That's democracy? No, it's short of the entire community having its say. And the Clown Center, the money sink hole, it is not even in McClone's Ward, but his presence is decisionally there big time. For instance, voting against a second restaurant situation, as proposed in a recently broadcast regular council meeting. Second, in the last HRA meeting, (the ones they keep off camera while spending bundles of public cash), there was McGlone wanting to torpedo the requirement that the Indiana rental housing people (the ones "bargained" to be getting hundreds of free citizen-owned-and-tax/grant-funded ramp parking stalls - if they ever close and purchase), must have 3000 sq ft of retail in their building, right there, conveniently by the site of the bus stop where foot traffic to the ramp favors citizens having a shopping opportunity. McGlone was twice against ameneties! Against what it is all about.
Ameneties is what citizens want. Where's McClone's head these days, to not be attuned to that simple truth?
Jeff Wise, with an impacted business bordering the Clown Center, is, at least, a representative at large so that every citizen in Ramsey has a vote next cycle on Jeff. He at the last HRA meeting expressed a concern twice, about moves on the property west of Armstrong; while owning property west of Armstrong. I find that interesting. He could end up if Armstrong is rerouted with a comfortable settlement price for his location and then there will be retail opportunity in the west end of Clown Center - or it might be there if enough public money is dumped there and enough subsidy is doled out to reach who-knows-what in terms of "shops and restaurants."
I think Jeff is above any such conflicted interest situation where he'd vote personally on Clown Center West end growth with an intent to relocate there. I am certain he'd consult Bill Goodrich as City Attorney, for Goodrich to advise him of the City's interest in Jeff's public duty and personal ambition, and how to balance both. Jeff, if you recall, along with Dave Jeffrey and John Dehen had the decency in the past to decline Las Vegas junketing where Lazan of Landform was the suggestive force for the pack of Ramsey elected and appointed officials to go there on a massive land promotion gamble, the socializing of Clown Center out of the private sector's responsibility to city ownership, with a "Now What?" I am staggered by the host of closings that have since resulted from that junket. As in ZERO. Nada. Zippo. None. Darren at the last HRA meeting did a lot of talking, and hand waving, but, zippo to show for about a half million take-out, give or take a few thousand dollars. Wise, Dehen, and Jeffrey stayed home. Others went to that neon oasis, and have naught to show for the cost of the escapade.
So not junketing, great, cause to want to reelect Wise. However, if he indeed harbors any thoughts about relocating his store into the west end of Clown Center if Landform can finagle retail into there, and especially if he's talked of that to Darren and Heidi, he should be recusing himself from any vote on the Landform contract question because of conflicted interests. Clearly, I am not able to read Jeff's mind, and have not sat in at any conversation he may have had with Landform people but circumstances are: drawings for rerouting Armstrong would impact the Wise liquor store location with a condemnation possible if not probable. Then he either goes out of business or relocates. If his contemplation is to get as great a condemnation award as feasible and to relocate into west-end RTC retail if Landform finagles any, then he should not be voting on Armstrong changes or on Town Center matters. He may disagree. Others may disagree, and have a more lax view of proprieties, but ask yourself - would you feel right with personal pecuniary interests at stake in voting in ways others might challenge on things very close to impacting those personal pecuniary interests? Each reader may have a different answer, but ask yourself, "Would I do that, or would I recuse?"
But back to Colin, I cannot put my vote against who he's been. The mayor, who I supported last time he ran, and Wise, for each of them I have a vote because there is no "ward boundary" in my way - and based upon my views of fiscal responsibility and control of run-away spending - I will vote as makes sense to me between alternatives. I'd hate to again consider a candidacy, since the job is super boring and pays poorly.
Why, however, at this point in time raise the question of the wisdom of the past change to a ward approach, and the expansion of the council from a sensible five seats to seven?
---------------------***************----------------------
Short answer, it's timely. Somebody or some group is doing head-hunting after Dave Jeffrey. And, of course the online work session agenda page per the emailed agenda link does not have the memo the online work session agenda page references. That must be because citizens are mushrooms after all, or can be regarded and treated as such.
Public data is, well, privileged.
I suppose.
Aside from a likelihood of someone's headhunting motivation, is there some other more cogent explanation for the circumstantial situation shown here:
That thing begs so many questions, it stinks.
Aside from grammar, you "ensure due process" not "insure due process" unless you find a carrier for such coverage. But hey, who says what city procedures are? What is the history that a claim of precedent and establiched procedure is based upon?
