More of the same out of the St. Francis School Board, ABC Newspapers reporting, here; Strib reporting, here. Tammy Sakry and Paul Levy, respectively, writing.
One headline sentence taken from Sakry's item. One from Levy's. In each item the chosen sentence was a stand-alone paragraph.
In each report the single-sentence single-paragraph reporting "67 percent" was almost exactly half-way through the item.
If you were to run both stories through "an online plagerism-checker" one against the other, what's your guess of likelihoods? Well I did not bother trying, time is precious, but if you are curious, do the experiment and report results in a comment.
THE POINT is conscious parallelism can exist and is it "plagerism?"
Things can quickly get to hair-splitting when judgmental words are at issue.
THE BIGGER POINT, when the topic and facts are the same and experienced news reporters write of the story, unconscious parallelism is inescapable.
And that is what the two reports show. When there is only one story and two reports, and each reporter has a reputation for scrupulous objectivity, not editorializing in the news reports; what should you expect? Nuanced alternatives, but if both reports are true to the facts, the truth is there IS only one story.
THE BIGGEST POINT: ABC Newspapers and Strib are REAL newspapers, not anybody's masquerade. Each has existed for years. Each among other things has published legal notices for years. Neither is anyone's overnight brainchild.
Levy and Sakry have written for years. Each bylines what he/she writes. Each has contact information under her/his name online.
Moreover each newspaper is a real newspaper if you consider that the word itself, "newspaper," includes "paper" within the word, with each real and each on sale, on paper, at multiple local outlets - paper version.
Each has a substantial staff, and each has plant and offices on which each pays property taxes. Each has distribution channels, through which those paper versions are delivered on time, and regularly so.
Then there is that subjective thing. You simply know Sakry is nobody's stalking horse, and Levy is nobody's stalking horse either.
Each has built reputations for integrity and gravitas, and done so over years.
-----------------
More on the subjective and objective delving into what is or is not truly a "newspaper," in a later post where presently I am still mulling facts in my mind while waiting on email responses I might receive but which are unlikely.
Meanwhile, apart from any claim of plagerism, have a look here and here, and go back as I will to see how many foreclosure notices got published there as "legal notices". Notices of foreclosure get published by banks and lawyers, sophisticated people who want to get things right in case they may have to convince a judge that statutory notice requirements have been satisfactorily met, in a reasonable and businesslike manner.
Thursday, January 17, 2013
Plagerism? "Using a plagiarism checking website, it was determined that Kelly’s column was 67 percent plagiarized, according to Boardmember Marsha Van Denburgh." "It was Erkel who last week called for a special board meeting to discuss plagiarism allegations against Kelly -- after Van Denburgh said a plagiarism-checking Internet site calculated that Kelly's column was '67 percent' plagiarized."
Boeing's 787 Dreamliner grounding. A simple question with a simple answer -- the question being one that the press seems disinclined to ask and for which Boeing seems disinclined to voluntarily provide its answer.
The joke when I lived in Seattle was that if a 747 were loaded with all the paperwork required by regulators it could not get off the ground. They have the answer on paper.
The question: Were the defective aircraft, or bulk of them assembled in Everett Washington, with experienced workers, or in the new 787 assembly line in South Carolina, a right-to-work [for less] state?
Rupert's Telegraph provides a timeline, this screen capture [but never expect Rupert to ask a question where his anti-labor proclivities might be handed back in ways he might dislike]:
[click the thumbnail image to enlarge and read] In Everett the workers are skilled and experienced in their hand assembly of component parts, and in labor relations; this link.
Same link, from October 2009 reports of Boeing's opening a "second 787 assembly line" in South Carolina [a right-to-work [for less] state]. Obviously a less experienced skill set there compared to the Seattle area's decades of knowing and doing "the Boeing way."
Same link reporting:
An interesting thing, after earlier air and defense industry consolidation, Boeing had existing skilled workforce in place in Washington, Kansas, and California.
