Maplewood's City Clerk compiled an unaudited election results report for the special election, on a precinct-by-precinct basis, and e-mailed it to various folks including the candidates and the City Council. I've uploaded it for anyone curious.

Not suprisingly, given the different levels of attention people often pay to city versus higher level elections, more than 600 voters cast ballots but did not mark a choice in the city race.

For those who like to slice and dice the numbers, here's one spreadsheet I did for analysis -- looking at each candidate's percentage of the city council vote in each precinct. It's interesting to see where the candidates demonstrated strength or weakness, indicating where they have strong ties in the community or perhaps where they focused their campaigning.

Koppen's best precinct was 10 (58%), which I believe is his home precinct; it was also the worst for Sletten (10%). Even in his worst precinct (P13), Koppen still earned a respectable 46% of the vote.

One of Sletten's best precincts was P2, home to former mayor Diana Longrie (who was also on the ballot as a primary candidate, there to be mauled by Rep. McCollum), where she earned 24% of the ballots. In the seventh precinct, where she lives, Sletten only received her city-wide average of 19%. Perhaps familiarity has bred something there?

Two of Cave's three strongest precincts, all at around 34%, were Gladstone's P4, which was arguably the engine for her 2006 special election win (following up on all the neighborhood fears drummed in in the regular election the fall before), and her home Precinct 9. On the other hand, the 25% she got in Precinct 3 (where I live, as does Councilmember Juenemann) was her worst performance in the city.

Labels: campaign 2010, council politics

Posted by John Nephew at 8/12/2010 09:37:00 PM | Permalink | Comments

For anyone looking for some light weekend reading with lots of bullet points, I've uploaded the Executive Summary prepared by the facilitator following our February 5th council/staff retreat.

Labels: council politics, events, process

Posted by John Nephew at 3/06/2010 09:03:00 AM | Permalink | Comments

On that goofy Bob Zick cable show last week, Zick referred to Diana Longrie as "the real mayor" and stated that he does not recognize Mayor Rossbach as anything more than "chairperson." I suppose that's cute, but I'm getting reports that at least one person seems to take it seriously — the former mayor herself. I've been told that she has been seen at meetings sporting a name tag that identifies her as Mayor of Maplewood. And a resident recently complained about an announcement that played on cable TV:

There was a spot on Channel 15 public access tonight [Feb. 15th], Diana Longrie had an “ad” or a spot that was about 30 seconds, encouraging citizens to join her in asking the State Auditor to audit Maplewood’s financial records. Her name and “Maplewood Mayor” were flashed on the screen...

What in the world is going on? Does she have a delusion that she is still the mayor, never mind that democratic process that took place last November? Does she so crave the attention and deference that she enjoyed while bearing the title, she's unable to let it go? Or is this a political ploy to confuse the electorate or somehow sway them as part of her campaign for the council seat in the special election?

Labels: campaign 2010, council politics

Posted by John Nephew at 2/17/2010 09:21:00 AM | Permalink | Comments

North Saint Paul resident Bob Zick is a regular at our council meetings, always looking to create footage of himself to show on his cable access TV show. At this past Monday's meeting, he promised that he would be showing the video shot by his camera people (primarily the former mayor's husband) at last week's city council retreat and the citizens forum. Wondering what clips he would find to take wildly out of context, I TiVo'd his show out of curiosity and skimmed through it.

As it turns out, he never did play any video from either the retreat or the citizens forum. He played lot of video, but it all seemed to be him talking to the city council at our last two meetings. You'd think that fresh footage (not available online on demand) would be more interesting to his audience. Then again, the retreat was a nine-hour meeting that didn't include Bob Zick talking, so perhaps there wasn't any footage of interest to his regular viewer(s).

I did get a chance to see many examples of how spectacularly uninformed, misinformed and mathematically illiterate Mr. Zick is. For example, he went on about “pre-agenda meetings,” which have not been in place as long as I've been on the council. Those were meetings held the Thursday before a regular council meeting. The mayor and council would review the packet with staff, ask questions, and give staff a couple of days to research answers for the Monday meeting if they didn't have them already.

