Ramsey - another quick forest vs. seeing only the trees note.

Good government and the things that can counter it form the point of spending extended time on the Emily McGlone situation. The Coleman and Abramoff posts were about money and influence questions. DC has a revolving door problem that Abramoff played for favors for clients. The situation with spouses of legislators in DC having business interests is a difficulty. The McGlone situation raised questions that should be of public concern because a process that should be trouble-free and having integrity beyond question is an abstract thing that human nature can fail to live up to. But that is not cause to say everybody does it and move on it is cause to resist and wish to reform a thing when flaws appear.

The public being able to ask and get answers is the entire point of the public data disclosure law. It is the intent. The "privatization" proviso was added exactly because loophole exploitation was expected and the intent was to close it off as wrong, and to try to make stonewalling and withholding of disclosure more difficult even if human nature in instances might move the other way.

Emily McGlone having a job is not a wrong thing - it is helping a household prosper. Colin McGlone being on council means it is his job to make decisions, and we can agree or disagree. Yet when the McGlone job is with Flaherty and the McGlone council decisions have favored Flaherty's pecuniary interests greatly, and one follows the other the thing simply appears wrong in a host of ways and needs exposure and that means officials have to go public and the "privatization" proviso of the Data Disclosure Law must be honored in practice, or we have bad government.

With a bit known, that the employment exists and assertions were made that detail is private and "They said I do not have to tell you a thing" is intolerable as a response to wanting to know all, as being in the public interest; and a public entitlement. We have the right to know. It is that simple.

Who knew what when, and what earlier understandings were (vs might-have-been guessing) in bringing the Flaherty process to breaking ground and then the McGlone employment being right upon breaking ground - all that raises a host of questions over unsavory possibilities and there either is an email trail and paper trail that the public can examine and use in reaching understandings vs. inferences, or if none, major questions appear and worries cannot be avoided.

If there is nothing to hide then there is no motive to hide, and vice versa. That's a basic premise to start from.

If either there consciously is no paper/email trail, i.e., one was avoided; or if one as in the normal course of things exists but is denied, withheld, lied about, again major questions arise.

Clean as Caesar's wife, clean as the driven snow are phrases that arose in wanting things better than they too often are.

__________UPDATE - A THOUSAND WORDS__________

RAMSEY - Privatization of "Governmental Functions." And Emily McGlone's arguably improper job with Flaherty's people (in light of HRA Chairman Colin McGlone's voting record and his ongoing Flaherty project advocacy). Specifically, privatization of the Town Center hoopla machine and one of its more pleasant aspects, for citizens' entitlement to sunshine.

Having nothing to do with Ramsey -
Is it a valuable bird dog that invites in a skunk?
reprinted from July 1, 2011

Outsourcing, privatization, call it what you want. But are there any contract terms implied at law, or which if not included in a privatization would void the deal?

The question arises in the context of the McGlone family and the Emily McGlone employment by Flaherty's people, and the why in the world lady did you not just say no situation, see preceding posts.

Crabgrass reader "Ryan" in comments here and here noted:

I've heard talk of not wanting anything to even "smell" of impropriety when HRA dealings are in play and this disappointingly "smells". It doesn't even matter if Mrs. McGlone is perfectly qualified for the job, this was just flat out a mistake and a poor PR move by the council/city whomever is responsible. And i can't wait to hear about the fact that it's a private market opportunity and she has every right to apply. The bottom line is the city is WAY too involved in this project to consider this private market....DISAPPOINTED

and

This reflects poorly on the council and the city and now I'm wondering when the next "anonymous" letter will be plastered in the Star Tribune ruining the reputation of our great town again. DISAPPOINTED! And go ahead and tell me that I don't know all the details because I admit I don't. What you obviously don't realize is that it doesn't matter in the court of public opinion. On the surface this flat out looks bad, and in a lot of cases the surface is all it takes to turn would be truly private land buyers and developers away from a project that has alleged impropriety involved with it.

[emphasis added] So, what's that to do with privatization? Well, during the one time I spoke at the Flaherty trailer location in Town Center with Colin's wife, she responded to an inquiry that her employment contract was a private thing, her employer need not disclose anything to me, and she then added, "They told me I do not have to tell you anything." Despite that, she did disclose that her job was brokered in part through Ryan Cronk - a city fiduciary - that is, owing the city a duty of loyalty and dealing in the city's interest - a fiduciary loyalty fitting a dog often in cartoons, named, "Fido." (Same Latin origin for both words.)

Laying out aspects of a key privatization: As an initial observation, the latest privatization after key competent engineering people left for greener pastures, is reported by Sakry, here.

All this has more to do with an earlier privatization, one coincident in time with the city buying distressed Town Center land pending foreclosure a few summers ago (in 2009 if I remember correctly i.e., before Matt Look quit on his city council job mid-term to chase the bigger county board paycheck), with the city bot buying that mess out of foreclosure and deciding to play developer - amateur hour - and contracting then to privatize the PR function of development, with the hoopla machine contract having been awarded to Vegas-loving Landform folks who conjured up a "so-called" Development Management Team [but you may ask, "Where's the development when all I see is "rebranding" and a big sign on the highway"]. There were initially three outsiders brought in, along with Nelson on staff joining, but with the city's "Development Management Team" presently contracted to two individuals, Darren Lazan and Ryan Cronk, with no staff person reassigned to the role Nelson exercised.