The other considered states, South Carolina (winning things), Texax and North Carolina are each right-to-work [for less] states.
Boeing did not go with the established, existing plant/workforce sites.
Go figure.
For further reading of a general sort about the aircraft and the recent grounding, SeattlePI where it's locally important, CBS here, NDTV (a French outlet, i.e., AirBus land, publishing a Boeing-troubles timeline), reporting on the 787 final assembly process here in a trade website, the latter item linking to a photo gallery, here, with this lead pic showing the specialized shop assembly situation in a building necessarily bigger than a Walmart (really):
So, no hint in the general coverage, Everett, or right-to-work [for less] in all that coverage. However, a peep under the kimono where it's at - South Carolina - this link:
That was one problem in the chain of consequences, with the revised report dated most recently, March 2012.
Of the other flaws and problems, the press, as best as I could find, has been largely if not totally silent on where screw-ups are happening.
_____________UPDATE____________
Lithium ion batteries are cited as the major current problem; Seattle PI reporting here and here. That would be a subcontractor-vendor problem, unless incorrectly installed, incorrectly ventilated to allow overheating, or with some regulator circuitry problem causing a battery drain rate inconsistent with engineered heat dissipation. That's best guess from the reporting. Having a brother-in-law driving a hybrid Civic, over 150,000 commuting miles already, without any Lithium ion battery problems one thinks a multi-million dollar airliner would be capable of Honda reliability. Details will emerge. One unclear thing in reporting, how exceptional is this from other new commercial aircraft launches, in terms of early release glitches? Nothing reported suggests a non-flightworthy aircraft, but if the thing is "fly by wire" the wires need juice. Battery failure is a threat. In terms of the opening question, and possible installation error with the batteries, will we learn whether this was Seattle-area assembly, or South Carolina assembly? The question seems to remain relevant unless/until battery manufacturing or design error is isolated as the sole problem.
____________FURTHER UPDATE__________
Online Monday, Jan. 21, 2013, Martin Luther King Day, Chicago Tribune carrying a news feed, opening paragraphs:
With Boeing having moved headquarters from Seattle to Chicago, this now is local news for the Trib.
The question: Were the defective aircraft, or bulk of them assembled in Everett Washington, with experienced workers, or in the new 787 assembly line in South Carolina, a right-to-work [for less] state?
Rupert's Telegraph provides a timeline, this screen capture [but never expect Rupert to ask a question where his anti-labor proclivities might be handed back in ways he might dislike]:
[click the thumbnail image to enlarge and read] In Everett the workers are skilled and experienced in their hand assembly of component parts, and in labor relations; this link.
Same link, from October 2009 reports of Boeing's opening a "second 787 assembly line" in South Carolina [a right-to-work [for less] state]. Obviously a less experienced skill set there compared to the Seattle area's decades of knowing and doing "the Boeing way."
Same link reporting:
Everett is the site of Boeing's commercial aircraft division, where the company has assembled early versions of the 787.
The first flight and deliveries of the high-tech aircraft have been postponed repeatedly due to manufacturing glitches and a labor strike. A walkout by union machinists late last year forced the company to shut its commercial plane operations for eight weeks. Labor relations were considered key to Washington state's bid to keep 787 production in the state.
Besides South Carolina, states initially seen as competitors to Washington included North Carolina, Kansas, Texas and California. But Boeing said last week it had narrowed the choices to Washington and South Carolina.
An interesting thing, after earlier air and defense industry consolidation, Boeing had existing skilled workforce in place in Washington, Kansas, and California.
The other considered states, South Carolina (winning things), Texax and North Carolina are each right-to-work [for less] states.
Boeing did not go with the established, existing plant/workforce sites.
Go figure.
