay for cable, which is not the all-inclusive way we like to behave. Rossbach's position, that the cable company needs to bear the cost of providing cable to those who monitor it, is what I think of as the Democrat position -- put the burden on the company, not the individual.
Point 2: I think Hjelle is Republican because of the W '04 sticker on his SUV and the Bush/Cheney lawn signs.
At 2:33 AM,
Anonymous said…
Brainiac4, so let me get this straight. The cable commissioners need free cable paid for by the cable company so they can monitor the content.
What exactly are they monitoring? Are they looking for bad language? Are they looking for cameras that are out of phase? How about the pedistal being set too low?
How much cable is a cable commissioner required to watch, to be considered as doing their job. Is it 40 hours a week? Do they have to divide their hours over a 24/7 week?
Since this clearly is a job, then what are the educational requirements? To monitor bad language, I presume that they are trained by the FCC? To have a clue what pedistal or phase even is, they would probably need a degree in engineering.
What a bunch of hogwash. Saying that these people are "monitoring" cable is like suggesting that we should get some citizen volunteers to "monitor" the finance department when they do accounts receivable.
Rossbach's position cannot be defended. We all know that you hire professionals to monitor the cable tv. You hire engineers, etc. to do this stuff. I'm sure that SCC employs qualified people who can do this.
Rossbach's position isn't democrat or republican after all. It is the whatever we can get to line our pockets political party.
On the tape issue, I have heard rumors that the tape does exist.
At 3:27 AM,
Anonymous said…
It’s amazing to see that apparently no one has looked up state statutes to find the definition of a public meeting.
A quorum (that means at least 3 out of the 5) of the council, discussing city business, constitutes an open public meeting.
These “mayor’s forums” are not public meetings. End of story; let’s drop it. Because they are held on city property does not have any special meaning; the use of the city newsletter or any other city-issued communication does not make “the mayor’s forum” a public meeting either. The city council members write columns for the city newsletter, and one of them could say “meet me at Starbucks on Saturday morning between 9 and 10 for an informal gathering”. Because this was mentioned in the city newsletter it makes it a public meeting? No. Only if a quorum of the council is there.
[Slightly off-topic: Before people spout off on such things, they ought to do some homework and read the law. Another thing we hear once in a while, is the desire for a “recall” of an elected official. Again this shows how few people do their homework. It is extremely difficult to recall a city official. State statutes only address state elected officials. Recall of a city official has yet to be truly tested in the courts. Unlike Wisconsin, where you can be recalled for having red hair in a town where they like blond hair, Minnesota judges seem to take the recall process much more seriously. The elected official has to commit extreme malfeasance or nonfeasance, or have acted with felonious behavior.]
Instead of guessing what Kantrud’s opinions are regarding these recording and public meeting concerns, why not ask him to clearly state his thoughts on this blog so that we can once and for all put this craziness behind us.
Another half-baked point raised earlier had to do with the recording of persons and their knowledge of same.
Some research into the broadcast television field will show you that video production companies get a signed release (permission) from every person appearing in their productions. For example, a documentary on PBS or the History Channel - every person signs a release or they aren’t in the finished show. The releases are obtained to lessen the chances of lawsuits from people who had second thoughts about being recorded or photographed. The cameraman for the History Channel does not shoot anyone thinking that as long as he knows he has a camera in his hands and it’s running, all is permissable. There is some gray area however when shooting large crowds at a public event (such as a parade or football game) where obtaining signed releases is prohibitive. If the event you are recording is making use of copyrighted music that makes your video subject to even more legal clamps beyond signed releases.
The law has granted news gathering agencies immunity from this however, so the people you see talking all day long on CNN and Fox News don’t sign releases. The people who are the subjects of news stories on the 10 O’Clock News do not sign releases.
If there were citizens attending the “mayor’s forum” who didn’t want to be recorded, that is their right. There was a suggestion earlier on this blog that curtly put it, ‘they can leave!’ Well, that’s true, but I wonder how this would go down if the shoe was on the other foot. I have a feeling that if the recording crowd wanted to participate in a gathering with their mayor, they would be crying foul and complaining about being forced to leave by threat of recording device.
To summarize, there is only one important point to remember: these “mayor’s forums” are not public meetings. Consequently, there is no assured permissibility for recording from a legal standpoint.
FYI: there is nothing in state statutes that declares public meetings can be audio or videotaped. It was an opinion rendered by the Attorney General that did that. There is nothing in law about it. An AG’s opinion and state statutes are two different things.
At 10:29 AM,
Anonymous said…
"On the tape issue, I have heard rumors that the tape does exist."
I've heard rumors that aliens eating Cheetos wander the mall talking to themselves. I've heard it so it must be true.
At 1:51 PM,
Anonymous said…
Wow, troll. You sure seem to know a lot about television cameras and the broadcast television industry. Perhaps you have your own cable access show? I wonder who you are? Who do we know who has a cable access show in Maplewood and would be on the side of Mayor McCheese? Who could it be?
Post a Comment
<< Home