That is first and foremost. Then, how should citizen voters - whose spouses never had a shot at the job - judge things when going this November to the ballot box [or indeed, in August, in primary voting]?
It is hard without the full factual situation disclosed. Emily McGlone told me Ryan Cronk approached her about a hiring. Then she backed away and requested I not publish that disclosure. Why not?
She has a humanities degree from St. Oalf, and said she's if anything, over qualified for the job. That is with regard to the demands of job duties. Not, again the facts are withheld, any representation of being overqualified for the paycheck, whatever it is in amount.
She works out of the Flaherty-contractor trailers along the rails, so you go ask her wtf is the story. Good luck finding out. This diagram. Click it to enlarge and read.
w002.PNG){kind=tracking}
Now, with all that said, my main voting against McGlone reelection will be based not on this questionable employment situation, but on his voting record. He's been the deciding vote on numerous 4-3 votes - each favoring the Flaherty adventure and with it having massive city subsidies. Millions are being put at risk via the city bonding against citizens' future, to give the money to Flaherty - with his promising to pay it back but probably it going to a thinly-capitalized LLC without any wherewithal to pay it back if it needs to be collapsed because of project failure. It is how things happened in at least one Flaherty North Carolina adventure. Ordinary folks in North Carolina left holding the bag to the tune of seven million.
But beyond that, beyond the chance the thing will not rent out because of train noise and being in an isolated exurban village with little activity and culture; instead of downtown where things happen; beyond all that, and beyond the likelihood the thing could go downhill and become a community problematic site five to fifteen years from now - my worse nightmare in all this is it being fully rented but populated with three hundred Darrens added to our community. One Darren in my view is too many.
So, bad judgment, in my view is the main reason for voting the man out with the job situation and its host of unresolved issues being icing on the cake. Agree or disagree, that's why you have a vote, and your's equals mine and we collectively judge and decide.
As noted in starting this post, I see at least two more posts, perhaps more, needed to go fully into details of what I see wrong, but the general impression - the big picture - the forest first before looking at trees - it was not Emily Schmizheck, or Emily Baulmgartner, or Emily Blovac from Andover hired for this unique job opportunity Ryan Cronk apparently offered to Emily McGlone as hers for the taking, it is a job for Emily wife of Colin McGlone, a city official who has done much favorable to the economic adventures of David Flaherty in the course of McGlone's repeated choices of how to discharge his fiduciary duties owed to City of Ramsey; so that the appearance of quid-pro-quo exists with Emily McGlone whereas an Emily Blovac from Andover hire would not have that apparent taint being possible.
Emily McGlone did tell me face-to-face that after Cronk made the job suggestion-offer, she "Had to interview" but she declined in the face of repeated questioning to say who with, when, and whether she had any inkling of anyone else ever even having a fair shot at getting that job.
One thing Emily McGlone did say that surely opens a Pandora's box, "They said I do not have to tell you anything." Okay.
Would not say who "they" is.
Nor when or the surrounding circumstances of "they" telling her that. Or how often.
Nor the when how and where of Cronk's approaching her. But noting, he did already know her from interactions about the project.
"They" is interesting terminology, in the circumstances.
I have posted about Laurie Coleman's similar situation and Norm and Nasser Kaziminy's firm giving the Colemans apparent perks. I have posted about how Abramoff openly confessed on national television how his corrupting approach involved job offerings. But what of confliict of interest considerations? What of gift giving, and the regulation of gift giving between individuals involved in politics being recipient and folks dealing with political entities being the gift source.
And do not hesitate to conclude that a job situation with perks and privilege that normally do not attach to a project clerk's ordianry compensation and employment terms - anything above the normal - is a gift, since the normal is what it takes to employ a competent person to do a competent job - a market set price where anything beyond what the market requires is perk and privilege, i.e., a gift of a bonus beyond what the situation in the ordinary course of business would require.
So was there an improper gift? Was there not?
You tell me --- because the McGlone family is not telling me jack about the terms and conditions of that employment, and the Devil is in the details. Or it can be as Mies van de Rohe said "God is in the details."
So tell me the details so I can publish and readers can judge, god or devil.
Otherwise, if you stonewall when an ordinary person with nothing to hide would gladly go into detail to defuse suspicions, then the most likely common sense conclusions one can reasonably draw from stonewalling when one without fault would be expected to willingly disclose are obvious.
____________UPDATE_____________
The question of if they've nothing to hide why are they hiding, has an almost universal reach, e.g., the question of Romney tax returns and his insistent reticent non-disclosure; e.g., here and here. For the Republicans, they use that question/presumption equally, e.g., the question of Holder, and Fast and Furious. UPDATE: On Romney taxes, as with the McGlone situation, the nothing to hide vs. something to hide viewpoint, from the outside looking in at the stonewall, will not simply go away; this link. As time advances, with nondisclosure continuing [and with Emily McGlone collecting more and more of Flaherty's people's cash] such things linger, and age, and do not simply fade away as with McArthur's old soldiers. They stay, ripen, and go nastily over-ripe with time. (But sunshine remains the best disinfectant.)
__________FURTHER UPDATE___________
With the free parking via the ramp expansion an integral part of this Flaherty project, part of the bundle of rights he bought when buying the land from the City, and with that financed by state money [a Met Council Clean Air grant with Met Council being a state agency is how I understand things] this Flaherty thing, in its totality which includes the free parking, was financed in part with State funds.
That is important for triggering the reach of Minnesota's Little Davis-Bacon Act, where the contract workers have to be paid prevailing wage and certified payroll copies have to be produced on demand. That would be the best method to assert entitlement to disclosure of McGlone payroll detail. Unfortunately, the adversarial position would be "prove it in court" so practically, i cannot push that right without some union involvement, so I hope there may be an interest there. I know that even with a non-union contractor ensconced, as I believe the case with Flaherty based only on hearsay, prevailing wage must be paid - a fair wage for fair labor.
It would prove most interesting to see whether Emily McGlone gets more, the same, or less than prevailing wage for a project clerk. Since there is certainty the Northstar stop is in part financed by state funds, prevailing wage must be paid there, so it should prove simple to approach that construction trailer set and ask about certified payroll details for the project clerk there. With a hundred feet or so between trailer sets, what prevails at one should prevail at the other. Each is a multimillion dollar project. I hope that unions take notice. It would advance efforts to discover details.