Next, who in the world are "the parties?" As best as I see it, that would be "the headhunteer" and "the head" (aka Dave Jeffrey for the latter status). But most certainly Amy Dietl is not the headhunteer behind this. Yet, curiously, someone bade her to put her name on the memo.
Dietl reports to Heidi Nelson.
Heidi Nelson gives every appearance of working hand in glove with consultant Lazan.
So, again, who's the headhunteer?
------------------------
Now, somebody is bitching that Jeffrey is inside or outside of Ward 4 boundaries? A preliminary fact is we've had a census, Baker v. Carr is still good law, and Dave Jeffrey, to "ensure due process" is entitled to object that one-person-one-vote entails a balancing of Ward lines, if the Ward system is kept at all, and that due process would require that prior to any witch hunt ensuing.
Then, who does the line placement, besides the council? And how would that be fairly done if a cabal of some but not all council members are "the headhunteer" each at his own grindstone, sharpening away?
Fraught with complexities? With undue vagaries?
Just chop, and let the citizens worry if they care at all? THAT is suggested to Ramsey citizens as sound US of A government practice? Not in my lifetime, not as "supposed to be" vs "as is."
Then besides who-da-parties, there is that "I" being used in one of the lower paragraphs (at least the regal "we" was abandoned). Amy Deitl, again reports to Heidi Nelson, in looking for an "I" who-dat.
Or that's one reading. Heidi, not Deitl, shows up at the HRA meetings, as to the mystery of "I."
Moreover, Heidi did cut her administrative teeth under James Norman. Some of us may recall that.
"Witnesses presenting testimony" is a term begging its own thousand questions. Who decides who is a witness? Is there a "witness list" already circulating in some rump meeting at Spectators or such? Who wrote it? In concert with others? What others? Was there a quorem of council members privy to some kind of prospective witness list while it was never put to public sunshine? To an open meeting, until it's already a rump group decided done deal?
I wonder if one of "the parties" told the memo writer to write that memo, or to sign-off on it. Which if "the parties?" Not the head, it must have been the headhunteer? Or just from the ozone, an angel descending, some magic token, suggested "Let's hunt us a Jeffrey?"
It seems Jeffrey's representing citizen intersts as soundly as he has is bothering someone. Why would that be? And who would that be? And what objectives underlie an effort to chop Jeffrey?
We can all guess. And it appears not just ugly, but super ugly. Humongo ugly. It stinks.
I think the best part of that entire memo page is, "If the City determines to proceed ...".
Soooooooooooo -- Back off, Jack. Put away the long knives.
Show sense for a change. Be decent. Being decent IS the path of least resistance. So, why not?
Or that's my extended opinion and question list. The simple truth is that if the people behind this Stalinist tactic do proceed, it likely will tear the City of Ramsey apart. They should know better. Whoever they are. Right now it is speculation. They are in the shadows. They cause memos to be written. Were the anti-Jeffrey witch hunt to proceed, the perpatrators of this purge-and-putsch would have to step out of the darkness and reveal themselves. I wonder if they've the courage.
Coincidently, another topic, not on the work session agenda, but for the other untelevised meeting, after the nothing-burger televised meeting, is throwing fresh meat to Landform, aka renegotiating its contract with City of Ramsey. After half a million's already gone from Ramsey, out, based on the Landform situation. Dave Jeffrey at the one last untelevised HRA meeting I attended was impressive in chairing the thing. That certainly could not be a factor within somebody wanting Dave's head? Folks are civilized and not savages, here in Ramsey-River City.
Am I wrong?
BOTTOM LINE: It offends every fiber of decency I have in me to see this, without cause apparant for anyone to want Dave Jeffrey purged beyond his appearing to some to be the best remaining true fiscal conservative on that council, after John Dehen became a judge.
Jeffrey walks the fiscal conservative walk, while others mouth the lip-service platitudes and spend public dollars profligately. Read that work session page again, and weep.
BACK TO THE HEADLINE: The answer, fix the charter by scrapping the wards, go back to five seats, mayor and council elected at large; the pack of them standing for reelection every two years.
One final thought, somebody instigated obtaining a League of Minnesota Cities legal memorandum (the one citizens are mushroomed on), so, who? Where is the paper trail in city records on that hummer? Instigating getting a legal opinion, under what circumstances? Under what authority? With what motivations? After discussions between what people? Name names. Citizens deserve knowing all the truth. How can they cogently vote in election cycles, when stuff is done this way?
Sunshine is the best disinfectant.