For further reading of a general sort about the aircraft and the recent grounding, SeattlePI where it's locally important, CBS here, NDTV (a French outlet, i.e., AirBus land, publishing a Boeing-troubles timeline), reporting on the 787 final assembly process here in a trade website, the latter item linking to a photo gallery, here, with this lead pic showing the specialized shop assembly situation in a building necessarily bigger than a Walmart (really):
So, no hint in the general coverage, Everett, or right-to-work [for less] in all that coverage. However, a peep under the kimono where it's at - South Carolina - this link:
Shims are little slivers that fill gaps when larger pieces don't fit evenly together. They prevent the kind of internal movement that can be dangerous on an airplane that flies at high altitudes for decades.
Shimming is part of the standard manufacturing process, but if done improperly, one of the possible consequences is delamination, or the separation of the layers of the plane's skin.
While published reports said the shimming problem had led to delamination on assembled Dreamliners, Gunter would not confirm delamination had already occurred.
That was one problem in the chain of consequences, with the revised report dated most recently, March 2012.
Of the other flaws and problems, the press, as best as I could find, has been largely if not totally silent on where screw-ups are happening.
_____________UPDATE____________
Lithium ion batteries are cited as the major current problem; Seattle PI reporting here and here. That would be a subcontractor-vendor problem, unless incorrectly installed, incorrectly ventilated to allow overheating, or with some regulator circuitry problem causing a battery drain rate inconsistent with engineered heat dissipation. That's best guess from the reporting. Having a brother-in-law driving a hybrid Civic, over 150,000 commuting miles already, without any Lithium ion battery problems one thinks a multi-million dollar airliner would be capable of Honda reliability. Details will emerge. One unclear thing in reporting, how exceptional is this from other new commercial aircraft launches, in terms of early release glitches? Nothing reported suggests a non-flightworthy aircraft, but if the thing is "fly by wire" the wires need juice. Battery failure is a threat. In terms of the opening question, and possible installation error with the batteries, will we learn whether this was Seattle-area assembly, or South Carolina assembly? The question seems to remain relevant unless/until battery manufacturing or design error is isolated as the sole problem.
____________FURTHER UPDATE__________
Online Monday, Jan. 21, 2013, Martin Luther King Day, Chicago Tribune carrying a news feed, opening paragraphs:
Reuters
5:45 a.m. CST, January 21, 2013
U.S. and Japanese aviation safety officials investigating problems with Boeing Co's 787 Dreamliner visited the headquarters of the plane's battery maker on Monday, seeking clues into why one of the technologically advanced aircraft made an emergency landing last week.
A spokesman for GS Yuasa Corp, which makes batteries for the 787, said the company was fully cooperating with the investigation, and its engineers were working with the officials from the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Japan's Civil Aviation Bureau (CAB) at the company's compound in Kyoto, where it makes airplane batteries.
CAB official Tatsuyuki Shimazu told reporters the investigating team had been briefed by GS Yuasa and had toured the plant, looking at battery design, production and quality. The Japanese investigation at the plant will continue on Tuesday on a more detailed level, including tracking battery batch numbers and production dates, he said.
Authorities around the world last week grounded the new lightweight Dreamliner, and Boeing halted deliveries after a problem with a lithium-ion battery prompted an All Nippon Airways 787 into the emergency landing at Takamatsu airport during a domestic flight. Earlier this month, a similar battery caught fire in a Japan Airlines' 787 parked at Boston Logan International Airport.
EXPANDED PROBE
U.S. safety investigators on Sunday ruled out excess voltage as the cause of the Boston battery fire on Jan. 7, and said they were expanding their probe to look at the battery's charger and the jet's auxiliary power unit. The battery is one part of the 787's complex electrical system, built by French company Thales SA.
“Results have shown the battery was abnormal in both the Boston and Takamatsu (incidents). They were the most damaged,” Shigeru Takano, a senior safety official at the CAB, told reporters ahead of the on-site visit to GS Yuasa. “We will look into if the work that took place, from design to manufacturing, was appropriate.”
