The City can improve that way.
The notion of a government of laws and not men, (persons being the PC term now), is old and honored in the breach too often. I think we have seen that in the insinuation of an ongoing sweet deal for Landform with Matt Look at the outset having been noted in minutes as saying something to the effect that Senator Jungbauer is affiliated with this firm and if we hire them he might be able to get us a grant others do not even know exists. That's not a quote from minutes, but it captures the gist.
There has been an ongoing clear three-member bloc on council, sitting in a row, mayor and two seats to his right. In the McGlone situation they seemingly see no evil, hear no evil, and speak none. There is an appearance of their cooking up ideas among themselves, possibly with a touch of county board involvement, like an assault against the city manager's job in favor of the then assistant city manager who at the time was working most closely with Landform. There is a personnel committee and it exists for a reason, with no putsch outside of it needed or desirable.
There is a worry of some turning a blind eye to the McGlone employment. To the questions of how it came about, was it involving prior understandings that predated final approval and groundbreaking of the Flaherty adventure, and was there openness in recruiting a project clerk, (that being a valid and needed job function for the construction project so that the question is not of a "make work" sweetheart job, but one of whether there was earmarking of it for one person, others not needing to apply, and whether the pay exceeds any reasonable prevailing wage for the job).
Good luck world, on extracting the evidence from the persons who cooked up the idea and put it in place. The names McGlone and Cronk and Flaherty come to mind as where to ask, and from whom to expect cogent and honest answers vs. a stonewall, if expecting the best out of people.
The decision pattern to so heavily subsidize the Flaherty adventure by consistent repeated 4-3 votes is germane. It is evidence already known to the public.
Regarding the building of the Flaherty rental adventure -- It's been done to where there is no pulling back on the string. Like it or love it. Ground is not only broken but the building of that rental thing is now past the point of no return, however the deal stands, however people in the community may like or dislike things.
Randy Backous on council has liked the idea itself all along, I have disliked it the more I learned, i.e., Backous and I most fundamentally differ on whether the building of it is a good or bad thing for Ramsey. However, Backous and I seem on the same thought page with regard to his minority voting and questioning of decision making about the unique multi-million dollar subsidy risk that the city has assumed by a 4-3 margin with the HRA chairman, Colin McGlone, being repeatedly in the bloc of four in the voting and now with a spouse working for a paycheck from Flaherty people.
There is one published Minnesota case I would urge all to read. It is not involving a city, nor a legislative or quasi-legislative activity of an administrative agency. It can be argued as distinguishable because quasi-judicial agency decision making was at issue, yet I believe drawing any such distinction without any real difference is spurious reasoning, and would avoid seeing the clear and universally applicable thrust of the case. It appears from reading the case that the newspapers picked up the thing and ran with it as a preliminary context to official review of decision making; i.e., that there already existed a strong community reaction at the point judicial appellate review happened.
In re Petition of Northern States Power, 414 N.W.2d 383 (Minn. 1987), is online, here, where the link is set to highlight the phrase "appearance of impropriety" in the case - that phrase being the one frequently applied to situations such as McGlone-Flaherty-Cronk-Landform, etc., not as a finding it is so, we can have our opinions, but as a term to always keep in mind in asking questions and in formulating opinions and suggesting actions. The appearance of things, the smell test as some may call it, IS important, determinative in fact, when private facts are denied public disclosure and all we have is the presumption that if evidence is deliberately withheld the evidence would be unfavorable to those having the evidence within their exclusive custody and control, and choosing not to reveal it.
The case is actually easy to read, the highlighting of "appearance of impropriety" is helpful, and since Crabgrass readers are urged to read the case there is little point to extensive quoting. However, for those choosing to not read the case there is this - all that I will be quoting:
It would be difficult to deny that Adam's participation in the decision could likely affect his direct or indirect financial interest in the utility by which he would soon be employed. The legislature has addressed the action necessary once a conflict arises [for this situation, but not for town board decision making where the town itself could adopt for itself such a measure]. A written statement disclosing and identifying the existing or potential conflict must be filed and one must remove oneself from participation in the pending proceeding. Adams ignored the requisite procedure, apparently unilaterally decided that no conflict existed and continued his active participation in the decisional process.
We are equally persuaded that these events could similarly be characterized as a proscribed ex parte communication. While both Adams and representatives of NSP affied [swore by affidavit] that at no time during employment negotiations did the subject of the pending rate decision arise and Adams himself contends that the Commission's deliberations had been finalized prior to the actual employment offer, these statements seem to us to avoid the focal question and instead reflect a disregard of the spirit if not the letter of the controlling legislation and regulations [again, procedures a town like Ramsey could embrace]. We disagree with the offered interpretation that the activities could properly be characterized as an error in judgment.
In our view, Adams not only should have disclosed the nature and extent of his contacts immediately, he should have also disqualified himself from active participation and the evidence is compelling that continued participation was not only improper but disqualifying.
That failure to disclose and disqualify must be viewed as irrevocably tainting at least a portion of these proceedings. While the record contains no direct evidence that Adams unduly influenced the decision [whereas Ramsey has a parade of 4-3 decisions, McGlone in the majority in each], his mere presence creates the obvious appearance of impropriety and undermines the public confidence in the system. We are incredulous that these sophisticated governmental and utility officials could have assumed otherwise. We therefore hold that there is substantial evidentiary support for the findings of the Commission that the individuals [in the plural, on the hired side and on the hiring side] had a duty to disclose their association, that Adams had a substantial conflict of interest and that the proceedings were tainted as a result.