These Screenshots, show how the City created a semi-privatized hoopla organ called "COR at Ramsey" (red commentary and highlighting added to current as-of-today screenshots below).

From City homepage; click to enlarge and read

From City webpages, here; click to enlarge and read

 
Clearly, the semi-privatization hybrid was launched as semi-official - taking on governmental functions while expressly including a city official, Nelson, as part of the so-called Development Management Team with her retaining that roll up until she left for greener pastures. The thing has always stood that interlocked with the city, from its inception.

So, Cronk and Lazan are fiduciaries and perform a delegated Governmental Function re city-owned real estate -- so what? Well, in its wisdom our legislature contemplated that privatization could be used as a mode of avoidance of a great Minnesota sunshine statute, the Public Data Act, and in anticipation that unprincipled folks might use any allowed loophole to drive a dark truck through, they specifically made it binding law on municipalities and those to whom outsourcing contracts are awarded, that no such mischief would be tolerated; Minn. Stat. Sect. 13.05, subd. 11, with Sect. 13.05 creating a timely compliance duty with Ramsey's City Clerk per her designation as Public Data Act compliance agent for the city; and with Subd. 11 closing the "hiding it via privatized contracting and/or outsourcing" loophole [stating, with emphasis added]:

Subd. 11.Privatization.

(a) If a government entity enters into a contract with a private person to perform any of its functions, the government entity shall include in the contract terms that make it clear that all of the data created, collected, received, stored, used, maintained, or disseminated by the private person in performing those functions is subject to the requirements of this chapter and that the private person must comply with those requirements as if it were a government entity. The remedies in section 13.08 apply to the private person under this subdivision.

(b) This subdivision does not create a duty on the part of the private person to provide access to public data to the public if the public data are available from the government entity, except as required by the terms of the contract.

That's some pretty good stuff. Sunshine-wise. Citizens are not mushrooms is what it says, and you cannot privatize sunshine away.

There are only two legitimate ways to look at the law; and I like both. Either that provision, by its enactment is an implied covenant in any city-privatization contract whether expressly written or not; or any contract written without it is void as against public policy. Now, in the latter case that would mean a void contract, Darren would be entitled to no commissions and would have to make restitution of any city money his firm has received; less what he might be entitled to in quantum meriut, which to me is zero because he and his magic dashboard spreadsheet stuff (which Elvig claims to never get to see enough of), has that apparent discernible value, in my judgment, although Lazan and Cronk may argue otherwise.

I suppose there is a third legitimate way to look at things; stonewalling by Cronk and/or Lazan would be a material breach of contract, a breach of fiduciary duties owed City of Ramsey (compliance with law being implicitly required), and a willful and intentional breach of clear law; which collectively would entitle the City to refuse performance of contract obligations otherwise applicable to the City - such as payment of commissions, as but one example. And if there were to anyway be a paying money not owed after a contract breach happens - what would that say about officials and their view of public duty? It would be like wiping one's feet on a Public Data Law copy. Ugly in the extreme.

Hat tips. A reader having knowledge of Public Data Law requirments deserves thanks for calling all of MS Sect. 13.05 to my attention. The Timberjay newspaper in Ely, and its owner-publisher, Marshall Helmberger, deserve a big-time hat tip, for being a real newspaper doing investigative journalism of a kind we in the north metro should want to have. Helmberger's public data disclosure efforts have been reported here, here, here, and here for example [with the first two items public and not behind a subscription wall], and he has litigated against a stonewall by privateers (that is the term for privatization beneficiaries, isn't it?).

Helmberger's effort has established a Dept. of Administration precedent; this link.

So, what's Crabgrass' data request to be? Well, it is written and submitted before this post is published, so, here it is in its most relevant part:

There probably are shorter ways to phrase requests to pin things down, but anybody saying it is unclear what is requested and what the aim is cannot be sincere in saying that.

Good faith with the City's primary election now less than a month away is to not stonewall or play games. I think people will be reasonable that way. After all, stonewalling leaves citizens in their voting to draw whatever conclusions they may, while disclosing the pay level and history of Emily McGlone getting that job might disarm the worse of suspicions.

___________UPDATE___________
In looking at that request item, there is a bit of confusion of wording on the item's number 4 entry; but standing on what's there and clear, especially on the first three requests makes sense. I want the Landform insiders, per law, to disclose what they did while owing the city a fiduciary duty and having a disclosure duty derivative of the City's, per MS 13.05, subd. 11.

In the precedential situation up north: The initial ALJ determination re the Timberjay paper that was overturned on administrative review was reported in part, here.

Interestingly, dubious bonding was at issue too; this link (with Timberjay discussion concerning possible intentional effort to bypass sunshine via sequentializing contracts rather than sensibly making them parallel); see closing MPR paragraphs:

"The big concern here is if companies like Johnson Controls can use this as sort of an umbrella contract, and then they go out and hire everybody," Helmberger said. "That could be riddled with conflicts of interest and secret deals ... and their contention is that the public would never be able to see any of those contracts."

The Data Practices statute says data kept by private companies in the course of performing a government function should be public, but the statute doesn't define government function, said Mark Anfinson, a media attorney who helped Helmberger on the case.