Shares in GS Yuasa, valued at close to $1.5 billion, rose 1 percent on Monday, having dropped nearly 10 percent since the Boston fire. The benchmark Nikkei fell 1.5 percent.
The company, which employs nearly 12,300 staff, expects revenue of 288 billion yen ($3.2 billion) in the year to end-March - with only around 1 percent of that coming from its aircraft battery business. The company's batteries are used primarily in motorbikes, industrial equipment and power supply devices.
GS Yuasa, in which automaker Toyota Motor Corp has a 2.7 percent stake, reported an operating profit of around $160 million in the year to last March.
With Boeing having moved headquarters from Seattle to Chicago, this now is local news for the Trib.
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
RAMSEY - Sakry reports city hiring of an organizational consultant.
ABC Newspapers, this link.
The consultant is Anita Duckor of Duckor and Associates. Sakry's report provides detail.
Among other items, Duckor's website notes, "Directed and developed a strategic plan with Minnesota Land Trust that charted the course for mission-driven growth."
The Land Trust is where, until recently, Mayor Strommen was employed - her day job.
Strommen has indicated to me she was impressed by the Land Trust consulting and suggested Duckor would be helpful in city officials' setting of city goals and priorities.
She also carefully put on record at the televised meeting a similar disclosure of past activity, so that public notice of it was neither withheld nor obscured.
In the most recent council work session (untelevised) Duckor spoke of an intended final deliverable that would be a self-actuating plan or road map, one the City Administrator and staff could apply, without any long-ongoing consultancy arrangement of the kind Ramsey's had in other consultancy situations.
Council and staff would, as part of the deliverable, have a clear presentation of expenditure priorities so that citizens could see a view in advance. Hence, for example, when budget constraints may happen there would have been prior notice of what services would be expected to be affected and curtailed. There would be advance setting of priorities, not a situation of myopic ad hoc juggling where a priority du juor might trump yesterday's municipal gold standard, in a disjointed and inefficient fashion.
That is the story at the start. As always the proof is in the pudding, the devil in the details, tomorrow is another day, and Satchel Paige's nostrum applies, "Don't never look back, something might be gaining on you."
Staff stability and morale may be better set by this.
We shall wait and see.
The consultant is Anita Duckor of Duckor and Associates. Sakry's report provides detail.
Among other items, Duckor's website notes, "Directed and developed a strategic plan with Minnesota Land Trust that charted the course for mission-driven growth."
The Land Trust is where, until recently, Mayor Strommen was employed - her day job.
Strommen has indicated to me she was impressed by the Land Trust consulting and suggested Duckor would be helpful in city officials' setting of city goals and priorities.
She also carefully put on record at the televised meeting a similar disclosure of past activity, so that public notice of it was neither withheld nor obscured.
In the most recent council work session (untelevised) Duckor spoke of an intended final deliverable that would be a self-actuating plan or road map, one the City Administrator and staff could apply, without any long-ongoing consultancy arrangement of the kind Ramsey's had in other consultancy situations.
Council and staff would, as part of the deliverable, have a clear presentation of expenditure priorities so that citizens could see a view in advance. Hence, for example, when budget constraints may happen there would have been prior notice of what services would be expected to be affected and curtailed. There would be advance setting of priorities, not a situation of myopic ad hoc juggling where a priority du juor might trump yesterday's municipal gold standard, in a disjointed and inefficient fashion.
That is the story at the start. As always the proof is in the pudding, the devil in the details, tomorrow is another day, and Satchel Paige's nostrum applies, "Don't never look back, something might be gaining on you."
Staff stability and morale may be better set by this.
We shall wait and see.
Gun fetishists, and those being steered into buy-now, apply-now, think later.
 |
| I'm NOT Teri Gessell in the story. Just a bimbo with a Barrett, to show pretty lady stuff. You got the green, Barrett's got the machine. What the NRA is all about. Think Green. (photo credit, here) |
WCCO, this link:
Anoka County Gun Permit Numbers Soar
A law to ban assault weapons could be introduced soon. And Minnesotans are worried about their future ability to get guns.
