What's Left of Maplewood (MN)

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

Thursday, January 18, 2007

The Value of a Dollar

Today we have another guest post, in effect, from LookingNorth:

Frostbrand:

From our troll: "If by Chuck working a $5 million road project around some kid's graduation party, increases the job cost by one cent, Chuck should pay with his job."

From the judge via the Pioneer Press: "...the city could be taking a financial risk by hiring new managers while facing the possibility of having to pay salaries, back pay and damages should it lose the civil case."

It looks to me like the City Manager might be losing his job sooner than we think...

LookingNorth
(aka ChuckingNorth)

Somehow, LookingNorth, I have a suspicion that the Longristas apply different rules to Mr. Copeland and his financial bungling ...

posted by Frostbrand @ 10:16 AM  

21 Comments:

  • At 7:11 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    The most telling part of the Pioneer Press article regarding the hearing for a temporary restraining order on Banick's firing is the statement my Judge Mott:

    "Mott cited in his ruling a 'substantial showing of retaliation,' as a motive behind the reorganization....."

    It bears repeating...."SUBSTANTIAL SHOWING OF RETALIATION."

    Retaliation as a motive?????

    Interesting. I think I've heard that before..........

     

  • At 9:51 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I'm sure our troll has a viewpoint that's utterly divorced from reality on this one. Perhaps he/she will combine it with another juvenile dig at the posters here.

     

  • At 4:41 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I have split feelings on this Pioneer Press article. First, the city won this round. That was pretty clear.

    I am troubled by this statement by the judge about the retaliation comment. At first glance, I give this statement a lot of credibility. But then I thought about a little bit more and now I'm not so sure.

    Is this judge going to be the same judge presiding over the second round? Did he just skim the case briefly and offered this statement as an off the cuff response?

    If this judge isn't going to be presiding over the next round, then what bearing does his hunches really have in the overall case?

    Then I read about Longrie's comments that used to be on the website. Well the problem is that Longrie has little to say about the organization of the city underneith the manager. So what bearing does her statement even have?

    I was there at the courtroom (hi Mr. Nephew, I nodded at you, but I don't think you saw me), and I never heard an endorsement of Banick's position like some are claiming. For this supposedly being a victory, I didn't see smiles on the faces of Banick's brother, Sheri Le, or Stephan Flister. (While I don't know these three personally, I think I know their faces well enough to pick them out of a crowd. If I was mistaken, I apologize.)

     

  • At 7:40 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I don't think there is anything to smile about in this whole deal. The TRO was denied. I don't think anybody was expecting it to be approved. It was just the first step. There is still a long, hard road ahead of those affected by the gang of three and their lapdog. I don't know if what the judge said will have any bearing on the further actions or not. Probably not. But it seems pretty clear to me that he thinks there is something there. Whether he is the presiding judge in the other actions remains to be seen.

     

  • At 9:01 AM, Blogger Frostbrand said…

    The judge had to review the evidence, arguments, and counter-arguments presented by both sides, and determine (among other things) if it is likely that the plaintiffs will win in court.

    It seems he found (in the legal sense of finding) that the evidence so far shows that they will. Maybe the city will produce new evidence or fresh arguments to change the view of the court in trial. On the other hand, maybe more evidence and testimony against the city will be brought forward as well. But even if he is 100% sure that the plaintiffs will win their case at trial, that's not enough for a TRO by itself.

    Our troll describes the judge's finding as "a hunch." She suggests that the judge may have just "just skim[med] the case briefly and offered this statement as an off the cuff response."

    That's a pretty insulting thing to say about the court and the seriousness with which it performs its duties. (It sounds a lot like what Diana says about Kantrud's opinions when they are not what she wanted him to say, come to think of it.)

    If it were the case, why should we think the judge's statements on the other aspects of the case are any more than "hunches" either? If you are correct, shouldn't the defense be up in arms, demanding that they get a judge who study the briefs and consider the evidence beforehand, rather than making an "off the cuff" ruling?

    I think our troll's sadly correct perceptions about how the Maplewood council majority mis-performs their duties are coloring her view of the rest of government.

     

  • At 9:11 AM, Blogger Frostbrand said…

    The troll makes a very interesting remark:

    > Then I read about Longrie's
    > comments that used to be on the
    > website. Well the problem is that
    > Longrie has little to say about
    > the organization of the city
    > underneith the manager. So what
    > bearing does her statement even
    > have?

    That was Longrie's comment?

    It appeared on the first page of the draft budget presented for the 12/4/06 truth in taxation hearing.