Anfinson said the case is significant for those who believe the public and the media should be able to examine government contractors' records.

"It's an important precedent, because it deals with an important aspect of government, which is private companies that do contract work with government — a pretty big portion of the whole stream of business in this state," he said.

[emphasis added] In another MPR item, under the subhead, "FROM CONSULTANT TO PROJECT MANAGER" the situation is further explored. An interesting side observation, this official item was signed off on by a "Spencer Cronk."

But anyway, all that funny contracting stuff, that's up on the Iron Range.

Not in our fine upstanding pillar-of-rectitude Ramsey. Where there would not be a blanket Development Management Team contract where subcontracting disclosure could arguably be suppressed, right? Not Ramsey, no intentional stonewall interposition.


.................................

In closing, again, I refirm and reemphasize my expectations - i.e, looking forward to both good faith and promptness in a response duty being met as befits time pressures of having a primary election weeks away.

"Just Say No." The Emily McGlone employment by Flaherty interests when Colin McGlone is Ramsey's HRA head and has been the driving force in Ramsey giving Flaherty a massive free parking subsidy, concessions on SAC and WAC charges, and millions of city bonding to risk in Flaherty's adventure - and has been a deciding factor in numerous 4-3 council votes. It does not look right to me, just saying "Yes" with zippo by way of disclosure to citizen-voters - to a public having a right to know.

UPDATE: Vote the sidebar poll, which closes noon, Aug. 14. Omitted option: What entity issues McGlone paychecks and who signs? That seems material to me. Sorry for the omission. I intend to analyze the Emily McGlone situation, where she said "Yes," in drawing money from Flaherty either directly or via intermediaries such as a general contractor, a local undercapatilized LLC, or some such, with detail so far being withheld willfully from public disclosure. Is she paid $75,000-$100,000 per year for the duration, with a super benefits package, or $12,500 per year without benefits? You tell me. She won't, or so far hasn't. And all this in light of employment opportunities in Ramsey presently not being too promising - for those not spouses of council folks at least - and the McGlone husband has been passionately driving to fire city clerical staff who presumably would be qualified for the job of project clerk, but it went to a council spouse, so go figure. Whether or not there was some advanced deal, employment under super-bonus terms in exchange for votes, we in the public do not know. And we in the public can expect denials of that, whatever the truth may be. So first, to paraphrase the Jerry McGuire film line, "Show me the money flow trail."

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.

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.

RAMSEY - Sakry of ABC Newspapers reports on the recent vote to plunge ahead now on the Sunwood realignment.

It is a detailed report, this link.

The bid came in lower than the engineering department's estimate, with the contract reported to be for $2,342,826. Sakry reports "The total cost of the project, including the acquisitions on three parcels, is approximately $5,627,000." The lion's share is then approximately $3,284,000, for buying land. Reporting did not dlsclose how that will be handled without causing a tax increase. Or further bonding debt. Construction financing, itself, was reported by Sakry:

Anoka County will be paying for about $1.7 million of the project cost and the city will by paying for its portion using $2,801,533 from its equipment revolving fund, tax increment financing from District 2, storm water utility fund, water utility fund, sanitary sewer utility fund, Economic Development Authority funds and street light utility fund.

The city will also be using $500,000 in excess rail funding, which resulted because of the Ramsey Northstar Rail station bids came in lower than expected, and a $500,000 Local Road Improvement Project (LRIP) grant from the Minnesota Department of Transportation.

Funds appear to be juggled around somewhat, in order to pay out money without another bonding round like that done for indulging Flaherty. Anticipated land acquisition costs explains why the city foresees paying $2,801,533 (an amount exceeding the full contract price for the actual work). The lion's share going to property acquisition. Strangely, before this year's elections the City is binding itself for a contract impacting land it does not now own. Moreover,

Elvig is concerned about the timing of the project.

While the city received a really good bid for the construction, he is concerned about how much money the council is pulling from city utility and TIF funds and what level it will leave in those fund pools, he said.

The city has put a lot of money into The COR and [...] “We don’t even have letters of intent (in the COR) and here we go plowing into another project,” he said.

Elvig offered an amendment to the contract motion to have the road project delayed until more land development occurs.

The amendment was defeated.

Jeff Wise is entitled, of course, to negotiate as best he can for a buyout of his present liquor store location and for a relocation and I believe such negotiations have been ongoing from well before this contract was awarded.

By the start of next year Wise may or may not remain on council.

Shifting funds and using reserves arguably reflects an unrealistic dogma afoot about avoiding raising of the tax levy rate, whether that would be most prudent or not in terms of the long term fiscal health of the city, etc.

This is so, while the present council is doing all kinds of stuff and running up bond debt to gamble on the outcome of the Flaherty adventure. Whether that money is paid back or not will depend on whether Flaherty can rent that stuff or not, and whether, for instance, Flaherty's personal guarantee will be worth enough should resort to it be needed.

Another matter. As best as I can presently determine, Emily McGlone, wife of Councilmember Colin McGlone, has been working as a project clerk, (I believe that is the job title), for Flaherty (and/or his general contractor - I am unsure of detail as to who or what entity issues paychecks, and in what amount). McGlone handles job duties out of the Flaherty project trailers, south side of Veterans Drive, at the land Flaherty is using. I am aware McGlone duties involve dealing with subcontractors when the project manager is not on site, as I observed that with McGlone and an electrical contractor. I have sent email requests concerning employment detail, and hope for and anticipate helpful and thorough replies, sometime in the next few days.