He also declared that this year's city council was working in secrecy out of the public eye, because we decide things in workshops, which are not broadcast. Umm...except that all our council workshops have been broadcast as long as I've been on the council. If you missed them, because they tend to start at some time between 4:30 and 5:30, all of the workshops since the start of 2010 are or will be archived for online viewing on demand.

Mr. Zick likes to pull amazing numbers out of the air, and declare them to be well-established facts. At one point he announced that the council/staff retreat cost $30,000-40,000; another time he said $80,000. I think I heard him say one point that city employees are paid $80 per hour (that would be $166,400 per year, though state law caps local government salaries at about $145,000), and he then multiplied that figure by the months of staff time he imagines went into setting up the retreat. At one point he claimed that meals at the retreat were “catered” and cost $10,000.



Sounds lavish, doesn't it! You might be imagining some high society party with sterling silver canape forks and servants in black ties.

Well, I never saw the caterers. It looked to me like city staff just set out snacks, drinks (coffee, hot water for tea, a cooler of soda pop), disposable cups and plates, and take-out food from some local restaurants. For breakfast there were a few things of yogurt, some muffins, coffee, two half gallon cartons of juice (pour your own into a paper cup), and some sliced fruit like you might pick up at Cub or Rainbow. At noon we had boxed lunches from Panera. For dinner, some big aluminum trays of salad and pasta, and some Italian bread (not heated like that fancy garlic bread you might have heard of, just cold sliced bread with packets of butter to spread on it yourself) from an Italian restaurant were set out for the five councilmembers and eleven staff members.

It says a lot about Mr. Zick's financial acuity that he imagines this spread would cost $10,000. Let's average $3,333 per meal – maybe less for breakfast (smaller, since department heads didn't join the retreat until lunchtime), more for dinner (what with bread on the side and some fancy packets of optional crushed red peppers for culinary thrill-seekers). I'm going to say there were no more than twenty boxed lunches from Panera (which, let's remember, is located in the same building that Mr. Zick claims as his Maplewood address). Do the math, $3,333 ÷ 20...

So the next time you see Mr. Zick claiming to speak with authority on any topic whatsoever, just remember — this is a guy who convinced himself that a six-inch sandwich, cookie and chips in a cardboard box from Panera Bread costs $167. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't trust him to buy lunch unsupervised, let alone advise my local government on policy and operations.

Labels: council politics, media, video

Posted by John Nephew at 2/11/2010 01:12:00 PM | Permalink | Comments

On Friday, February 5th, a long overdue City Council-Management Team retreat was held all day at the fire station on Clarence Street. The purpose of the retreat was threefold: to set council direction and goals for the next 2-3 years, identify short-term priorities, and build trust and better ways of working between staff and council. While we await a written report from the retreat facilitator, I thought I'd briefly write up my own notes from the day.

In the morning, the city council reviewed the city's assets and obstacles. Using a list of goals assembled from questionnaires the council had filled out prior to the meeting, we discussed and ranked those goals. The following emerged as our top seven:

1. Re-establish Maplewood's Reputation — restore trust and respect between the citizens, staff, and elected officials, restore a positive image with our residents, the media and other government entitites

2. Good Government — Make city government transparent and accessible, and operate with an environment of efficiency and mutual respect. Welcome and encourage citizen involvement, but not let the city's path be dictated simply by the loudest and most persistent voices that show up at city meetings.

3. Parks Department — Reorganize, re-establish, revitalize; possible joint venture with neighboring communities

4. (tie) Environmental Planning — Further develop processes for “going green”; enhance and fund open space management; includes follow-up on Fish Creek commission recommendations

4. (tie) Fiscal Responsibility — Manage the city's finances and financial planning effectively, with an eye to providing stability and maximum value in the long term for our residents

6. Complete the infrastructure upgrade process

7. Redevelopment

In the afternoon, city department heads joined the retreat. Each councilmember and staff member in the retreat was asked to identify ten short-term objectives or priorities. The following items were on the list of majorities of both group (three or more councilmembers, plus six or more of the eleven management team staff):

• Maintain Quality Services
• Integration of Parks and Recreation; Parks Funding
• Economic Development
• Investment in Redevelopment
• In-depth survey of citizens
• Investment in infrastructure

With nine hours of work and discussion, there was a lot more to it than these two lists, but this provides at least some idea of the areas of consensus that emerged from the retreat. It was time well spent, and I look forward to working with my fellow councilmembers and the staff in going forward to achieve these goals and objectives.

