There are two sides to every story I suppose. This prompt email from Matt Look:
Never dinged me......he made a major mistake on one of my wiring jobs, made me tear it out, only to admit he was wrong and then allow me to replace it at my cost. Realizing everyone can make mistakes, I don't hold that against him. The issue of replacement has to do with his own admittance that he makes the homeowner do more than the state requires + the fact that 4 at least of the council has been treated poorly by his belligerent behavior. Residents do not deserve poor treatment from government inspector gustapo.
I have no experience, either way, with the inspector's activity; it is all hearsay, so it's only fair to have a prominent indication that there is a widespread feeling on council that a problematic situation exists. The indication from the email is actions are managerial not vindictive. If four on the council are dissatisfied then there's no quorem if the personally dissatisfied individuals were to abstain about the situation. A disclosure statement in the council minutes from the four, each defining his experience, might balance things for the public's best understanding. They do as they see fit, it is only one outsider's suggestion. Or if it is a "personnel" matter, the open meeting law might suggest that step improper. I don't know. Bill Goodrich can handle that question.
On some votes some should abstain.
The story I hear is one council member got dinged for improper electrical work, two events, one in Ramsey one in Anoka, and not only wants to vote on the inspector's capability and whether there is cause to replace the inspector, but:
Is that right? Is that cautious conservatism? Would Barry Goldwater approve?
Or are my facts incorrect?
I ask any reader with knowledge of events to correct me if I misunderstand underlying fact.
But, no calls. Send an email.
Look at it the other way - if an inspector fearful of losing his job were to make an exception for a pushy local politician, and give a nod and a wink, what is that? If something of value, (sidestepping an enforcement duty), were to have been exchanged for a favorable vs. unfavorable attitude, where there might be actual or implied threat to job security; then what is at play?
Does Minn. Stat. Sect. 609.42 suggest that an overly pliant inspector might be breaking the law? It seems, by exemplary impartiality, a crime is avoided. That's how America should work.
Isn't it a great nation when we are a government where nobody is above the law, or a law unto himself?
Now, again I give a caution, I may be barking up the wrong tree, but I think there will be an interesting vote coming up next Council meeting, on whether the electrical inspector doing the job now in Ramsey deserves to be sacked and replaced - what his job performance problems, if any, might be; or whether the question possibly will be mooted and removed from the agenda.
Image credits: here, here and here. I will be sending an email to seek an affirmative true/false response. It seems a question of character. Suitability for present or higher office.
HERE IS THE BOTTOM LINE AS I SEE IT.
The situation, including both sides of it, has had time to percolate to reader attention for the few who read here.
It seems the "pro-business" bloc of the council, when it comes to picking a home contractor service, cut corners with cheaper fly-by-night or friends on barter situations, or do-it-yourself work, and the inspector who's under attack is wanting to assure work gets done to code, by a licensed and certified professional regularly in the business and hence more likely to know pitfalls and newest technologies - but the key regulatory issue is that a proper contractor choice be made, according to law.
It does seem a small business person, getting the electrician's certifications and then paying all the business licenses and fees, including Ramsey's, is positioned to be respected -- if you truly are "pro-business."
When you talk that talk, you should walk that walk.
Or am I wrong and do as I say trumps do as I do when judging situations?
That means no cut-rate privateer work by an uncertified or unlicensed individual.
It is the same with other skilled trades, plumbers, HVAC service companies, custom cabinetry, and even for the less skilled such as sign printers or clean-up and waste hauling firms, etc.
They pay the licensing fees. They invest their funds at risk in business. They expect to be free from cut-rate stuff, or the barter situation off the books and not generating a fair share of government tax flow, so that others - property owners paying more, have to make up the difference if no sales taxes are collected and/or if no licensing fees to operate a business are being paid.
I understand that the skilled trades often are unionized, and some on the far right wing might have union busting leanings, but -- if you do not like the system you always can move to Bangladesh or some such place where they do not regulate commerce as carefully as in the US and where the political realities differ in terms of worker organization rights.
That's said, because of the anonymous idiot who always suggests in inane and ill-spelled comments that whenever I suggest a better way for the system to operate, that I leave the nation. Handing it back to the ill-informed, that way, since the shoe fits better on that foot.
So was the inspector head hunting? Causing a challenge to "4 at least of the council" "treated poorly by his belligerent behavior"? If so, did he catch fish, in casting his net? Is retribution a motivation among "4 at least of the council"?
Wherever the truth is, the situation has an appearance of unseemliness. In general. Or am I wrong?
Leave a comment if you feel this is the highest and best showing government can make, or if you have other cause to disagree with me about it when I suggest unseemliness of the entire thing is the bottom line.
If "4 at least of the council" got their heads together in private, and not of record, and hashed things out regarding sacking the electrical inspector; cronyism is no excuse to abuse the requirements of the open meeting law of the State of Minnesota.
I call it crony original sin. In the inception of Landform's initial tick-like attachment for a drop-in-the-bucket $23,000 sum, then; with that figure now dwarfed by a mere two months fixed contracted cash flow from Ramsey to the firm.
(Ticks will engorge as tolerated.)
Proof of knowledge of open meeting law requirements and reach, when convenient to consider it, has been well reported by Sakry of Anoka County Union, in an outstanding online item, this link, with this excerpt:
As always, click on the image to enlarge and read.