On Monday, Anoka County received 49 applications for permits to carry handguns – setting a new one-day record. That topped the previous record set on New Year’s Eve.
Two years ago, Teri Gessell’s husband had a stroke. Two months ago, she decided she’d feel safer with a handgun.
“Because he’s not really a protector anymore,” Gessell said.
So she applied – along with her brother-in-law and sister – for a state permit to carry. That means she’s able to take a handgun anywhere it’s allowed in the state.
“I just decided to do that just in case I wanted to bring it to my office with me, or I want to carry it somewhere. So I would be following all of the laws,” she said.
Gessell says right after President Obama’s reelection, she feared that gun laws would soon change.
“I’m wondering what they’re going to do with the gun laws, so if I could be grandfathered in, I wanted to do that. I don’t know how that’s going to work,” she said.
Any legislation expected to be proposed wouldn’t necessarily apply to Gessell’s gun. But it’s that uncertainty that had people showing up to their sheriff’s office’s service windows around the state. You have to apply for a permit to carry in person in Minnesota.
Cmdr. Paul Sommer of the Anoka County Sheriff’s Office says permit requests are piling up.
[...] In Anoka County, the work to process permits has doubled. The monthly average for the first 11 months of 2012 was 205. In December, it was 409.
“We’re pushing our staff at their limits to get these out on time,” said Sommer.
In Minnesota, only handguns are covered under the permit to carry. In most cases, carrying a loaded shotgun or rifle isn’t allowed, but you don’t need a permit to buy those.
The report goes beyond this opening excerpt; again, WCCO, here. Read it all.
 |
| Trucks, that is. Mine's Ford. (photo from here, caption added) |
Andy at Residual Forces, this link for the latest thinking, also, e.g., here, here, and here, for earlier analysis. Ginning the mill with worry and confusion.
___________UPDATE___________
The latest is Obama made a speech and proposed stuff about firearms. The entire thing is fiddling while Rome is still burning. It is a major orchestrated distraction aimed at inflaming passions, both sides, while fiscal matters get less attention and that's how the lobbyists like things, the politicians too, all that.
Here it is. Read all about it. This excerpt:
Although many of the provisions are being characterized as new pork barrel programs that sneaked their way into the bill under cover of darkness, there's nothing new or secret about any of them.
Most of the tax breaks had been scheduled to expire on Dec. 31, 2011, and as long ago as February, lawmakers were seeking a way to revive them.
Eventually, they were packaged together as the Family and Business Tax Cut Certainty Act of 2012. It was so titled because "people need certainty to plan their finances, and businesses need certainty to hire, invest and grow," as Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the Finance Committee, said when the committee passed the package in August.
Once it was out of committee, the measure went nowhere. That is, until this week, when — with a lame-duck Congress just hours away from going home without having addressed the fiscal cliff — it was substituted almost word for word into the deal brokered by Vice President Joe Biden and Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.
It makes up Titles III and IV of the final bill, with many of the alterations reading like this:
Paragraph (1) of section 7652(f) is amended by striking "January 1, 2012" and inserting "January 1, 2014".
[color highlighting added, italics in original]. That's the nub of the report, the rest is less worthwhile reading. This was no last minute error, it was long-planned pork. Max Baucus is the bastard, you'll remember, who cut the heart out of anything like possible true healthcare reform, with Obama later visiting Montana so he and Baucus could show solidarity. A love-in for Max the Knife. This is the second time Obama has sold out with Baucus a key player, so how many times more?
Kos, here. With links you need to know to have a more educated and informed opinion of how politics is screwing you and family. More than just the feel that it is so.
But wait!
