Laying it on with a trowel, in a Strib op-ed. Jimbo, why? What is behind this?
Strib - under whatever reasoning - published a May 23, 2023, Jim Schultz self-tout,
as an op-ed. The view here is that Schultz might be stepping on some
toes of established operation people, possibly sowing confusion with a venture that has built its own goodwill over decades, and doing this while his
self-tout write-up in Strib uses over-embellished rhetoric, with his
two ending paragraphs as an example:
Minnesota has much to be proud of in its history. We are
the state of explorers who sought the Northwest Passage, of soldiers who
fought at Gettysburg; of doctors who built the Mayo Clinic, of farmers
who have fed the world and miners whose labor helped build it, of
freedom fighters who led battles for civil rights for all, of innovators
who created some of the world's most successful companies and of
statesman who have shaped American history.
Inheriting a state with this
exceptional past, we must ensure that it has an exceptional future. We
can face down the adversities of this current moment and set the course
for decades of prosperity. We at the MPBC will work with all people of
good faith to ensure that we do.
Enshrine motherhood and Cherry Pie. What's up?
Schultz wrote "We at the MPBC?" (MPBC is what he abbreviates his operation to), and the "We" would be Schultz and who else?
That is not an insubstantial question. He writes as if it is an established going venture. With a membership.
Is it?
So far Crabgrass knows of Jim and his webmaster, each with a business. Schultz the business about which he writes? Who else?
From a whois of GROWTHMN.COM, (the Schultz website), we see the site was done by Dustin Grage, d/b/a Honeyhive Strategies, (with Grage an operative doing Republican website design, as well as serving other businesses).
VERY NEW VENTURE
Hot off the press. Grage
registered the site with registrar http://www.wix.com only last month,
April 24, 2023.
So before that it did not exist as a going concern, doing business, with an online presence.
Again from the whois, Grage registered
himself site Admin and site Tech resource person, using his Buffalo, MN
business address,
However, the whois noted: Admin Email: growthmn@wix-domains.com.
CONFUSION
Whether Grage is a venture co-participant with Schultz is not known by Crabgrass.
Also, with such a young website it is a wonder if Schultz actually has yet generated any business whatsoever for the adventure.
Nonetheless, Schultz on the https://www.growthmn.com/about page claims to the world:
Comprised of key leaders from a
broad array of Minnesota's privately held businesses, the Council works
with leaders in government, business, and communities to advocate for
policies that will lead to job growth, new business creation and
entrepreneurship, and broad-based well-being for Minnesota’s workers and
their families.
[italics added] What Schultz means by
"broad array" and by "privately held businesses" is never defined by Schultz, but even
publicly traded firms are privately held, by the shareholders, so he
confuses things unnecessarily.
If he intends to limit things to closely
held firms, he should say that, since as a business lawyer he knows
proper terminology. Moreover, in the Strib tout-item, Schultz tells the world:
Minnesota can successfully meet its challenges, but it will take new
ideas and a fresh vision. Today I am proud to announce the launch of the
Minnesota Private Business Council.
Composed of businesses from a broad array of Minnesota industries, the
MPBC will fight for common-sense policies leading to job growth and
higher wages, new business creation and entrepreneurship, responsible,
accountable and transparent government, and broad-based well-being for
Minnesota's workers and their families.
[italics added] This is twice representing it as a going concern with actual relationships with "businesses from a broad array of Minnesota industries."
If it is so, name one.
This is unclear, since Schultz also says "proud to announce" in his op-ed where the suggestion is prior to the May 23 op-ed the venture was unannounced.
Very unclear.
MNBP
The Schultz website homepage uses a paled-down background video loop, from here with no indication the loop has anything at all to do with Schultz and his startup adventure, or with any possible client.
It looks substantial, but so what?
Compare the Schultz "MPBC" look and feel with that of the Minnesota Business Partnership (MNBP) homepage, https://www.mnbp.com/, where repeatedly scrolled short background videos are locked in sequence, with a darkened page format. Not paled. There are differences.
MNBP
and the Schultz MPBC operation certainly are separate, but not clearly so. Some people might confuse
things between the two, which is unfortunate, where naming the new
venture differently might have better avoided confusion.
MNBP has
been around for years. Since 1977. A half-century.