    How do you know it was from Longrie and not Copeland? Can you point us to any evidence to support your claim?

    Are we even talking about the same comment (the one that said "given the action by department heads to vote to form a labor bargaining group")?

     

  • At 11:04 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I believe the TRO was denied because there was not enough concrete evidence to show that Banick was going to suffer "irreparable damage". Its my belief that Mott ruled that way because Banick may recover damages in an unfair labor practices lawsuit.

    My hope is that Banick and Le will prevail and the City gets nailed with punitive damages. Perhaps the City will take as long to pay as Berglund is taking to pay what he owes the City.

     

  • At 12:08 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    ROFLMAO!!!!

    City Council Agenda for Monday, January 22, 2007 under New Business, line item 4:

    "Annual Review of the Rules and Procedures for City Council and City Council Meetings Manual"

    ....Priceless

     

  • At 2:03 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Frostbrand seems to be arguing in support of previous comments which raises questions as to whether this current ruling really means anything in the long run. I agree.

    I think that Frostbrand is confusing some things concerning the judge and his hunches. His findings for denying the TRO was not a hunch. That was researched.

    But the judge was only charged with making a ruling on the TRO and nothing else. It isn't a stretch to say that his comments about the rest of the case might not have been heavily researched and instead may have been based on a skimming of the documentation. Why would the judge invest time into the whole case when he may have only been charged with making the simple call on the TRO.

    The defense shouldn't be up in arms about anything. The judge ruled their way on the TRO, and further testimony will be accepted for the next round in court.

    What is kind of funny about this whole TRO thing is that it was being filed because Banick thought he was going to suffer irreparable damage. Wake up Banick, your actions and behavior are putting you in a position where no one on the planet earth will hire you for anything. What employer is going to hire a rabble rouser who trash talks the boss, others in administration, the elected officials, etc. He will have to apply for a job some place where they don't have internet access or access to old newspaper articles, etc. Banick is bringing the "irreparable damage" upon himself.

    Remember, the city doesn't get hit with punitive damages, the insurance company does. So no one make any claims that the city is going to have to sell parkland to pay off a judgment.

    I reread the newspaper article and I now see where I attributed Longrie to the website comment. I read it as "Mayor Initiatives of the 2007 Budget" instead of Major. That one letter makes a difference in this case. So then I presume that the phrase came from the manager? Has that been determined? Does that matter? I guess we will see.

    One last aspect that I am unclear of is if Banick and company win, it seems like they win money and that's it. Maybe Banick gets a low level job in the PD. But from the manager's prospective, I'm figuring the goal is to get rid of dead weight employees. Having the insurance company pay them off doesn't seem to be the main issue when you take into account the big picture. Maybe you let Banick and company hang themselves as far as future employment goes for them.

     

  • At 2:27 PM, Blogger Frostbrand said…

    > Why would the judge invest time into
    > the whole case when he may have only
    > been charged with making the simple
    > call on the TRO.

    In order to decide on the TRO, one of the criteria is whether or not the plaintiffs are likely to prevail in their case. As I said before, it is necessary, but not sufficient.

    I am quite certain the judge did NOT just go on a "hunch" when he said that the plaintiffs were likely to prevail -- this was a legal conclusion that he reached as part of ruling on the TRO issue. If he hadn't studied the matter carefully, he would not have been so specific in talking about it.

    > What is kind of funny about this
    > whole TRO thing is that it was
    > being filed because Banick thought
    > he was going to suffer irreparable
    > damage.

    Maybe they wanted a TRO hearing so that the city council could get a preview of how a judge is likely to rule on the merits of the case, and thus be encouraged to settle, as you would expect a reasonable party to do when a judge tells them they'll probably lose at trial.

    > Remember, the city doesn't get hit
    > with punitive damages, the
    > insurance company does.

    So the taxpayers of many Minnesota cities, not just Maplewood, get to pay for our incompetent leaders. That's comforting.

     

  • At 2:44 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "Wake up Banick, your actions and behavior are putting you in a position where no one on the planet earth will hire you for anything. What employer is going to hire a rabble rouser who trash talks the boss, others in administration, the elected officials, etc."

    Where do you get this stuff, troll? I have not seen anything from Banick that would lead me to believe this. Everything I have read in the paper has portrayed him in a professional manner. You are the one trying to "trash talk" Banick to make him into something he does not appear to be.

     

  • At 3:21 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Going back to the original post, we all know that if the majority changes, Copeland will be fired. It is no different than the House going Republican again. People will be fired.