That's not important, because the NRA tells you someone wants to thwart your Glock, where you went and got that permit and can shoot a tighter pattern than Kiffmeyer, (you're a man after all), and that is the government wanting that Glock you carry all over town to feel important and secure, one to be reckoned with, the Glock you used to quell discord and danger how many times was it now? Yeah. Right. Zippo, but ...
That stinking Glock after all is part of your soul and identity, orange cards get mailed telling you so and that soul and identity are under grave threat at present so that you must bellow and rage as the beast your self-image says you are. That's what is important. You're a man! Pound your chest with your Smith and Wesson in one hand, the ankle pistol in the other, to prove that manhood. You are one up on Tarzan who only armed himself with a steel blade, while you have firepower to throw lead all over the place. Wow. You are American icon. You are Schwarzenegger, Bruce Willis, Jesse James, you are what the US of A needs in this time of crisis.
Statistically, the threat of dying from inept driving on the highway far outweighs any likelihood of ever needing to pull the Glock, but we are talking mythos and image, true cultural values, not statistics. After all, have you ever read anything statistical on one of those orange cards telling you who is your local endorsed politico?
Max Baucus is bending you over, but Max, he's alright. He got an A+ back in '08. An A, in 2010. He votes with his heart, and his gun. Max may be on you fiscally, but Federal Cartridge loves you and that's the love that matters. You don't hand load, you buy it boxed and buy it over and over. What's not to love in that?
Spring Lake Park's city-owned liquor store is in the news, because of mold remediation. That is less interesting than the fact that Spring Lake Park owns a liquor outlet. For Ramsey, that relates to the Wiser Choice situation.
The city decision makers, the council, can opt for a range of measures, from condemning the entire property, using it as needed for road improvement, and running the liquor store as city owned - with the price set by judicial decree; to caving in on every whim and fancy Jeff Wise chooses to negotiate.
Obviously reasonableness on both sides would avoid either extreme, but that's far from setting actual detailed terms and conditions. We have to trust the process.
As noted before, the city negotiated with Wise while he was on council, about terms and conditions, with agents representing the city with authority to negotiate but not to bind. Wise, as I understand things, contends basic terms of negotiation between him and the city's non-binding agents stood at terms acceptable to him in Feb. 2012.
Being on council and knowing the process, I cannot see how Wise can credibly claim reliance on things at the negotiation level with people he knew or should have known were without power to bind. If unsure, it was his duty to check sufficiently with other town officials to determine the scope of the agents' authority.
Next, the argument Wise should have made late in his term on council but did not make is now subject, if there is litigation, to claims of waiver, estoppel, laches and ratification, the ratification being that Wise continues even now to negotiate, months after having had an adverse council decision. Laches basically means not moving when timely, sitting and diddling; and not moving when timely can be considered waiver of then-timely actions and argument. Or not, depending on who decides and the mood of the decision maker, (judges varying one by one, and for one, day by day).
Without ever seeing reporting of which statute was in November deemed problematic regarding Wise, his property, and his council position, I can only flesh out an argument that would then have been sound to advance, regardless of the statute, if it was enacted (or last amended) prior to 2003 and/or 2006.
The argument, and this is from a non-lawyer and my understanding is it was not advanced back in November or so and is clearly a questionable hypothetical, but sketched below.
Worth noting early, if opinions on the law never differed we would not need courtrooms or a judiciary.
That said, my focus (if in Jeff's place) would have been MS Ch 117; especially:
[emphasis added] The argument would be not that there was error or wrong to Wise negotiating with the city while on council; but that he was legally bound to do so irrespective of other considerations; via MS 117.036, Subd. 3.
The argument would also hinge upon an earlier Ch. 117 pubic policy statement:
Key Sect. 117.012, Subd. 1 language is, "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, [... government] must exercise the power of eminent domain in accordance with the provisions of this chapter, including all procedures, definitions, remedies, and limitations. Additional procedures, remedies, or limitations that do not deny or diminish the substantive and procedural rights and protections of owners under this chapter may be provided by other law, [...]". [italics added] Suggesting that Wise could not be on council and negotiate preliminary to a condemnation where the city is ostensibly the only instigating party would have "diminished" Jeff's substantive right to remain on council.
