Independent and apart from anything that might or might not have happened in China, I had three major interrelated problems with James Norman and his ways and means during his tenure as Ramsey's city administrator.
First - the port authority. That was handled without major notice to the people, who were the taxing target of the effort. The council ducked ever having any vote on the proposal, yet Norman nad Bonnie Balach took the thing to the legislature with only a handful of people, the finance committee at the time being chaired by Elvig, knowing of any effort whatsoever to establish a tax-happy Ramsey Port Authority.
I notice that the financing for the palatial [non-referendumed] City Hall was jiggled through the EDA, as bond issuer, with the City apparently on a long-term lease contract with its own EDA, in effect landlord-and-tenant posturing with itself, the City to pay the EDA rent which in turn then services the bond interest and amortization. Presumably a device to get around general obligation bonding caps the legislature, in its wisdom, imposes. What other reason might there be, but to end-run a legislated taxpayer protection? And to do it behind peoples' backs, i.e., with minimal notice in minutes or web-posted documents? And again I beleive all that was during the Elvig chairmanship of the finance committee.
Enough on Reason 1, the port authority. All of the handling of the City Hall thing, lack of a referendum but where at least on that the council did not entirely duck and cover, they could not because they had to approve the expenditures, that is Reason 2.
Reason 3. The accompanying images, with this as the numero uno example of the James Norman practice of not putting things in the agenda in advance or the entire story in minutes; something I regard as intentional, deceptive, and contrary to the text and spirit of Open Meeting Law of Minnesota. The matter was not on the agenda in advance, things were handed out at the end of a quite lengthy council session, only at the council table with no citizens' table copy provided, and the letter itself was not a part of what was handed out to council members when the council was asked to vote. Hiding mischief under a hat. Even if full letter text were then, that lately provided, it is not in the spirit of giving our councilmembers a full weekend to review agenda matters and crystalize opinion and objections.
This was too regular a practice even if it had only happened once. And particularly in this instance - in a crucial matter of community-wide interest and impact.
And this created the major part of what I regard as a most unfortunate DONE DEAL aspect of the 2008 Comprehensive Plan exercise that we all should know about while participating in that exercise. It cuts against: Notice. Sunshine. All that.
Now if any on the council knew in advance the content of the letter the images present [for my guess, see here, those individuals can deny it - and it's only a guess, nobody has shared with me info of having advance notice], but if any had advance notice I know of two who say they were startled to learn of the discrepancy and did not know the letter would be sent out saying what it did.
I obtained the letter via a public data disclosure request. "Public data disclosure request," is a device I encourage all citizens to take advantage of whenever they have questions of city officials (with the law requiring disclosure of most public data [not personnel matters, in general, which was the exception to public data disclosure offered as the reason why I was denied access to a letter I believe might have existed, written by an official with another metro-area governmental body concerning the China sister city program]). For instance, any citizen wanting to see the contract between John Peterson [and/or "Oakwood Land Development"] and City of Ramsey, has the right to do so, upon request. Heidi Nelson, so far, has coordinated the requests, with Amy Deitl assisting on any documentary review possible in digital form that can be attached and sent by email. They have been responsive and helpful, in meeting that duty, as a part of the good job Nelson has done as interim city administrator.
Anyway, upon inquiry, I had a letter copy provided me, and the letter text was unfamiliar to the two councilmembers I showed it to.
Click each page, or open it in a separate tab or window, to be able to read it. The crucial language in all this - the difference between what was disclosed to council at the meeting table [not earlier] per the text of the first page [without any actual attachment], and the letter text in the following two pages is clear in the highlights. And if you cannot see for yourself how that highlighted material shows two versions and how the discrepancy greatly impacts the entire 2008 Comp. Plan question, then you probably are not gaining much from reading anything I post.
Here are the pages - the short single page handed out at the meeting, first, then the two pages of the letter, as omitted from the minutes, but as sent:
______________________________
NOW, in closing for anyone thinking they can fully trust online agenda and minutes, for the complete story without also remembering public data disclosure request rights as another tool; here is what is [inadequately] reflected in that record [and if you are rube enought to think all that letter did was provide "comment" then there is a very nice bridge in Brooklyn I would like to sell you]:
