Background: As a resident of Ramsey since the late 1990's I am familiar with Matt Look and his political thinking, with which I generally disagree. We have talked from time to time - not a friendship thing but about official city and county things - and Matt is aware that I generally have voted against him as my rep, while not publicly expressing, in blogging, any opinion on the last election which to me was, "between two Republicans."
With that as a background I read in Strib, Feb. 3 and Feb. 4 online, of what to me is an escalated pissing match where adults should behave, but where otherwise I do not criticize anything Look did. Leaving well enough alone is a core old saying, but Matt is in politics where judgments can differ but where speech is Constitutionally protected, with "harassment" being substantially more than speech.
Read the two items. Excerpting may be used in the following, but the following presumes that any reader of it who may be confused should go to the Strib items for clarification.
Basically two women are accusing Look of harassing them when there was Facebook posting neither liked and did not simply move on, but got into a pissing match about what Look had posted. If you read the items differently, bless you; because that is what I hope every reader of this post will do - reading the Strib originals. These two isolated instances were separate in time and there is no clear evidence either knew the other, or of the other.
Start with the first Feb. 3 Strib item - from early in the text:
A St. Francis woman says an Anoka County commissioner harassed her repeatedly after she raised concerns about a message he posted on Facebook as the insurrection by supporters of former President Donald Trump unfolded at the U.S. Capitol.
Danylle Peardon said her concern about the post quickly shifted to concerns for her safety.
In her mind, shifting may have happened but actually, use the reasonable person standard, not somebody who instigates a disagreement and then becomes a-twiter over perceptions the reasonable person might see otherwise.
Were I in Look's place, I'd possibly have avoided an escalation - which always was in speech, and not in anything else - but an escalation happened, involving speech, which is soundly protected for many varied good reasons. Political correctness does not trump speech rights, despite some shift in some attitudes. More Feb. 3 Strib -
Peardon contacted other county leaders and staff in hopes of addressing her concerns but was unsatisfied with their response. Now, she is grappling with a reality of governance in the age of social media: Commissioners aren't held to a code of ethics and, like their constituents, can say or do what they want, so long as it doesn't break the law.
"[Look] sees no concerns with his actions," she said in an interview. "Who is holding him accountable?"
No "code of ethics" is going to survive a reasonable freedom of speech challenge, and exercise of free speech is not, NOT, NOT in any sensible perspective unethical. More Feb. 3 Strib -
On Jan. 11, Peardon texted Braastad, asking who Look's boss is, so she could address her concerns about his Facebook post. Braastad replied that Look answers to voters, and suggested Peardon contact him with her concerns. She also asked for Peardon's name, which Peardon declined to provide.
The next day, Peardon got a text from a number she didn't recognize: "Matt Look's boss here. I understand you are trying to reach me. What is the issue?"
Peardon said she did a Google search and found the number belonged to Look Sign Inc., the commissioner's political-sign printing company. The two exchanged several messages in which Look claimed to be with Anoka County administration and Peardon countered that she knew the number belonged to Look and that she, as a constituent, was "1 of your many Boss's [sic]."
If you see anything besides a childish pissing match in all that, bless you. The woman wanted to try to lay hurt on Look, and then fit the "can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen" old saying when Look took umbrage. If I were in his place with someone trying to cause trouble over a Facebook post - while I don't use the damned thing and never will, hypothetically - I'd be honked off too. But again, what is the adult reaction and what is "heat of the moment" in the context of you get into a political move you should expect a counter move.
Next, and to me it's a hoot -
"If you contact me again I will file a restraining/harassment order," she wrote.
Look responded that, based on Peardon's address, she wasn't a constituent.
"I feel in fear for my life, now you are looking up my address which is obviously incorrect because he was on my ballot!" Peardon wrote. "I will be making a police report right now please leave me alone I'm begging you you're making me very scared."
Look responded: "Lol."
Peardon asked three more times for Look to stop texting her, each time eliciting a response from Look. Fearing for her safety as a single mom living with her teenage son, she said she called the Minnesota Attorney General's Office and was advised to file a police report.
You start shit, and it begins to stink to you, remember who started it. Opinions can differ. Escalation happened -
[Apparently after Peardon contacted cops - Strib being unclear] Officer Kurt Greene with the St. Francis Police Department came to Peardon's home Jan. 12, according to the police report.
Peardon told Greene about Look's Facebook post, the report said. "She did not like that a politician was making comments like that."
The report states that Peardon was concerned for her safety since the person texting her indicated they had her address. She shared on Facebook later that day that she had filed a police report, and she posted images of Look's deleted Jan. 6 post and screenshots of their texts.
Look texted Peardon on Jan. 13 asking her to remove her post. Peardon reached out to Greene, who advised Look to stop contacting her, according to a follow-up included in the report.
A classic "I get the last word in" match; no winner expected, but childishness is not illegal (nor wise). Last excerpt from Strib, Feb 3 -
In an interview, Look said his texts weren't threatening and he wasn't lying about being his boss because he owns and operates his own business. He said he got Peardon's phone number from Braastad and texted Peardon to determine the "threat level."
"I don't know who she is, I don't know if this is a prank, I don't know what sort of crazy is going on here," he said. "I didn't say I was coming over. I didn't say I was doing anything to her. I've made no threat whatsoever."
Peardon e-mailed the County Board and Administrator Sivarajah on Jan. 12 to express her concerns about Look. The only official response she received from the county was a Jan. 13 e-mail from Sivarajah.