Moreover, additional law not impinging on procedural requirements of the chapter, or on owner rights, are the only exceptions allowed [along with inapplicable watershed stuff].
Finalizing the argument with authority on statutory construction, esp. MS Ch. 645, would flesh out the more mechanical aspects of things.
The argument, in essence, is that a general recently enacted statute applying specifically to all instances of eminent domain preempts considering Jeff's status as a city official, re MS Sect. 471.87 and similar statutes, which would apply in dealings other than eminent domain.
Continuing the argument - For the Wiser Choice site, because there was intent for a taking for a public purpose, even by litigation if needed, eminent domain law preempts contrary law, with clear recent statutory eminent domain law saying parties must negotiate first, without any implied or expressly stated exception or qualification upon whether the potential taking was or was not from a city official.
Surely a counterargument is that if statutes conflict the specific controls over the general, and specific to city officials there are measures absent in general legislation. It would be a pithy match between legal theories of statutory construction, which is the general and which the specific statute, had the argument been made in a timely way.
Back to the argument - It would put Wise in an untenable position if the specific statute about officials dealing with the government they are part of were to be read beyond applying only to an entirely voluntary purchase-and-sale dimension; vs. legislatively mandated negotiation with it already clear that a public use was intended which would require either eminent domain or successful bargaining.
A question is why am I beating this horse to death, and the simple answer is it interests me. My worry is prior to the new council taking over an appearance of cronyism might have been argued, particularly with Lazan as the city's fiduciary agent having a personal interest in seeing a closing with a commission to him/his firm, so that whether true arms-length bargaining existed, was unclear. Choice of appraisers on behalf of the city might have been unfair in some way, aimed at attaining valuations which other appraisers might not return. Now things are arms length, clearly so, and if the city seeks new appraisals with different numbers returned, that is the city's prerogative.
Things may need to start anew from square one. A key fact, Wise has remained in possession of his property throughout prior dealings and the entire council voted to reroute Sunwood and its intersection with Armstrong in a way where it did not matter how Wise voted. He was not a deciding vote, with Wise was powerless to alter the numbers his way, either way.
Nor would that normally be grounds to sue the city for damages, "They did road work down the road not touching my retail site and fewer in need of liquor sought me out given that there are competitors around and the driving to my store a bit less convenient." So?
Another key fact, for now there's not cash enough to modify Armstrong where it abuts Wiser Choice, so time is not of the essence. Nothing I know of in any statute or case says the city must file court papers at any time, only that it negotiate in good faith prior to that step, which allegedly was done.
The clearest and quickest resolution now would be for the present council to capitulate to whatever Wise wants, ending things, in a way the council has power to apply. Whether that is best is a subjective value question where opinions may differ, but the power to cut through things and give Wise everything he asks for rests with the council. The only question is whether or not they will go that route, now, with new faces, when the former council in November, for whatever reasons, did not. It was a discretionary thing then, and even if deferring was chosen by a mistaken view of constraints, so what? My preference, as an outsider-citizen, would be to see fresh appraisals by different appraisers, I worry that way, but beyond that, the council is bound to do nothing at all, if it chooses.
Were Wise to say, "I would not have voted for Sunwood alterations but for my seeing a personal interest of mine served by it," that would be an unsound argument, and hence one I would not expect him and his lawyer to make.
Finally, at a guess, I expect Wise gets his deal, possibly a bit of cutting and filling being done, but if he does not try to alter the ground rules in ways that might alienate opinion, the easy route of giving in to prior negotiations and, as boss, ratifying and going with the deal the agent negotiated is the most grief-free route for all concerned. And a bottom line is Wise is entitled to "due process" fairness, and to the city acting in good faith. I cannot see Wise in any way entitled to push things his way. He can resort to the courts as a matter of right, all it takes is a willing lawyer and the filing fee, but that consumes time and resources whether Jeff files papers, or the city files to condemn. I hope Jeff and the council make the wiser choice.