Labels: council politics, events, process

Posted by John Nephew at 2/09/2010 11:13:00 AM | Permalink | Comments

The Maplewood City Council gets a lot of ink in this week's Maplewood Review. You can read the articles online about Julie Wasiluk's temporary council appointment, the passing of the sign ordinance (minus two sections for further study and discussion), and the final passage of the amended recreational fire ordinance.

Labels: council politics, environment, media

Posted by John Nephew at 2/06/2010 12:03:00 PM | Permalink | Comments

Remember all the controversy about wood smoke? Remember how, right before the election, a few pamphleteers and cable access TV shows purported to have uncovered a secret agenda on the part of mayoral candidate Will Rossbach to ban recreational fires, fireplaces, wood stoves, etc.?

Last night we passed the second reading of the amended recreational fire ordinance. It becomes law as soon as it's published in the official newspaper. Contrary to all the election-season bleatings of Maplewood's conspiracy mongers, we didn't ban wood fires. In fact, most members of the city council told you all along, if you asked, that no ban was ever being considered.

But from the outset of the wood smoke task force, some people (including certain now-former councilmembers) have worked hard to fan the flames of fear with rumors that a ban on wood burning was imminent. Denials could only be seen as proof of the sinister scheme underway, to their way of thinking.

Now that the ordinance has actually passed (and there is no ban, in case that was unclear), the naked dishonesty and cynicism of these conspiracy mongers should be plain to all.

What we actually did do:

• Changed the ordinance to conform to state law (which supercedes our ordinances anyway) where they were in conflict. Examples: Our old ordinance permitted coal as fuel for recreational fires, which Minnesota law prohibits; our ordinance allowed fires 20 feet from a structure, while the state requires a minimum of 25.
• Extended the permitted hours for recreational fires, formerly from 2 PM to 11 PM, now from 10 AM to 11 PM.
• Added a "good neighbor" clause that states "Recreational fires should not be lit or maintained if the smoke therefrom unreasonably causes discomfort or a negative impact to neighboring properties."
• Added a wind restriction to allow recreational fires only when the wind is less than 15 mph.
  

And after all that controversy and character bashing, after turning a minor ordinance update into a political football, how many of those "concerned" people actually showed up last night to comment on the final passage of the ordinance? Zero.

Labels: council politics, environment, public safety

Posted by John Nephew at 1/26/2010 05:01:00 PM | Permalink | Comments

The Sunday Pioneer Press includes an article about a petition seeking signatures to ask the State Auditor to examine Maplewood's books. Leading the petition drive is Elizabeth Sletten, one of former Mayor Diana Longrie's most devoted fans (you may also remember her as one of the candidates in last year's city council primary), and Longrie herself.

Long-time readers of my blog may recall that we've talked about this before. As my term began in 2008, I seriously considered whether we should ask the State Auditor to look at our books, after the mismanagement and incompetence of the Longrie-Copeland era. You can read my entry on the topic from April 7, 2008.

Then-Mayor Longrie wrote an April 8, 2008 opinion article in the Pioneer Press about her wish to see an audit; she ran the same text as her article in the May 2008 city newsletter. Longrie's laundry list of concerns focused not on Copeland's time at the city's helm — rather, she wanted an inquiry to focus on policy disagreements such as the amount of city debt, and bizarre personal obsessions like someone joking about naming a street after Will Rossbach. (Perhaps Longrie thinks "Comedy Police" is part of the state auditor's job description.)