I am informed and believe that City Attorney Goodrich procured some form of opinion memorandum from the League of Minnesota Cities prior to the McGlone - Flaherty employment and I have emailed a public data disclosure request to the City Attorney to attempt to secure a copy of such a memorandum. I also have requested by email that the McGlones provide the document, presuming they would hold a copy and have reviewed it before the McGlone - Flaherty employment contract papers were signed and the job started. I anticipate I shall be provided the memorandum some time within the week of July 8, as a reasonable time for a response.

I intend to publish more, as I learn more of the facts concerning that employment.

NOTE: Requests are pending on several fronts, and if I encounter stonewalling, that will be reported.

Obviously, if there's nothing to hide there is no need to stonewall, so I do not anticipate it. What I believe I am seeing at present is merely a collective need to attend first to other matters.

I believe that there should be no feeling on the part of persons facing an information request to believe the facts once revealed would,  per se,  be unfavorable. Unless they already know something I do not.

Because surrounding facts not yet public knowledge might be relevant to members of the electorate, no sensible person with nothing to hide (and wanting an informed electorate) would stonewall.

If I do encounter stonewalling, that is something I will report and something I believe would speak for itself.

But I anticipate good faith responses, as that is the proper first step toward knowing detail of events and understandings. Certainly I can always publish what my inquiries have been, and if they go unanswered readers are adult and experienced enough to draw their own conclusions.

___________FURTHER UPDATE____________
Emily McGlone told me face-to-face that her Flaherty employment dated back at least to end of May, early June. Contract papers, if released, would give an exact signing date, and several weeks before that would be needed for Cronk to have first discussed the thing with Flaherty interests before offering; and then time to decide on an "interview" as was claimed. So that would place beginnings at early to mid May, unless the McGlone statement to me was her representing when things to her awareness began, which she said was when Cronk spoke to her of the opening, as hers if she wanted it but conditioned upon final decision by others.

Why Cronk was in this, AT ALL, and what previous discussions he may have had with Colin McGlone before Emily was in the loop; your guess is as good as mine so long as relevant and material information is being withheld from public awareness and judgment. I remain available, at a time and place convenient to the McGlone spouses to further discuss the situation, or to review whatever documents they hold. Emily McGlone said they'd "cleared things with the lawyers" before she took Flaherty employment, but was vague if not evasive, yet volunteering "there was an LMC opinion" which neither Goodrich nor the McGlones have yet provided me despite emails to each requesting a copy be provided me. Surely, as other matters compelling their attention get resolved and there is time enough, neither will stonewall me. I eagerly await seeing this purported sanitizing document.

Justice Brandeis back in 1914 did say "Sunshine is the best disinfectant," and the sun shines every day; as days pass and the primary nears. All that is needed is exposing a few papers or so to that sunshine and its beneficent effects.

Interestingly, Brandeis delivered that familiar phrase within an item titled, "Other People's Money." Don't take my word for it. Look it up.

Official corruption. Slimy is a good word for it.

Last night 60 Minutes did a rerun of a November 2011 Leslie Stahl interview segment with Jack Abramoff after he had served his jail time. Abramoff openly described how he corrupted the political process in DC.

As Abramoff explains in the video all should view again online, his main modus operandi was approaching folks in public service and saying something to the effect, "After you leave your public function, we'd really like to have you join our business."

In his offering a job that way, once the hook became set by the marked individual talking in response to an offering suggestion about jobs and possibilities, Abramoff said he and associates knew from experience that was the point where they owned that individual for all practical purposes. He openly called his approach "a bribe."

Abramoff was critical of all those in the system, liking it and seeing no evil in terms of what they might change and reform. He said if there is no vigilance, no criticism, how low a denominator will we reach? He contended that his being made an example really has not changed a thing. The single DC politician who took a fall along with Abramoff for criminal conduct and his key staffer, also appear in the Stahl-Abramoff segment.

The entire fifteen minute item from last November is available on YouTube and everyone approaching this year's election and wondering about how to vote should view that web item.

So, follow this link, to watch the entire Stahl-Abramoff civics lesson on the insinuation of corruption among political actors, (where the most obvious good faith answer is Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No"}.

Here is a screen capture from the video of the man explaining his callous practices. (As always, click the image to enlarge and read.)

This link. This web search.

Slimy. The screen capture I posted above was deliberately enlarged from the still video capture box to include some comments down to the one viewer comment judging things in discussion with the word "slimy." It seems appropriate wording to me.

That in a nutshell is why I believe we all should recall and again judge the earlier recent Crabgrass post about the justified press coverage some of Norm Coleman's family's conduct attracted. It was coverage about his living arrangement where a crony gave a discounted sweet rental situation in DC where there was the appearance that the crony may have attained unfair leverage over the Senator and his actions. Coverage of Coleman also was about where money was routed from a Nasser Kazeminy business entity, through the Coleman wife, or allegedly so, for work not performed or with money in amounts out of line with prevailing compensation levels for such work - and why was Laurie Coleman picked for the Kazeminy largesse and not Laurie Diddlezilch unrelated to any officeholder - and, lastly, with all conduct subject to the presumption of the reasonable old saying, where there's smoke there's fire.