It is a well established operation with indisputably established goodwill and respect built up since former legislator and Pawlenty law-school buddy Charlie Weaver
incorporated it and registered it with the MN SoS decades ago, in 1977. (The last of the two links in this paragraph notes Weaver retired from MNBP earlier this year).
click the image to see who filed and when
The
Schultz filing parallels that of Weaver, both incorporated as
non-profits, but Schultz has only been filed with the MN SoS to do
business since Valentines Day, this year. Before that, zippo.
Thus, further confusion looms
among the public, absent close attention to detail.
For MNBP, the half-century entity, Members and staff openly and willingly lend their names and blessings? People with undisputed business cred. Check it out.
For MPBC, who, if anyone, actually lends their name to establish gravitas? So far, nobody is so disclosed. Not even the webmaster, who had to be identified via whois search.
Mike McFadden? Look Signs? Mike Lindell (with Doug Wardlow in tow)?
Nobody? Who knows?
Earlier
in the Strib self-tout item, Schultz wrote - and Strib headlined "new voice." (Again - How new?)
Isn't Schultz an office lawyer turned politician who ran already, last
election cycle, 2022? Not that new a voice. (And unlike Schultz, Weaver won.)
In any event - tout-piece beginning:
Minnesota needs a new voice
The Minnesota Private Business Council will lead our state forward.
By Jim Schultz
May 23, 2023 — 8:00am
•••
As Minnesota enters the third
decade of the 21st century, the state faces serious challenges: a
shrinking labor force and limited economic growth and innovation,
educational disparities and serious public health issues, and elevated
rates of violent crime.
Alongside these are a state
government that is increasingly animated by the far left and growing
dramatically in size, cost and scope without commensurate benefits or
appropriate accountability, and extraordinary political polarization and
deep cultural differences dividing the metro and most of greater
Minnesota.
Many, seeing these issues, believe stagnation is Minnesota's inevitable future. They are wrong.
Minnesota can successfully
meet its challenges, but it will take new ideas and a fresh vision.
Today I am proud to announce the launch of the Minnesota Private Business Council.
Composed of businesses from a broad array of Minnesota industries, the
MPBC will fight for common-sense policies leading to job growth and
higher wages, new business creation and entrepreneurship, responsible,
accountable and transparent government, and broad-based well-being for
Minnesota's workers and their families.
[italics added] Announcing existence of the venture days ago, May 23, this year; allegedly fighting for four lines worth of rhetoric. Next two paragraphs:
Certainly the MPBC will
advocate against many things. It will be no surprise that we will oppose
historic spending hikes that fund the latest progressive fads and prop
up political constituencies as Gov. Tim Walz has prioritized. We will
oppose nutty energy mandates, like those passed this legislative
session, that will leave Minnesotans broke and in the dark. We will
oppose defund-the-police policies and other reckless efforts that have
embarrassed Minnesota on the world stage, destroyed communities and
small businesses, and taken so many lives.
But fundamentally the MPBC will be marked by what we advocate for.
We will advocate for tax policy that supports the middle class,
encourages investment and allows Minnesota's industries to thrive. We
will advocate for energy, regulatory and spending policies that grow
great jobs here in Minnesota instead of driving them out of state. We
will advocate for sensible approaches to public safety that deal with
violent and other serious crime. We will advocate for responsible
government in a time of an extraordinary lack of accountability.
Did he mean "marked" or "marketed?" And clearly, the thing is political, not a think tank or such, and non-profit as a sought status might be stretching things a bit.
So,
Minnesota is in trouble, that's the opening theme, but there is a white
knight riding in on a white steed to save the day, me, Jim, and my new
thing.
He takes more words to say it, but that's the gist.
Can
you say, wow, what rhetoric; or do you say what's up with this whole
business; what is the guy up to when it looks as if he's incorporated a
non-profit on Valentines Day 2014 possibly to lobby from, fully
overlapping what the Chamber of Commerce already does, with the Chamber being experienced. Touting business lined up, whoever they may be, no sample client list yet.
And while there seems an overlap with what the Chamber does, there is no conscious on unintentional parallelism between Chamber and MPBC, vs between MNBP and MPBC, where the older operation is entitled to its unimpeded earned goodwill and where there should be no confusion as to its intellectual property and that of a separate start-up, inopportunely named.