In the new Pioneer Press article, Sletten claims to have obtained more than 400 signatures so far — roughly the same number as votes she received in last year's primary. To meet the required 20% of registered Maplewood voters, she'll need about 4,200. Even then, the scope of the audit is determined by the auditors, not the petitioners. To quote the State Auditor's website:

If a petition audit is certified by the county auditor, staff from the Office of the State Auditor would then meet with a committee of petitioners to review the petitioners' concerns. The audit staff then would review the concerns to determine the scope of the audit. The audit might not include all the concerns identified by the petitioners if the audit staff determined that the concerns were based on decisions within the discretion of the governing body.

I believe the State Auditor would duplicate the work already done by our independent auditors every year — which, let's be clear, has included a lot of clean-up of issues from the Longrie-Copeland era. But staff and auditors have repeatedly told us that there's no evidence of wrongdoing, just errors that we can reasonably believe came as a result of the loss of most of the accounting department, who were driven away by the toxic environment created in City Hall by Copeland and his masters. To emphasize the point once again, a state audit would not just duplicate our independent auditors' work, but the city's taxpayers would have to pay for the cost of the audit in a year when the budget is already stretched thin.

I don't believe that this money would be well spent, especially in these lean budgetary times. Still, if 20% of Maplewood voters want it, we'll indulge the personal obsessions of the former mayor and her cronies on the taxpayers' dime once again. I don't expect anything shocking will turn up, but I do still have my own list of questions, as I wrote in May 2008, that I will happily submit to the auditors if they're going to be examining the city's affairs anyhow.

Labels: council politics, finance, media

Posted by John Nephew at 1/17/2010 10:49:00 AM | Permalink | Comments

The Pioneer Press editorial writers had some fun last week at the expense of Maplewood and the anticipated decline of our previously thriving headline manufacturing sector. "But where are tomorrow's quips, headlines, conflicts, gaffes and attacks going to come from, if not from our elected leaders?" they write. " This agreeableness has got to stop."

Labels: council politics, media

Posted by John Nephew at 1/10/2010 03:49:00 PM | Permalink | Comments

In promoting the idea of even-year elections last year, former councilmember Erik Hjelle mentioned his concern about "a few motivated partisans that sway the election process" in odd-year elections.

I think that this is exactly what happened in 2005 and the ultra-low-turnout 2006 special election, which put Hjelle, Longrie and Cave in office. As turnout has increased in recent elections, the number of votes for Longrie and Cave (and former running mate DelRay Rokke) did not increase proportionally. Stephan Flister discussed this phenomenon on Maplewood Voices last year, in comparing the 2005 and 2009 mayoral primaries; but it can be seen in the council races as well.

Look at these comparisons:

Election	Ballots Cast	Turnout	Cave Votes	Change	Rokke Votes	Change
2005 Primary	2228	n/a	796	n/a	n/a	n/a
2007 Primary	3543	+59.02%	941	+18.22%	793	n/a
2009 Primary	4268	+20.46%	871	-7.44%	828	+4.41%

Election	Ballots Cast	Turnout	Juenemann Votes	Change	Llanas Votes	Change
2005 Primary	2228	n/a	1047	n/a	n/a	n/a
2007 Primary	3543	+59.02%	n/a	n/a	200	n/a
2009 Primary	4268	+20.46%	1759	+68%	1415	+608%

In essence, there seems to be a limited and largely fixed number of people who will vote for Longrie, Hjelle or their proxies. The bigger the voter participation (as is seen in even-year elections, when there are national or state-wide races on the ballot), the less likely it may be that a group like them can hijack Maplewood's city government in the future.

Labels: campaign 2009, council politics

Posted by John Nephew at 1/07/2010 08:30:00 AM | Permalink | Comments

Mayor Rossbach and Councilmembers Juenemann and Llanas took their oaths of office at a special council meeting held this past Monday, January 4th. We also declared the vacancy of Mayor Rossbach's council seat, called for a special election to be held at the same time as this year's statewide primary, and discussed how to appoint a councilmember to serve in the interim.

For the interim appointment process, we decided that each councilmember will put forward the name of a qualified and willing candidate. We will ask these nominees to fill out an application or provide their resume, and we will interview them all together and discuss the appointment at a special workshop on January 12th. There was consensus that we would like to appoint someone with past city government experience, preferably a former councilmember but someone with experience serving on a city board or commission would be considered as well. The other criterion suggested by Councilmember Juenemann (and with which Councilmember Llanas agreed) was that we select someone who does not intend to run in the special election. I didn't think this was essential, but I also don't have a big objection to it and so I included it in the motion.