_________________UPDATE_______________
There is a term bandied about in law schools: the slippery slope. It basically means something started small (camel's nose under the tent) can snowball into a habitual and encompassing thing.
Exceptions swallowing the rule, etc. All the cliches, but how does that relate to Jeffry and his head at risk?
Just that once you start holding official hearings, hearings with sworn testimony can become a habit, and a new council majority might want hearings on what an old council majority did, with consultants, Mike Jungbauer under oath, the who nine yards. Things can start where you think holding hearings are your friend. Times and moods change, but hearings can become a habit. Your perceived tiny friend now can whack you hard, down the road.
Ugly things often ensue when someone's bright idea is to get ugly, officially, with others. Goes around, comes around, that's another cliche.
Keynes had one, in the long run we're all dead. So short run, hunt heads, long run, goes around comes around, we all stare ultimately at the grave, and - are you ready - you can't take it with you. Yeah. That one had to come up, talking about fiscal things and contracts.
It seems some things are built into the human machine, call it original sin if that's your terminology, ghost in the machine is Koestler's wording, but one wrong sound at a wrong time can cause an avalanche.
_______________FURTHER UPDATE_________________
Bill Goodrich, not Amy Deitl authored the meeting memorandum page published above. Goodrich told me he had no idea how it got posted on the city website under Dietl's name, not his. The "I" in the thing was Goodrich. He explained that to me. At the work session, after Goodrich clarified that the session was not intended to be a due process hearing nor should it be viewed by anyone present as such, Dave Jeffrey, mentioning advice of counsel, gave a limited statement. Health considerations prevent his present and future living in a multi-story home. Such health considerations necessitated temporary housing arrangements close to but outside of Ward 4, at a single floor dwelling, while arrangements are being pursued for permanent single floor housing in the ward, with a particular site in mind, pending resolution of needed conditions precedent to leaving the temporary situation. Should anticipated events fail to be achieved as promptly as feasible, the matter apparently will be revisited. Time frame on that was not definitely stated, but it appeared that a council consensus was that within months the situation may be reviewed by council. It was wholly unclear to me what sequence of events precipitated the present inquiry and Goodrich effort. Specifically someone must have spoken to Goodrich and/or Ulrich, prior to the question being placed on the work session agenda. I spoke by phone with Mayor Ramsey who phoned to say a meeting involving Ulrich, Goodrich, and Jeffrey happened on or about Monday, 14 March 2011, in which mid-meeting, he was requested by Jeffrey to join, which he said he did. That would place it a day before the last HRA meeting, (the one held a week before last nights session as I recall), with that earlier meeting concerned mainly with how much money, (and under what terms and conditions), Landform would be contracted to be gaining from City of Ramsey general tax-revenue funds, and/or special accounts, into the future for a term of a year or more. What precipited the Monday meeting the mayor mentioned is unclear to me, as to how Jeffrey's medically-necessitated temporary residency situation came to Goodrich's attention and/or to Ulrich's attention, and what if any general or specific requests concerning it were made by unidentified third persons to either of those two gentlemen. Any reader caring to post a comment under his/her name explaining that gap news, i.e., who precipitated questions about Dave Jeffrey's residency, is invited to do so, as it might be informative to people concerned about how this situation was instigated and how it will end up resolved. In particular, the instigator in the first instance is information I would really like to know - who started the inquest. Without knowing that reaching circumstantial conclusions from a range of possibilities is a matter of personal opinion; and I have the opinion that the inquest is not motivated independent of the question of Landform and its getting city money into the future. I base that circumstantial inference on a perception from the two most recent HRA meetings that Jeffrey is skeptical of the entire morass, having left the council chambers last night after the regular council meeting with Bob Ramsey chairing the subsequent HRA session in Jeffrey's absence. I applaud that move by Dave Jeffrey. One thing I am fairly certain of in my own mind, neither Bill Goodrich nor Kurt Ulrich bear any personal malice toward Dave Jeffrey, each having duties and such, upon third party notice and request. I have not spoken with Dave Jeffrey at all about these things, nor do I presently intend to.
_____________FURTHER UPDATE_____________
The man can always run next cycle at large. Whatever housing arrangements follow, if he continues to reside in Ramsey, at large is a sound option. Indeed, if ending up in Ward 2 next time candidate filings occur, running in that ward would be a fine civic-minded thing to see from Jeffrey, were events to so unfold. At this point, as a hypothetical with many unstated contingencies possible, I would support and vote for Dave Jeffrey if he were to choose to run for mayor next cycle.