Moreover, Charlie Weaver's
been doing this for years, and it even looks as if Jim Schultz and his
web administrator copied their SoS filing format from Charlie.
What Schultz will discover, if not knowing it when seeking office, the Minnesota Attorney General has policing power over non-profits in the State. Someone - not Crabgrass but possibly a reader - might complain to Ellison's office suggesting an investigation.
That would be jurisdictionally proper. The AG is where questions about non-profits go.
Schultz and his webmaster could be asked in to talk with a staff attorney about whether there was any intentional conscious parallelism in structuring things, to fuzz things about the MPBC and MNBP being, in fact, wholly separate. That and seeking word from MNBP if it senses an identity crisis or threat, or is happy with both ventures continuing as is. If MNBP has no objection to things, nobody else should. It would be end of story. Two instances of claimed relations, true or not, should not outlast a blessing of MNBP of what MPBC is doing.
That caps the "what's up - what's he building in there question" as well as possible, given a status quo with Schultz declining to name any involved business, as he has twice publicly touted. Yes - That is also something an AG inquiry could discover. Is there reality backing assertions? We do not know. Schultz has not named a single business affiliate using his venture's services. But if MNBC says okay, let it be.
...........................................
On the positive side of things for Schultz, there is a potential opportunity he might pursue, and if successful he could close down the MPBC to do something substantially similar, but in an agency capacity instead of a first-person high risk adventurer.
There's a job open with Jim's Church where the job description looks as if it was written for him, proud St. Thomas alum and all. He'd fit that mission like
a hand in a glove. And he'd be advocating for things he believes in, from a public service capacity, and with unquestioned institutional gravitas behind his efforts.
He should apply, and if he gets to fill the opening he should take hold of the opportunity and shut down this MPBC thing quicker than you can say "Jack Frost."
A curiosity lingers about Schultz having written in Strib:
Alongside these are a state
government that is increasingly animated by the far left and growing
dramatically in size, cost and scope without commensurate benefits or
appropriate accountability, and extraordinary political polarization and
deep cultural differences dividing the metro and most of greater
Minnesota.
Many, seeing these issues, believe stagnation is Minnesota's inevitable future. They are wrong.
Minnesota can successfully
meet its challenges, but it will take new ideas and a fresh vision.
Is he saying by implication the half-century big business representation of MNBP is stale and stagnant and in need of new blood, or new competition? If so, why then, with what purpose, imitate the look and feel of the public presentation of things that MNBP has used, and upon which NMBP has built up a part of its goodwill?
What, if any, is the purposeful reason behind writing what was written, and then doing that "new thing" design so close to the old thing? Is it to criticize the decades-strong focus on big business to chip off Babbitt and Main Street little guys for a cash flow and advocacy base, while saying "new thing," but mimicking the look and feel and ways and means of "old thing," "stagnant thing?" Having cake and eating it too?
That has been the core wondering throughout the post. What's he building in there?
And why, that way? That look and feel.
__________FURTHER UPDATE__________
Schultz is partisan to a fault, not aiming at bipartisan compromise. On April 6, 2023, midway between his SoS Valentines Day filing of his new venture and his giving notice of it days ago in a Strib accorded feature view, on that intermediate date, without any public notice of his MPBC intentions and actions, Schultz wrote for Alpha News:
Jim Schultz: Republicans can and must win in Minnesota
Minnesota
is a state teetering on a knife’s edge. But with strong and bold
leadership, good candidates, and a lot of hard work from everyone who
wants change in our state, we could go a different direction and lead
the state toward decades of prosperity.
Former Republican attorney general nominee Jim Schultz participates in a primary debate. (Alpha News)
Republicans
in Minnesota are understandably discouraged right now. The 2022
election in Minnesota and nationally was a disappointment, delivering
the “trifecta” of the Minnesota House and Minnesota Senate to Democrats
and decisively re-electing Tim Walz to the governor’s office.
Alongside that Democrats are leveraging their newfound power for the
most extreme policies in Minnesota history. These include
taxpayer-funded abortion on demand until birth, tax hikes despite a $19
billion surplus, and a 35% increase in spending meant to fund every
far-left fad imaginable.
But those of us who are disturbed by the train wreck of our state’s
current leadership have reason for hope: we can win in Minnesota and
turn our state around.