Ideally this process will result in an interim councilmember appointed in time to join our goal-setting retreat with staff, which we have scheduled to occur on February 5th.

Labels: campaign 2010, council politics, process

Posted by John Nephew at 1/05/2010 04:56:00 PM | Permalink | Comments

Over the weekend, the Pioneer Press ran an article headlined, "What will 2010 bring to Minnesota? Pioneer Press reporters share their predictions."

One of those predictions: "A Return To Civility" for Maplewood, with the swearing in tonight of Rossbach as Mayor, and Juenemann and Llanas to the city council. "A smooth-running council could ultimately save the city money," writes John Brewer, and observers should "Look for increased transparency in administrative and financial matters as well as low-key council meetings."

Today's Pioneer Press features a longer article by Nancy Ngo, "In Maplewood, it's a new city council minus the old animosities."

Labels: campaign 2009, council politics, media

Posted by John Nephew at 1/04/2010 09:11:00 AM | Permalink | Comments

In an e-mail addressed to the entire city staff as well as the city council, soon-to-be-former councilmember Erik Hjelle writes today:

I fully understand that this concept will shock most of you but I do not want a plague.

Obviously this is a typo concerning the plaques in Item I1 on Monday's agenda ("Presentation Of Plaques To Outgoing Mayor And Councilmember Hjelle From Ramsey County League Of Local Governments"), but a person could have fun speculating about what Erik's unconscious was trying to express through this parapraxis. Perhaps an apology for four years of metaphorical locusts?

Labels: council politics

Posted by John Nephew at 12/09/2009 04:13:00 PM | Permalink | Comments

According to an e-mail from the League of Minnesota Cities, Governor Pawlenty in a letter to the league has "announced that he would not use unallotment to further reduce or delay the December local government aid (LGA) and market value homestead credit (MVHC) payments scheduled for cities and counties."

This is good news for Minnesota cities in general. However, it appears not to make a difference for Maplewood. The governor's decision to reduce LGA/MVHC by $64 million back in June, which this announcement does not undo, already took away all of our MVHC. Further reductions to December payments, that were expected as a response the increased state deficit announced last week, could not have come at Maplewood's expense because we were already at $0.

The governor is not rolling back the 2009 and 2010 cuts that were already determined earlier this year (which would increase the state's deficit even more) -- he's just decided not to cut even further for now. He makes no such guarantee for 2010 -- though again, since our 2010 payments are already at $0, it makes no difference to Maplewood. For some of our neighbors who get LGA or MVHC even after this summer's cuts, this is good news, but it won't put any money back in Maplewood's coffers, this year or next.

Nonetheless, Councilmember Erik Hjelle, showing off both his typically poor reading comprehension and his habitual disregard for the Open Meeting Law, dashed off an e-mail to the entire city council as soon as he (mis-)heard the news, saying he "cannot wait to see how you liberals spend this" and that we should "give the money BACK to the taxpayers." Rushing to judgement and insults based on his own misunderstanding is vintage Erik, something I'm sure we'll all miss in a few weeks when Jim Llanas replaces him on the council.

Labels: council politics, finance

Posted by John Nephew at 12/08/2009 01:47:00 PM | Permalink | Comments

One prominent player from the previous two city election cycles was notable for its absence from the campaign this year — the Maplewood Firefighters Association, Inc.

The MFA appeared in 2005, campaigning on behalf of candidates Hjelle, Cave, and Longrie, and got right down to the business of flouting the rules. During that election, Hjelle, a city employee as a pay-per-call firefighter, ran afoul of the city's personnel policies by using the Londin Lane fire station to put together a mailing from the MFA on behalf of himself, Cave, and Longrie. An independent investigation concluded that Hjelle had knowingly violated city policy against using city buildings for campaigning. Hjelle told the investigator that he had every right to use the fire station for his election campaign, because "It's not the city's fire station. It's my fire station. The City technically owns it, but it's my fire station and my fire truck.” The MFA was also entangled in one of the 2005 campaign practices complaints against Erik Hjelle. The Office of Administrative Hearings determined that the MFA had made illegal campaign contributions to Hjelle ($2,228.84 versus the $300 allowed by law).

