I incorporated the LMC opinion Bill Goodrich provided in response to a data disclosure request into my statement and handed a copy to the transcriptionist. Colin McGlone steeped down from the council table and as a citizen spoke, acknowledging the employment exists. And calling me a "tool of a PAC."
That "tool of a PAC" part of his speech was both false and delusional. Anyone knowing me would apply the term "loose cannon" which I would not dispute, but not "tool" of any person or organization. I skin rats I think need skinning; not rats somebody else tells me need it.
I stated on the record that McGlone's characterization is false, defamatory, etc., and suggested he should consider retracting it.
Should I sue for defamation? We'll see.
I want to again view the streaming video to see the full scope and wording of his assertion. But that digresses from the evening's mainstream.
A motion was passed. Tossey moved, Elvig seconded I believe, to have an independent counsel review things; the amended motion was to request a review by the State Auditor. The motion passed without dissent.
That would work, if the State Auditor felt there was staff time in her office for it and the function belongs there.
My belief is the Attorney General would be the more logical venue, if it is to be offered to a State agency, with a request. The Attorney General is in the habit of issuing opinions. The Auditor is not.
A citizen wanted something of record for talking to voters. I have been emailed about the McGlone employment and whether I knew of any media instance where it has been reported. Knowing of none, I raised the issue as citizens input. Now it is in the record.
McGlone spoke, and Sakry was present and has a copy of the LMC item that Goodrich provided me. My hope would be that she publishes something that would suffice for any campaign volunteer going door-to-door to carry and discuss. That is how voters become informed.
Tossey mentioned other potential conflict situations he would like to have sunshine on. As always the devil is in the details of what gets sent out as "the factual situation(s)" for the Auditor or AG to review and analyze.
That is where the most attention should be focused. Where the rubber meets the road. It is essential that a full and clear and balanced factual summary be prepared.
Not a witch hunt. This should not be a judgmental thing as much as a policy oriented set of findings and suggestions of what should be considered in the future. In that sense the Auditor's office might be best; but the way budgets have been cut for state agencies, there may be reluctance to participate because the AG is in the habit of providing advisory opinions. Again my main hope is disclosure on the record will be looked at as it is required by law, and that the city's officials can learn something for better future considerations of conflict of interest events, as they happen, and as they should be properly processed with ample sunshine and transparency always being the goal and aim that best advances citizen respect for government processes.
There are statutes, and some precedent. In particular, the several conflict of interest sections of MS Ch. 469 have been given scant judicial attention, there being no precise judicial precedent I could find. There is an AGO online, addressing a conflict situation in an HRA and emphasizing giving notice of record.
In parallel with our McGlone-Flaherty job situation, but in a quasi-judicial setting and not a quasi-legislative one, there is a clearly relevant precedent; Petition of Northern States Power Co., 414 NW 2d 383 (Minn. 1987)(the insidious possibilities attaching to employment possibly influencing decision making); see also, Matter of Minn. Public Utilities Com'n, 417 NW 2d 274 (Minn.App. 1987)(improper ex parte contact can poison the well).
See, MS 471.895, where gifts to local officials are banned, and where the statutory definition of a gift is "money, real or personal property, a service, a loan, a forbearance or forgiveness of indebtedness, or a promise of future employment, that is given and received without the giver receiving consideration of equal or greater value in return." In assessing a conflicted situation, or a potential one, the question of "consideration of equal or greater value" necessitates a detailed factual inquiry into an exchange to see if there is any bonus hangover value, putting the consideration one way and then the other out of balance. The facts have to be disclosed, and explored, or the statute is nugatory.
Clearly, not looking beyond a tired rehash of only MS 471.87 is inadequate analysis, and if such a rehash is all that is offered, red flags and siren bells should flap and ring, to give strong notice.
For the future, the present and a full range of analysis of it should be explored. Again, not as a witch hunt, although strongly disciplining an open disdain for even the most basic concepts of due notice to, and respect for the public's right and need to know before an election should not be swept under a rug merely for Minnesota nice palliative feelings - for the McGlone-Flaherty employment situation arising after an unprecedented multi-million dollar credit arrangement was passed which hinged on 4-3 voting is quite extreme. Yet, the ultimate primary focus should be about how to reform and improve things in the city's future.
__________FURTHER UPDATE__________
On the offer them jobs to own them potential mischief, those not learning from history, on a bigger scale, can repeat it locally. Please, please reread this Crabgrass post, and watch the linked video.
This is the second time I have exhorted readers to reexamine that stuff. It is that important to an understanding why this "give 'em a job" cynicism must be fought. It can be corrosive.
When candidates and volunteers go door-to-door and the McGlone-Flaherty relationship is a topic of conversation, the homeowner voter should be encouraged to watch that 60 Minutes segment.
Without awareness of business as usual, it will go on as usual.
That is precisely what our Minnesota Supreme Court recognized in writing the opinion; Petition of Northern States Power Co., 414 NW 2d 383 (Minn. 1987). That case is worth rereading by door-to-door election workers. It was a Crabgrass item previously, here, although that "one post short" headline language proved incorrect. The matter stays alive the longer the stonewall stays intact. It was good that McGlone said something on the record, finally, but it was still inadequate disclosure. When did the recruitment start, when did the job start, was it earmarked for the McGlones no matter what, and what's it pay are parts of things McGlone declined to disclose.
_________LAST AND FINAL UPDATE_________
Since it rankles me I will not leave it alone. Colin McGlone calling me "a tool of a PAC" bothers me so much because it is such an ignorant statement and crude as an attempt to deflect attention from his family's capitalizing on an HRA voting record - and trying to keep it hush-hush in the community. However, I respect that Colin kept it there and did not deliver the ultimate insult of calling me "the Katherine Kersten of the left."
That would have hurt deeply.
I am happy Colin showed name-calling restraint. A KK knock probably would have been too heavy a blow to withstand. It would have dropped me to the floor for the count, televised and in front of Sakry.