Let’s look at the numbers. [...] In my race for Minnesota attorney general — historically the most
difficult of the statewide offices to win — we obtained the largest
number of votes for any Republican state candidate in Minnesota history.
Despite many previously believing that no Republican could get over 47%
of the vote in Minnesota, we got 49.6% [...]. We even outperformed
President Trump’s margins everywhere in Minnesota, including by over 3%
in rural areas and by over 5% in the suburbs.
Republicans also almost won the state auditor’s race.
[...] With just a slightly different environment nationally or slightly
different circumstances in Minnesota, we would today be talking about a
Republican legislature holding Gov. Walz accountable, a Republican
attorney general for the first time in nearly 60 years, and a very
different long-term trajectory for our state.
And although none of us would wish upon our state the policies now
being pushed by our government, such policies will turn off most
Minnesotans. Minnesotans wanted more jobs, a growing economy, safer
communities, and a return to normalcy. Instead they got late-term
abortion (something 70% of Americans oppose) and sex changes for kids (something 67% of Minnesotans oppose).
There isn’t recent polling on the Democrats’ planned tax hikes but
considering our $19 billion surplus and Minnesota’s status as one of the
highest taxed states in the nation, it’s safe to say that most
Minnesotans are not supportive. And there continues to be a crime
epidemic and the DFL’s answer is giving municipalities a few extra
bucks. I could go on.
Perhaps Schultz with an outsider's view of Twin Cities importance sees the Weaver founded half a century effort of MNBP as Twin Cities oriented, and weighted heavily toward Big business, primarly in Minneapolis and St Paul, with outliers. There is false hubris afoot in, "none of us would wish upon our state the policies now
being pushed by our government, such policies will turn off most
Minnesotans." The majority of Minnesotans voted as they thought best, and "none of us" is the false reflection of a loser. Perhaps he meant few of rural Republicans like losing, and too many are envious and resentful toward the Twin Cities having, in fact, the greatest impact in State economics. Perhaps he views "us" as Republicans and nobody else.
Teetering on a knife's edge, says the Alpha News subheadline. Schultz and Alpha News see the sky falling because his party lost and he lost (however he dresses up might-have, it was a loss). Partisan to a fault. Bear that in mind. The MNBP is not partisan, or tries its best to represent big business interests without angering or marginalizing half of the State. Perhaps that kindles resentment in Schultz's mind.
Perhaps with his heavily seeking sheriffs and cops to endorse him, and then never ending in his touting success that way, he resents MNPB advocating for sensible police reform. MNBP policy being:
The
Minnesota Business Partnership (MBP) today released policing reform
recommendations in advance of the upcoming Special Session, which
convenes on Friday, June 12. The recommendations are aimed at addressing
police misconduct and increasing accountability and transparency. (See
full list of recommendations below.)
“Minnesota’s business leaders are united in a commitment to
address not only policing reforms, but also the broader need to advance
social and racial justice in our society,” said Charlie Weaver, executive director of the Minnesota Business Partnership. “Our recommendations are a starting point for reform, not the finish line. Systemic
change requires hard work, and some reforms will require
consensus-building over time. The Partnership and its members are
prepared to continue to engage vigorously in this process for the long
term.”
More than 80 members of the Partnership signed a letter urging
lawmakers to pass policing reform when they convene for a Special
Session this week. The substance of the recommendations are derived from
a February 2020 report by the State of Minnesota Working Group on
Police-Involved Deadly Force Encounters. The Working Group, which spent
nine months conducting hearings and taking testimony from the public,
was co-chaired by Attorney General Keith Ellison and Department of
Public Safety Commissioner John Harrington, and comprised of a diverse
membership including law enforcement, mental health, academic, and
community leaders.
POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
Encourage all police agencies to adopt use-of-force policies that make sanctity of life a core organizational value.
Require law enforcement agencies to implement an Early Intervention
Program (EIP) for officers and dispatchers that is designed to identify
problem behaviors at the earliest possible stage so that intervention
and support can be offered in a non-disciplinary manner.
Expand resources and increase statewide awareness of existing
resources, to improve the mental health and wellness of first responders
and dispatchers.
Require law enforcement agencies to adopt data practices that
promote transparency, openness, and accountability. This includes
collecting, analyzing, and publishing data about the nature of
police-community interactions, use of force, and police-involved deadly
force encounters.