"Commissioners are accountable to the voters and have no boss other than their constituents," wrote Sivarajah, a former county commissioner. "I have no suggestions beyond the actions you have already taken."
While the gender of the author of the two Strib items is not known, "Kim" generally is a name given to female babies. Feb. 4 item, by Kim Hyatt, as was the Feb. 3 one -
[headlining]
After harassment allegations, calls for Anoka County commissioner to resign
Anoka County's Matt Look says he won't resign; code of ethics considered.
I see bias in that headlining, clearly so, but reader opinions can differ - opening paragraph, biased also?
Constituents are calling for Anoka County Commissioner Matt Look to resign or be stripped of leadership duties and one colleague is pitching a new code of ethics after allegations that Look harassed a resident.
Also, another woman has come forward with accusations similar to those of Danylle Peardon, who said she became afraid for her safety after Look harassed her in texts and suggested he knew where she lived. Peardon brought her allegations, first reported in the Star Tribune, to county leaders and local law enforcement last month.
Commissioner Mandy Meisner said she was "disturbed" to read the details of Look's interactions with constituents, particularly women, because of her volunteer work with Alexandra House, a women's shelter in Blaine. She said she believes elected officials should be held to a higher standard of conduct, and has asked the board to discuss implementing a code of ethics at an upcoming workshop.
"Unethical conduct of an elected official is unacceptable. It shouldn't be repeated," Meisner said.
What about those constituents? This is a glide and slide knifing. Alexandra House is for battered women, ones fearful of a partner's rage; and Meisner should know better than to insinuate stuff even if she faintly or greatly dislikes Look. Fair is fair, unfairness is sometimes too easy.
What about those constituents? Huh, Kim? You're halfway through the writing and another commissioner is not a constituent, it is not possible.
The allegations are similar to those of Rachel Keller, who contacted Ramsey police Sept. 3 after she said Look threatened her on Facebook.
According to a police report, Keller told police that she made a political post on Facebook regarding Look, who then "sent her a private message about the post."
"He at one point told her 'Game Over.' The victim felt this was a threat," the report said. Police advised Keller that "Game Over" was not a "terroristic threat" and could hold multiple meanings.
"The victim understood and did not want me to contact Look for fear he would escalate the behavior," the report said.
"Victim?" Where did "victim' come up? Look reacted with speech after a published criticism with this "victim." I remember schoolyard fights where a big question was who instigated the personal aggression; don't you?
In the very last bottom quarter of this report, after presenting quotes from other board members none of whom said Look behaved wrongly (but unwisely); in that bottom quarter, hearsay from Board member Schulte that a fellow named Thompson contacted him questioning him about Look's behavior; which Schulte did not call nor hint at as gravely wrong, wisdom of it being the point Look's colleagues, if commenting at all, mentioned - none of them suggesting in any way that Look should resign. Ms. Hyatt appears to have contact this Thompson, to get a quote. Not that he is/is not a constituent of Look, since Ms. Hyatt declined to either find out, or present his status that way to her readers, one way or the other.
Buried at the end of the item - that closing quarter of the post:
Thompson said he reached out to Schulte because he believes there should be some kind of discipline for Look.
"I think the whole situation can be summed up in one word: inappropriate," Thompson said. "The only way we are going to recover from this is to have checks and balances and hold people responsible for the things they say on social media, especially if they are an elected official."
Other county residents expressed similar concerns.
Wes Volkenant, of Andover, asked the board to consider stripping Look of leadership responsibilities on committees and the county Regional Railroad Authority board. Volkenant said a code of ethics is a start, but he doesn't think it will fully hold Look accountable.
John Brillhart of Fridley said he thinks Look should resign.
"I don't think Matt Look deserves to hold office," he said, "and I'm disappointed in the rest of the board for their inability to do even the basics of holding him accountable."
Not one constituent of Look's Board district is identified and quoted as being critical of him. Compare Hayatt's opening Feb. 4 paragraph.
THE COUP DE GRACE OF HACK JOURNALISM -
Quoting "Wes Volkenant, of Andover," that way, and not fairly as "DFL S.D. 35 chair, Wes Volkenant, of Andover, " yadda, yadda.
Yes, a long-time ongoing political opponent has harsh words for outspoken Republican Matt Look, and this Kim Hyatt declines to identify the politics at play. That is indirect deceit of most readers, if she knew, and ineptitude if she did not. I know Wes. He's been DFL for years. A fair man, but hiding a political dimension is not sound journalism.
She did a hatchet job. I do not particularly like Matt, but I think he was treated unfairly. Not defamed per New York Times v. Sullivan, but nevertheless wronged.
_______________UPDATE_________________
Relevant or not, readers should decide, but Peardon has a criminal record. One arguably suggesting a degree of unreliability and/or instability per a reasonable person standard of judgment. Or not.
Readers can check online District Court records:
Cases -
Case No. 02-CR-14-7789 -- Date filed - 12/08/2014
Case No. 02-CR-10-7049 -- Date filed - 09/03/2010
 |
| click image to enlarge and read |
Nothing is known by Crabgrass about circumstances, plea bargaining if any, or police report content. Crabgrass is only aware of what readers, themselves can find online. Matt Look, by email, (Fri. Feb 5, 7:05 PM) called this fact to my attention. Ultimately, two misdemeanor convictions, within the 2010 decade, not more recently is the gist of the record; probation is now over. It appears at one point in one of the cases felony terroristic threat was charged, but dismissed. Why/how of that detail is unclear from the online court records Crabgrass found and reviewed.
_________FURTHER UPDATE__________
ABC Newspapers has further detail.