What were people thinking? It is totally appalling to me that the man only lost reelection by a scant 300 votes after all that was publicly exposed. We need better citizen awareness and judgment.

If you wonder about how someone on the receiving end of a questionable job offer situation of the kind Abramoff described could ever do such a thing, how could they compromise themselves by injuring their reputation in the political community and tainting the political process and the trust it should merit - my guess, they are ethically weak and prone to rationalizations or else so callous as to think everybody does it and I'm getting mine.

They lack a "Just Say No" mentality when the favor is dangled before their eyes. The offer entices and the will and integrity to do anything but just say yes dissolves.

But Abramoff, that is DC (where everyone does it?) and we should demand and expect that our local politicians and candidates are to be pure as the driven snow and free from any such taint. If not we should want to cull early, the earlier the better in a political career, before it can make it to DC.

Moreover, you can have somebody dumb and so clueless that there is no consideration of questionable job acceptances and how they might appear to citizens. Also, you can have someone so arrogant and self-centered that they are dismissive of a citizen will to want to know or judge or care. Finally, you can have someone so greedy or desperate for a cash flow, another cash flow, that they forgo good judgment for bad; with the enticement overriding all else. However it happens, there is a taint.

--------------------------------

I suppose with an election soon, a good attitude is that those with too large an ego and arrogant personality, or with any signs of a will to compromise when the rules of good conduct are reasonably clear, should be unceremoniously but decisively defeated at the polls.

Defeat at the polls can sometimes be the only remedy - a point that needs an example. So, for an example of how politicians can juggle rules to insulate themselves from any effective remedy the public should hold to oust offenders of the Abramoff corrupted kind; of the Colman corrupted kind; consider that in our little town, Ramsey, they have this nice charter, with a nice section 5 on "INITIATIVE, REFERENDUM AND RECALL," and wow, what are the recall processes we need to know if we ever believe there is malfeasance, misfeasance, or nonfeasance?

Click this thumbnail image to enlarge and read, and then as a civics lesson go figure why things were done this way and why the amendment footer is unhelpful in saying which bunch on council is responsible for a near impossibility to remove a crony on council.

I am at a loss to know what this "in its descretion" stuff is supposed to mean: "The council shall, at its next meeting, by resolution, provide for the holding of a special recall election within ninety days after such meeting, the council may, in its discretion, provide for the holding of the recall vote at that time." To me it means "may or may not" so that cronyism can scuttle an otherwise fine and proper citizen petition effort, and it can happen regardless of the merit of the underlying charges if the council "in its discretion," i.e., for any reason or for none, decides the glove don't fit, per the famous O.J. Simpson trial oneliner. That's within their power, per the charter, even when the glove does fit.

Does it make any sense whatsoever to you to provide for a recall that a council possibly tainted by cronyism can scuttle in a heartbeat, for an otherwise valid citizen initiated procedure, and that there is no standard of judgment beyond "at its discretion?"

That's a blank check, folks. Brought to you by local government.

And it seems to make us a government of men and not of law, where the founding fathers had something to say about the best practice being the other way around.

Swallow that if you can, but then you encounter that part about how big a vote they demand in a recall election. It can only be then an issue at a general election, and it will be down ballot and inadequately reviewed in advance by the bulk of voters.

Essentially, they say you have a recall right, yet practically, you do not. A great thing to know, isn't it? Until you are aware of something you cannot begin to clean it up. To provide a remedy. And it is the duty of the establishment press to point out situations of questionable conduct, as was done in the Coleman situation and should be done by reporters whenever they know of questionable situations - or as someone split hairs with me recently, when there can be a perception of a questionable situation. It is a duty to inform the public.

Remember Norm Coleman -- the close election loss, the allegations about Kazeminy buying Coleman expensive suits as an improper gift and allegations of Norm being accorded discounted rent in DC by a crony, as well as allegations of Kazeminy routing money to Norm via Norm's wife Laurie, ostensibly earned as a generally prevailing fair compensation for services, with that money routed through Hays Companies as an intermediary? Norm lost that election when his response was to fume and rant, and ...

... inadvisably stonewall.

Those were the days. Everybody read about it. One would have expected back then, with that as a background event receiving such widespread coverage and disapprobation, that no savvy politician in the future would dare put himself/herself into any similar situation, spousal favors, gift problems, all that. That there would be a learning curve.

In some situations when folks withhold evidence they hold within their exclusive custody and control and do not disclose it, especially when an ordinary person would perceive a duty or propriety to give disclosure, there can be a common-sense presumption that juries in litigation can apply, and voters during an election can equally apply, in voting.

As an example of a long standing and quite general principle, Kmetz v. Johnson, 261 Minn. 395, 401-02, 113 N.W.2d 96 (Minn. 1962) states in relevant part:

The general rule that has prevailed in this state permitting an unfavorable inference to be drawn from failure to produce evidence in the possession and under the control of a party to litigation is well stated [...]

"If either party to this action has failed to adduce evidence within its control which is reasonably calculated to throw light upon the conduct and responsibility of either party, such failure may be considered by the jury as tending to militate against the contention of such party with reference to the issue regarding which such evidence would have been pertinent."