Create an independent and specialized investigation unit within the
Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) with the authority to investigate
all officer-involved shootings and uses of force that result in death or
severe bodily injury.
Work with the Attorney General and the Minnesota County Attorneys
Association to enable the Attorney General’s Office to be supportive and
engaged around deadly-force encounters in terms of expertise,
resources, conflicts, jurisdiction, or other issues.
Direct the Department of Public Safety to work with law enforcement
associations, police unions, local officials, and community leaders to
promote more effective models of community policing.
Increase state-provided law enforcement training funding where appropriate.
Increase police training on interactions with African Americans and people of color.
Increase police training on interactions with people with
disabilities, and people experiencing a mental-health crisis during
interactions with law enforcement.
Explore the non-disciplinary use of body camera video and simulator
scenarios to identify training to improve officer performance through
proactive coaching/mentoring and training in de-escalation tactics.
Encourage local law enforcement agencies to work with community
partners to engage them in the standards, expectations and recruitment
of officers that know their local communities and increase the diversity
of their workforce.
Ensure that all law enforcement agencies are trained in
de-escalation tactics and skills in order to reduce use-of-force,
especially when responding to persons in crisis.
POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
In addition to the above recommendations derived from the Working
Group, the Partnership urges lawmakers to consider the following
recently proposed reforms:
Repeal the state law that mandates binding arbitration for law enforcement officers accused of misconduct.
Change laws governing collective bargaining agreements that impede discipline of officers who seriously betray the public trust.
Enhance screening to prevent unacceptable applicants for positions
in law enforcement from being hired and ensure clear and enforced
guidelines that define acceptable and unacceptable behavior and policing
tactics.
That might be a lot for Schultz to swallow.
from during the campaign
Add to it the Twin Cities Business publishing outlet giving favorable coverage to police reform while crediting Big Business TC operatives for taking initiative to advance reform.
Perhaps Schultz sees his Church doing innovative schooling in the Twin Cities in ways impossible in less densely populated and less economically diverse zones, and might have positive ideas how such innovation could be shaped to fit rural Minnesota. Just as the Cristo Rey model would not scale to super large school districts who cannot cherry-pick their student body, it would not work in areas of the State where Schultz focused his campaign. He may resent the fact that MNBP, housed downtown in the Twin Cities, touts Cristo Rey without a parallel attention or policy to upgrade education in his campaigning centers.
Perhaps Schultz sees numbers and gets stars in his eyes. Big pie, slice wanted.
__________FURTHER UPDATE_________
Something to Consider: Charlie Weaver incorporated MNBP at a time when politics were less polarized than now. This is important for one wanting to represent and advocate for business interests in general, from today onward.
Or for one wanting to be so represented.
Weaver, besides being a second generation legislator for over ten years also held an administrative position in the Ventura government. He was not solely and staunchly Republican in any very confrontational way.
Schultz, by comparison, since the election had decided that Ellison would continue as AG, has remained actively partisan; e.g., the recent posts here, with the first one a week after he'd incorporated his MPBC venture. He makes divisive and pejorative judgments about the party in power and its actions, rather than expressing a positive set of policy thoughts in a nonconfrontational way.
Being that partisan, and exacerbating the urban-rural polarization rather than trying to keep both parties and both constituencies together on a course both could embrace, it is as if he chose to write more as an igniter than a uniter.
Surely Schultz can speak his mind. Nobody would say otherwise. And he can freely write and publish his ideas. The point is any business thinking it wants to hire a representative and advocate should weigh whether Schultz or someone less polarized, such as Weaver, would be the better suited person.
Also, when Weaver committed to building a business representation effort, he no longer intended to seek office.
Schultz is unclear that way, and it is hence unclear whether the MPBC will be a long term commitment for a growing list of clients, over years, or a thing impacted next election cycle when Schultz might again seek office.
That is something any potential client might weigh, and it would be proper for any business person thinking of MPBC alliance to pin down actual future dimensions and possibilities, before taking a step.
Or not.
Each business person has ideas and goals and a world view. Those feeling congruent with Schultz's persona and aims likely will affiliate with him and his new MPBC operation, however long it is built to last.
If MPBC is a partisan Republicans-only operation, and business owners are okay with that, then they should go with Schultz. He is bright and would work hard.