    But this firing will be without cause as far as the law is concerned, and severance will be paid out.

     

  • At 3:26 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I agree with the previous comment, (2:44 pm).

    You can't attribute one comment from Banick to characterize him that way. I'll bet he's pissed. But you haven't heard him say it. Can't blame him. Twenty three years of service vs. a year of the 3 stooges and there other brother,(Shemp I think was his name) turning the city on it's ear with their actions.

    I believe he just want's his job back. "Reorganization" does not equate to "firing" when it comes to Banick's postion and tenure.

     

  • At 3:29 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    3:21 troll

    This is a stupid comment to try to compare what is happening in Maplewood to the Republicans in the House. You've tried this argument before and it just doesn't hold water. They are nothing alike.

    I'm sure it won't be too hard to find cause to fire Copeland. The guy is in way over his head.

     

  • At 3:50 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "But this firing will be without cause as far as the law is concerned, and severance will be paid out."

    ...And this is what makes me want to puke my guts out!! He doesn't deserve anything. He isn't earning the salary he is getting much less his "BONUS" next year.

     

  • At 5:13 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    3:21 pm Anonymous (our troll, I assume}:
    " Going back to the original post, we all know that if the majority changes, Copeland will be fired. It is no different than the House going Republican again. People will be fired.

    But this firing will be without cause as far as the law is concerned, and severance will be paid out. "
    Is this your position on the Fursman firing as well? Because previously you've opined that it was for-cause (albeit without offering any specifics for the cause) and not politically motivated, and that Fursman did not deserve his severance.

    You live in a very distorted world.

     

  • At 6:48 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I believe the Fursman firing should have been with cause. Unfortunately you didn't have people on our city council with the backbone to give him the steel toed boot and be willing to back it up in court when Fursman would have sued. I guess our council chose to avoid a lawsuit. I guess I give them credit for that. At least they didn't give him that scam deal that McGuire got. The old council still won't tell us what happened on that one, and why McGuire got to collect money twice.

    Funny how people think that city government is so different from the legislature or congress. Where do you think these people come from? I recall that Lillie served somewhere before he got to the legislature. Remember that council member... first name Betty? Where did she end up? Don't give me this bull that people's attitudes and actions change when they move from one level of government to another.

    I hear there is a tape floating around showing Banick jeering council members at a public meeting. I would love to see that tape. Every city council member and manager in the nation should see that tape if it exists. It goes directly to professionalism.

     

  • At 1:21 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Help me with this one...
    On Maplewood voices, did JELLY threaten (as a councilperson)a maplewood resident, with not doing his all (as a firefighter) at 2am if he was reponding to a call at their residence??
    Because he simply doesn't like them??
    Lets see if Copeland will repremand him for such talk...or should we get R. Fursman back to do it.
    Time to oust him...he is sick. He appears to be doing what our pretend mayor did..."I know where you live"
    I will be contacting my state rep. on this one.

     

  • At 11:09 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I am sure the e-mail in question was not written by erik. He doesn't write like this. In fact, he is diana's friend, so he could never write something like this...Blah, Blah, Blah...

     

  • At 2:19 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I also read the Hjelle email and he says nothing about choosing not to show up at a fire. It doesn't say that at all.

    I read Hjelle's comments as telling Stone that he does not appreciate having to service people like them when they are essentially calling him and his fellow firefighters unqualfied leftovers.

    There is nothing for Copeland to dicipline him on.

    Concerning the comments from the original Stone letter, I just laugh at their suggestion that a citizen committee be chosen to hire employees. Are they seriously that brain damaged? Since when did any city employee get appointed by a citizen committee at any level of government anywhere in this country. I can't think of anything that even comes close to this.

    Clearly the Stone's don't believe in democracy. They believe in a form of government where a few citizens think they have the right to just override the voters choices for city council and have the power to go down to city hall and order whatever they want.

    Last time I checked, I didn't see the name Stone on any recent ballots.

    Hire department heads by citizen committee... wow is that scarry thinking.

    If the Stones are reading this blog, I would like to give them the hint that in a dictatorship, there are no elections... ever. That disqualifies Maplewood as a dictatorship.

     

  • At 9:09 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    >"I read Hjelle's comments as telling Stone that he does not appreciate having to service people like them when they are essentially calling him and his fellow firefighters unqualfied leftovers."<

    Thanks for confirming what was just said!
    And again your putting your own spin on things. Maplewood firefighters are the best.
    Your just dragging them into the conversation for your own benefit.
    Your just wasting electricty when you turn on your 486sx DOS computer.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home