In commenting on this instruction, we said:

"* * * The presumption, arising from the spoliation or suppression of evidence, that it would, if produced, be unfavorable to the party destroying or suppressing it, obtains with most force to the case of documentary evidence in the exclusive possession and control of the party. But the presumption is not necessarily limited to such cases. It is true that no unfavorable inference arises in ordinary cases from the mere failure to call as a witness one whom the other party had the same opportunity of calling or one whose testimony would be merely cumulative."

And there can be a common-sense presumption, depending on circumstances, of a collective will or effort to suppress, i.e., a presumption of evidence, if disclosed, being unfavorable is a presumption that need not be limited to any single individual and his/her nondisclosure. Really, it is just a matter of common sense inferences to draw from particularized facts of any situation, whether there is a moral or ethical duty to disclose situation details - it depends of course on circumstances, and no two situations are exactly alike in all aspects. In part, it's a gut-feeling of [im]propriety that can be determinative.

TARRYL CLARK -and- Keeping informed about progressive thinking in Minnesota. Thinking that will make the "Minnehampshire" guy who ambushed Oberstar a single term Tea Partier.

View the video. This link.

 
The guy that way-laid Obestar has Tea Partied with his New Hampshire family while Clark has been in Minnesota thinking of ways to make Minnesotan lives more secure and less worrisome as unemployment threatens such basic human rights as being able to attain medical help, whether employed or not, and having the overall national costs of medicine and medical care contained by reasonable single payer coverage.

Medicare works for the elderly.

Senior citizens do not at all think giving it up would be good for the nation. They stand up for their rights.

VA coverage works for veterans.

Veterans do not at all think their giving up VA coverage would be good for the nation. Like the elderly, veterans also stand up for their rights.

And the elderly and veterans clearly are spot-on correct and right-headed about what is both good for them, and for the entire nation.

Now the doors to such rights need to be open to all. Such a reform is long overdue. It has been only HMO and Big Pharma greed and lobbying that has stymied this need for decades, (with Truman after World War II wanting sensible coverage, and it being stalled and stymied then, and ever since).

Clark now is advocating such an enlightened and humane way of politics beyond the politics of DC lobbyists with tons of money and beyond Tea Party politics of hate and blind rage.

But in fairness, let Clark's writing explain things her way, rather than having you told of things second-hand, as I or as GOP propagandists might misstate or distort points. From


http://www.tarrylclark.com/


Without abridgment or other editing, she's posted this:

Tarryl Clark calls for “Medicare for All” following Supreme Court Ruling on Healthcare Reform

Opening access to Medicare to all Americans would cost less than other insurance, guarantee quality care

For immediate release June 25th, 2012
Contact: Chris Kluthe Chris@TarrylClark.com (952) 994-9316


(Duluth, MN) – Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling this morning upholding the Affordable Care Act, 8th District Congressional Candidate Tarryl Clark urged Congress to pass Medicare for All, which would allow all Americans access to the popular Medicare healthcare insurance.

“Congressman Cravaack has already announced his commitment to putting big, for-profit health insurance companies back in charge of our healthcare, letting them return to denying coverage to people with asthma or cancer, and blocking women’s access to cancer screenings,” said Clark. “Now that we are sure the Affordable Care Act is constitutional, it’s time to move on and get to work containing healthcare costs.”

“If elected to Congress, I promise to fight for Medicare for All,” added Clark. “Medicare has by far the lowest overhead of any insurance out there, and this proposal would guarantee everyone access to quality healthcare without any question of its constitutionality. Together with other cost saving measures like negotiating drug prices, this will help bring skyrocketing medical costs under control.”

Medicare is overwhelmingly popular. July 2011 Pew Research pol found that 88% of Americans support Medicare -- including 85% of Republicans, 85% of Independents, and 93% of Democrats. According to the New York Times, Medicare is also less expensive than private insurance thanks to lower administration costs and its focus on patient care instead of corporate profits.

“This election gives voters a clear choice. I support Medicare for All while my Republican opponent Congressman Chip Cravaack supports Paul Ryan's plan to end Medicare,” noted Clark.

Tarryl Clark continues to campaign throughout Minnesota’s 8th Congressional District to unseat Freshman Tea Party Congressman Chip Cravaack. Clark’s twenty-four years of work on behalf of Minnesota’s seniors, children, veterans, and families, and unmatched funding make her the strongest candidate to win in November. Since leaving the Minnesota Senate, Clark serves as the national co-chair of the Jobs! 21 Initiative with the Blue-Green Alliance, where she continues working to create good, sustainable jobs in Minnesota and around the country.
Posted on June 28, 2012

[Links are from the Clark original] If Medicare coverage is good enough for seniors, isn't it good enough for you?

Isn't it better than being kept on tenderhooks, "for your own good" by collusive employer-insurer "don't-lose-your-job-or-you're-screwed-blue" plans?

Of course it is.

Again, the video.


____________UPDATE___________
For anyone thinking my own views extreme, (e.g., that everybody should have the healthcare decency that veterans and senior citizens enjoy), and who might think my views are Clark's, things are not that simple.

We converge on some medicare thinking, but she has a spectrum of ideas that are not a bit controversial, except for overreaching by the other side, and those thoughts deserve voter attention.

And her family is here in Minnesota and backing her 100%.