414 N.W.2d at 386-87, citations omitted, italics and bracketed text added. In that rate-setting situation the matter could be reheard or stricken. In Ramsey's case footings have been poured and materials and equipment brought to site with the thing beyond the point of no return. Yet within the quoted text is the seed of an idea for reform language that Chairman Niska and others on Ramsey's charter commission might consider along with Goodrich, to lead to an amendment making Ramsey a trail-blazer in tightening up on how cleanly and conflict free officials of the city should act in the future. For that purpose the text was worth full quoting.
In closing, as to what's next, an election is. If the McGlone employment is tolerable and inoffensive to a majority of those voting in Ward 2, we move on and expect little in the way of the City tightening up its conflict of interest and appearance of impropriety norms. It is a pity we have in place a ward system where the "referendum" on the McGlone conduct cannot be voted citywide.
There is the cliche of the four boxes of government. The soapbox, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box. As a start, soapbox = Developers are Crabgrass. Ballot box = Aug 14, and then November when we vote for president too and many more turn out than for primaries. The ballot box result that would please me would be to see Kuzma and Sibelski going on in Ward 2 after Aug 14 to the November election, as that would be viewable as a sound citizen repudiation of what's happened. The jury box is too slow and too costly for an individual citizen (or a soapboxer) to pursue; on whether the Public Data Act's Sect. 13.05, subd 11, compels Landform insiders to come clean on the facts they now hold. A future council might or might not pursue using that statute for information, but that is a pure hypothetical for now.
To the extent Landform insiders, Cronk and Lazan, may stonewall, what's the actual remedy, regardless of what the statute says? The cartridge box is inapplicable, so the only thing really available is that loveable old ballot box. So use it.
______________________
Digressing a bit while the ballot box is in attention, I have no idea how County Board elections will turn out. My hope is the Jungbauer effort for the seat Westerberg now holds will fail, regardless of who may prevail there, it being a district where I do not vote; and I find Dennis Berg's endorsement for the seat where I have a vote interesting in its terminology re, "leadership, conflict resolution and management skills." It seems Berg chose his words quite carefully and with an aim seemingly on target.
___________UPDATE___________
Besides general statutes; Minn. Stat. Sects. 471.87 and and 471.895 (incorporating by reference the definition of "gift" in MS Sect 10A.071); there is a case under MS Sect 412.311, analogous to Petition of Northern State Power; i.e., Singewald v. Minneapolis Gas Company, 142 NW 2d 739, 740 (Minn. 1966),
The findings of fact as formulated do not support the trial court's conclusion that the [Burnsville] ordinance is valid. This is so because in our opinion the prohibition of § 412.311 (in contrast to that set out in § 471.87 which forbids a "personal financial interest" by public officers in situations such as this) was intended to bar participation in council action by one directly or indirectly interested in the contemplated contract, regardless of his good faith and notwithstanding the fairness or reasonableness of the agreement involved.
No Minnesota decision has dealt specifically with the question whether a councilman having the relationship to a party contracting with the village disclosed by the record here is directly or indirectly interested in the contract within the meaning of § 412.311. There is an apparent conflict in the decisions of other appellate courts on this question. We agree with the line of authorities of which Griggs v. Borough of Princeton, 33 N.J. 207, 162 A.2d 862, is illustrative. There it was said that the disqualification to vote should be applied even though the councilman involved be "motivated by a high sense of responsibility for community affairs." 33 N.J. 221, 162 A.2d 870.
We do not subscribe to the principle that council action should be vitiated in situations such as this if the vote of the councilman directly or indirectly interested in the contract would not be determinative of the action taken.
That last language, if the conflicted party in question would have stood aside or abstained, would the matter have passed or failed in a tie or by a majority against is held determinative.
What is apparent is that numerous statutory provisions exist; and I am unaware of any definitive or even helpful conflict of interest case under Minnesota HRA law; MS. Ch. 469.
As in Singewald, judging our McGlone-Flaherty-Landform-HRA employment mess may be a question of first impression. For those who may have missed it, a City Attorney opinion of Goodrich in a recent meeting is that the distinction between HRA acting and the City through its council acting must be drawn despite the identical people sitting on each body, changing the blue hat for the orange one, so to speak.
Caution should exist over opinions from a body such as the LMC, which lobbies extensively, and which might have an opinion influenced by what they'd like a standard of conduct to be rather than advocating the best reasonable reading of a governing statute if that reading contradicts a goal or aim of the organization.
In Minnesota, per MS Sect. 645.26, subd. 1, the specific HRA statute should be construed in determining what the legislature specified and intended to see followed.
Last, Emily McGlone the one time I talked to her stated "we checked it with the lawyers before I accepted the job" but would not enlarge on that beyond indicating that Goodrich may have held an LMC opinion of some kind which she claimed to believe sanitized her taking the job after Colin's voting pattern favoring massive Flaherty subsidy. I cannot see how anyone would believe that situation was a proper course of government and outside conduct, one free of any "appearance of impropriety." If it ever went before a judge and was blessed that way I would be flabbergasted. As reader Ryan noted, beyond legalistic hair splitting, there is the court of public opinion, especially in an election year. A public wanting tighter standards of conduct in such situations, one not wanting to ever see a repeat, needs to say so at the ballot box or things in Ramsey are unlikely to change.