In 2007, the MFA was active again, producing lawnsigns in support of Rebecca Cave. Once again the group prompted a campaign practices complaint, and the OAH determined that the MFA had knowingly and falsely implied the Maplewood Fire Department had endorsed Cave, then fined them $1000 for breaking the law.

What was interesting in 2007 was that, apart from an attorney, the only person who appeared before the Office of Administrative Hearings to speak on behalf of the MFA was Erik Hjelle -- though he was not, apparently, an officer or board member at that time. From listening to his testimony (42 megabyte MP3, about 46 minutes long, archived for posterity), I'm convinced that he personally torpedoed any chance they might have had at a successful defense. (As the judges put it: "He testified repeatedly that by using the phrase 'Maplewood Police and Fire Endorse Rebecca Cave,' he intended to communicate that Ms. Cave had the support of all Maplewood firefighters. Neither Hjelle nor the MFA have the authority to speak for the Department or the MPFA [the full-time firefighters' union], and the evidence is undisputed that neither of these organizations has agreed to endorse Ms. Cave.")

After two election cycles of active involvement, why was the MFA conspicuously absent in 2009? Was it a victim of the falling out between Hjelle's faction and the supporters of Longrie and Cave, as seen during and after the election? Was the MFA ever more than the "Erik Hjelle Political Action Committee" — just a means for Hjelle to claim falsely to speak for all firefighters as he pursued his own political agenda? Maybe in 2009, he realized that his public support was more likely to hurt than to help the candidates he favored. To the extent that Hjelle was visible in the campaign season, it was in launching attacks on Rossbach and Llanas, rather than openly campaigning for candidates as he had in the past.

In any case, if you search for the Maplewood Firefighters Association in the Minnesota Secretary of State's website today, you'll find that it says "Entity Status: Inactive." And if you're wondering about the trademark "Maplewood Fire" and its logo, the subject of contention in 2007, you'll see that it's now registered to the City of Maplewood, as it should be.

Labels: campaign 2009, council politics

Posted by John Nephew at 12/05/2009 10:06:00 PM | Permalink | Comments

On the agenda for Monday's special council meeting, after the staff's budget presentation and before public comment, is an alternate budget proposal from Mayor Longrie. The meeting packet is finalized and available online, yet the mayor's proposed budget is not in it.

My recollection from our budget discussion in September is that Mayor Longrie suggested that she had already worked out the budget cuts necessary to pay for the tax cut she proposed (in addition to the city's loss of state funds), but merely declined to share those with the rest of the council at that time. So I'm not sure why she has not yet provided that information, almost three months later.

Surely she does not expect the council to vote on her budget, without even giving us some time in advance of the meeting to review it? Or is the whole thing just another stunt, to create a campaign issue if, as she has threatened, she runs for office again in the future?

Labels: campaign 2010, council politics, finance

Posted by John Nephew at 12/03/2009 10:35:00 PM | Permalink | Comments

It sounds like there's been a search for scapegoats among the supporters of some losing candidates in last week's election. It didn't take long for the blame to be laid at two pairs of feet clad in big steel-toed firefighter boots: those of candidate Dave Hafner (for promoting the write-in candidacies of Smart and Rokke) and, in the background behind him, outgoing councilmember Erik Hjelle.

Check out this image, brought to my attention by a friend who spotted it on North Saint Paul resident Bob Zick's cable access TV show the night after the election.


Zick had been attacking Mr. Hafner for "going back on his word" by not supporting Longrie and Cave and having the audacity to criticize ("disparage") the incumbent mayor, etc. Then he welcomed a caller with uncomplimentary remarks about Mr. Hafner's abilities as a firefighter/EMT. The phrase "Hjelle torpedos election" started appearing on the screen, as you can see circled in the framegrab above.