Even with her campaign in a neighboring district where we do not vote; READ THIS.

Clark intently wants to keep decent jobs here while her Tea Party opponent is wanting to ship offshore whatever good jobs we have that can be outsourced.

Clark is an independent thinker while her opponent has shown a willingness to submit to party leadership directives rather than to analyze and vote independently.

Clark is a better person to trust to be a twenty-first century Congressperson with a belief the nation is excellent yet can be bigger and better with her effort and effort by others, while her opponent wants to make the government smaller and less civil to all but the rich and the warrior bunch who have led us into two disasters against the Muslim world and are courting a third such mistake.

The August 14 Primary Election. Absentee voting at Ramsey City Hall.

Absentee ballots can be requested by mail, or in person with Ramsey residents able to vote in Ramsey or at the County Center in Anoka, first floor, elections office.

I voted yesterday at City Hall. The reception desk is where you get a ballot, and they have the special marking pens and all. It is good that no photo-ID requirement exists, you can give final digits or a social security number or a drivers' license code but you need something by way of identification that way, and more beyond what already is in place would be unnecessarily burdensome.

But you do not need it. Reason prevails for now. In Ramsey, ballots are printed and available, by Ward/Precinct; mine being Ward 2 Precinct 2. I would post a sample ballot and link, but that info is not available online yet. Two weeks before the primary it should be posted, but absentee voters have to fend without reviewing a sample ballot first, for now.

Any reader believing sample ballots are online, and knowing a link, should either email or post the info by leaving a comment.

Front side of the ballot, three columns one for each party, and you cannot cross between columns. I went DFL.

Back side of the ballot, county commissioner and for Ramsey wards having a primary there are ballot choices. Ward 2 has three candidates. There are four seeking the County Board District 1 seat.

PROPAGANDA. You want propaganda? I can turn you on to some prime propaganda, straight from the horse's - well, you guess which end.

This link. This screen capture:

You really want to do this? Put on your hip waders then because it gets deep, this link.

Executive summary: Cut taxes further on the wealthy. Withdraw/repeal further regulation, especially environmental safeguards. Tort reform - aka make those pesky plaintiffs go away, with their maimed bodies and such, or cap their recoveries at a pittance. Promote the NRA. Solicit donations.

And hey, I have not even read it. YOU read it. Tell me I am wrong.

"What our plan does" page. (Hint: It propagandizes in Gingrich-speak - "a key mechanism of control"). Next, a bonus image:

Propaganda clown. Golf addict.

UPDATE: A second bonus image:

Trying to understand sewer/water arrangements between City of Ramsey and Flaherty and Collins. UPDATED, per comment and email messages.

I got this email response from the city administrator replying to an email request I had sent jointly to him, to the city CFO, and to the HRA chairman. I have sent back a few follow-up questions because I am unsure of details and hence will for now simply post the email response that was sent me:

In response to your inquiry ("What are the per unit SAC and WAC assessments being leveled upon Flaherty? What of that is being city-subsidized?") the per unit SAC fee for the Flaherty and Collins apartment project is $2,365, and the WAC fee is $1,640. As part of the development agreement, the entire amount was paid by the HRA utilizing existing tax increment revenue streams. The HRA, in acting as the developer on this project, undertook payment of these fees as a developer obligation, and the full amounts were charged to the project in order to remain consistent with our City SAC and WAC policy.

Please note, HRA Chair McGlone and Finance Director Lund, are aware of this response and have been copied, along with all members of our City Council.

[bolding added]. Those are assessments, per housing unit (per dwelling unit set to benefit from sewer/water being a provided government service to such dwelling unit), as the city administrator noted. I am unsure if total cost to other residents would be in line with those amounts (on a per dwelling unit basis), were we subjected to having sewer/water run down our roads and having to hook up. I am trying to pin that down.

What confuses me most, is the sentence, "As part of the development agreement, the entire amount was paid by the HRA utilizing existing tax increment revenue streams."

That reads as if we all in town now are subsidizing 100% of Flaherty's SAC and WAc charges, which also seem quite low per dwelling unit. These are the kinds of questions I am trying to pin down, the facts, of Flaherty relative to existing detached dwelling units that may in the future have to connect to city sewer/water. Whether there is a disparity.

Certainly the HRA will not pick up our tab, but, what else????

It seems the HRA has been over-generous with the Flaherty interests, and the only redress available is the ballot box.

I had said I would only post the email, but in retrospect, adding my concerns and uncertainties was a step I believed would help readers. I await further city info.

____________UPDATE___________
More confusion, before we can have it all clarified to publish. Darren Lazan sent me a quick email note, I do not know if he did any bcc, but there was no indication of any cc, but since I posted Kurt's info already, it is only fair to post this too - even though for now I do not know what to make of things beyond noting they are confusing. Darren wrote:

The fees quotes to you were not correct. I'm traveling today but can clarify. Essentially, the city was paying itself the fees so nobody challenged the amount. $ went from tif funds direct to utility funds.

Had the normal discussion occurred, and accounting for recent fee changes, those fees would not have been anywhere near $2.4m, that just sounds good on the campaign trail. They likely would have been $1.4m max. Still FAR, FAR, FAR out of line.

More work needs to be done so a 600sf studio does not pay the same as a 4000sf McMansion...