Given his history with both of them, one might have wondered, in the fracturing of the Longrie-Hjelle alliance, which side Mr. Zick would come down on. I guess he decided to stick with the failed politician who is hinting at running for office again, rather than the one who's taking his ball and going home.

Labels: campaign 2009, council politics

Posted by John Nephew at 11/12/2009 07:53:00 AM | Permalink | Comments

In last week's election, sitting councilmember Will Rossbach won the race for mayor. This will mean a special election in 2010. Numerous residents have asked me about the mechanics of this, so I brought it up at Monday's council meeting. Here is the discussion:



To summarize:

• When Rossbach takes the oath of office as Mayor, it creates a vacancy in his council seat.
• Since more than 6 months remain in Rossbach's council term, the 2005 ordinance requires that we hold a special election.
• There is some flexibility as to when exactly to hold the special election.
• The earliest it could be held is about 90 days after the vacancy is declared, in order to comply with all the relevant state laws (notice, filing periods, etc.).
  
• If we combine the special election with another election (such as the state primary), we can save the $26,000 we otherwise would have to spend on a stand-alone special election.
  
• Regardless of when the special election is held, the ordinance requires the council to appoint a person to fill the vacancy until the winner of the special election is sworn in, just as happened in 2005.

From what I've read and a recent conversation with a legislator, it sounds like it is very likely that the primary date will be moved up from September to August. This change was in the elections reform bill that was passed and vetoed last session, but it was not itself a controversial provision. (Besides having bipartisan support, it will be needed in order to comply with pending changes in federal election law.) The idea of moving it forward is to protect the voting rights of Minnesotans overseas, especially the deployed members of our military. General election ballots obviously can't be printed and mailed until the primary results are finalized (sometimes including a recount, as in one of the judicial primaries last year).

Labels: campaign 2010, council politics, video

Posted by John Nephew at 11/11/2009 05:18:00 PM | Permalink | Comments

What might have happened if Will Rossbach and I had not won in 2007 and changed the balance of power on the Maplewood City Council?

Take a look at the City of Greenfield for an object lesson. This past summer the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust imposed special conditions on their insurance renewal, in response to a high level of losses and a perception that their mayor and city council were continuing on a path that was likely to bring more lawsuits.

Those conditions were comparable to the ones imposed on Maplewood in 2008, after the wave of costly lawsuits under Greg Copeland's management in 2006-2007. When the LMCIT imposed its conditions on our renewal, Maplewood had already taken steps in the right direction -- with the 2007 election results, the dismissal of Mr. Copeland, the start of a process for hiring a permanent, professional city manager, and so forth. As one would expect, those changes have since corresponded to a sharp drop in lawsuits and losses.

Greenfield has proven to be less cooperative. Without getting into all of the soap opera details, the result is that the LMCIT has chosen to cancel Greenfield's insurance coverage altogether, as reported by the Star Tribune and the South Crow River News, in order to protect the other member cities. If I understand it correctly, the LMCIT gave notice of across-the-board cancellation effective in 30 days. The board is then willing to offer a new coverage package limited to personal injury and property damage claims. Other types of lawsuits (e.g., employment, defamation, land use) that may occur will be at the full expense of Greenfield's taxpapers, both for the legal defense fees and the ultimate costs of any settlements or judgements.

For a city with a population under 3,000 and a tax levy under $1.3 million, such expenses could have a large and costly impact on taxpayers. The city might look to private insurers for coverage, but it is likely to be very expensive and in some cases (such as land use defense) my understanding is that no private insurers even sell such coverage.

I will be interested to see if the LMCIT's harsh decision results in any changes in the way Greenfield's elected officials govern, or if it will be left to the voters in their next elections.

Labels: council politics, media

Posted by John Nephew at 11/07/2009 09:59:00 AM | Permalink | Comments

The publishing cycle of the local weekly newspaper, the Maplewood Review, means that this week's issue doesn't include the election results (though their web page does have the story). What it does have related to Maplewood politics is an article about even-year elections, a topic that I brought up at the October 26 council meeting.

Labels: council politics, media

Posted by John Nephew at 11/06/2009 08:25:00 AM | Permalink | Comments