Ramsey simply never had to account for a product like this very often. Only one new appt in recent years.

Sent from my iPhone

That contradicts Kurt's response, as posted.

Interjecting "McMansions" into things is a bit like dragging out a red herring across the path of understanding. A 600 sq ft studio with two adults and a child would demand as much water as three adults living in a modest and affordable detached home (without lawn sprinklers - but relying on a domestic private well and private septic system). Each unit would produce sewage at a roughly comparable rate.

And water is scarce. The city presently is not allowed to punch any new municipal wells.

The present subjective feel -- It's apples and oranges, but with it looking as if the apples skate and the oranges are being set up to have to later pay a lot.

But that is a preliminary impression. I hope to have a better understanding to post in the next few days.

__________FURTHER UPDATE___________
Lazan sent a follow-up email and Council member Backous also emailed. I will post each, Darren's first, since it expands on his earlier message:

There are about 10 different development fees - SAC, WAC, sewer trunk, water trunk, sewer lateral, water lateral, park dedication, trail fee, Stormwater fee... Might be one or two more, that's from memory as I sit at a campsite in Ely.

All go to the city, except SAC which goes to met council.

To my knowledge, Deal paid all for VA, but EDA paid about <=$200k for SAC on his building when the Falls was added. SAC credits stay with the building forever, so that is an asset of Deal as the building owner. EDA also granted assistance on top of that for George Wells, but ultimately George did not take that loan. Likely because bank would not allow EDA first position on equipment. On your previous email... I absolutely understand your point. Typical hardship every growing city sees. I respect the desire of the rural portions of Ramsey to remain rural, it's actually one of the things I like most about Ramsey - they have rural, suburban, and now urban character all in one community. I was simply using that [McMansion vs studio rental] example to illustrate an issue with how development fees are levied. If it is solely based on 'units' a 600 sf studio with one or two residents pay the same as as the largest home in Ramsey that may have 6 people living in it. The water/sewer usage is not the same. That is why FC fees, as quoted, are not accurate. That fee is the equivalent of a 300 home subdivision. Had FC had to pay them it would have been reassessed and negotiated just like Legacy Academy was.

I think that's a fair and helpful statement. It gives no real solace to us who might face high hook-up futures, but that is clearly not something within Darren's reach to change or lessen. His firm's contract is Town Center centered. And his term "development fees" is illuminating. Thinking of them as that, an existing home forced to connect is not "development" but rather "coercion."

Interestingly, what Lazan seems to emphasize is that concessions to Flaherty are not precedential, in arguing that Deal received taxpayer subsidy, and Legacy Christian Academy did too [the latter causing concern over church-state separation, especially presuming that the Christian thing adds nothing to tax base while drawing scarce water and putting its load on the sanitary sewer system]. If everybody but the existing residents get perks, then revenue generation likely will be heavier when present private-water private-septic homes are coerced and assessed [despite absolute zero "benefit" or improvement to a single-family detached dwelling via a forced switch from dependable well/septic services, to municipal surrogate service - all the while remaining a single family detached dwelling having services].

Enough editorializing for now, the sewer/water forced connection is not new but instead reaches back to when James Norman was administrator, Gamec was mayor, and Hendriksen was on council protecting homeowners against coercive and very costly connection effort afoot at those times.

Backous actually submitted a proposed comment, but with all the other things rolled into the main part of the post (and in the updating), Randy's thoughts are published here:

Now you see first hand what we're dealing with in obtaining information in order to make informed decisions in Ramsey. Our own City Administrator and HRA Executive Director provides different numbers than does our Develoment Manager. Then the Development Manager somehow politicizes the question in order to discredit the questioner and distract from the question. This exact scenario plays out weekly and I'm glad the public was finally able to witness it in action.

In addition, many times information is provided last minute due to some "late breaking development" requiring an urgent decision that just can't wait. I understand that this is the nature of the development world which is why we shouldn't be in it. If we can't obtain accurate information and be given enough time to analyze it, we shouldn't be making decisions based on it. Randy

James Norman was a practitioner of the last-minute bombshell tactic, often passing out paper among council members for them to see for the first time at the 10:30 - 11:30 pm timeframe of televised meetings, at a point where tedium had reduced attendance at chambers and broadcast viewing substantially. Norman did that while studiously ignoring repeatedly the requirement of law that papers before the council also had to be placed on the Citezens' side table at the meeting ---- the "we're not mushrooms" requirement, I called it. Strommen and Elvig would remember that. They were on council during Norman times.

___________FURTHER UPDATE__________
Regarding the Christian Academy, I may be in error. Just as Jim Deal built the VA clinic and has lease arrangements with the VA - but with the building going into tax base as a rental venture; I believe I was told, if I recall correctly, that the school will be built by an affiliated but independent entity and rented to the school venture; thus also being in tax base. Any reader keen on that question is urged to ask city officials. But on reflection my recollection is the school and the VA clinic each are additions to tax base.

Brian Lambert is doing interesting writing. Worth your setting a browser bookmark.

He does The Glean at MinnPost.

He has a blog, this being a recent well done sight-gag item (youngsters, ask your mom or dad what it means or Google = Dewey Truman). For my generation, the image is as seared in as the Hindenberg burning, but I guess the entire thing loses impact in the course of an explanation. Anyway, Lambert puts good stuff on the web.