------------
Back to the headline, Sakry's Spring Lake Park report is online, here. Would a city-owned liquor store in Ramsey be all that great an idea? It could happen. It is unlikely, given the ups and downs of city land speculations, called by some, "the COR."
Private sector vs public sector debate will not end, however this liquor store question is resolved. Over the next two years before the 2014 election, the city has bigger fish to fry.
E.g., Town Center and what on earth to do to complete a best-feasible mop up.
I expect Jeff will get his deal.
________UPDATE_________
One typo was corrected, and links given for MS Ch. 645, and MS Sect. 471.87.
Beyond that, no changes. Now if you want more confusion I can give some. All in a single section of statutory construction law:
So, per Subd. 4, the later law, Ch. 117, preempts the earlier, Sect. 471.87. Right?
Now Subd. 1 has the earlier stated concept, the specific controls the general. So -
Is Sect. 471.87 specific as an exception to general eminent domain law of Ch. 117?
Or is Chap. 117 and its preemption language together with requiring negotiation a trump suit to the general requirement that officials not contract with their governmental unit, including absenting themselves from negotiations?
Clearly, council deliberations over what to do should exclude Jeff, and he did not participate, so that's fine. But he did negotiate the other side, as property owner.
Send it to Judge Judy? No, you are the judge - your decision ...
Look at MS Sect. 645.26, subd.1 above, ending sentence. Help me, tell me the "manifest intent" of the legislature in enacting Ch. 117 in its newest embodiment?
Never mind "intent" which says it all really - this says "manifest intent" which means what exactly, besides "intent?" Split those hairs, it is what lawyers do frequently.
Obviously reasonableness on both sides would avoid either extreme, but that's far from setting actual detailed terms and conditions. We have to trust the process.
As noted before, the city negotiated with Wise while he was on council, about terms and conditions, with agents representing the city with authority to negotiate but not to bind. Wise, as I understand things, contends basic terms of negotiation between him and the city's non-binding agents stood at terms acceptable to him in Feb. 2012.
Being on council and knowing the process, I cannot see how Wise can credibly claim reliance on things at the negotiation level with people he knew or should have known were without power to bind. If unsure, it was his duty to check sufficiently with other town officials to determine the scope of the agents' authority.
Next, the argument Wise should have made late in his term on council but did not make is now subject, if there is litigation, to claims of waiver, estoppel, laches and ratification, the ratification being that Wise continues even now to negotiate, months after having had an adverse council decision. Laches basically means not moving when timely, sitting and diddling; and not moving when timely can be considered waiver of then-timely actions and argument. Or not, depending on who decides and the mood of the decision maker, (judges varying one by one, and for one, day by day).
Without ever seeing reporting of which statute was in November deemed problematic regarding Wise, his property, and his council position, I can only flesh out an argument that would then have been sound to advance, regardless of the statute, if it was enacted (or last amended) prior to 2003 and/or 2006.
The argument, and this is from a non-lawyer and my understanding is it was not advanced back in November or so and is clearly a questionable hypothetical, but sketched below.
Worth noting early, if opinions on the law never differed we would not need courtrooms or a judiciary.
That said, my focus (if in Jeff's place) would have been MS Ch 117; especially:
117.036 APPRAISAL AND NEGOTIATION REQUIREMENTS.
Subdivision 1.Application.
This section applies to the acquisition of property under this chapter.
Subd. 1a.Definition of owner.
For the purposes of this section, "owner" means fee owner, contract purchaser, or business lessee who is entitled to condemnation compensation under a lease.
Subd. 2.Appraisal.
(a) Before commencing an eminent domain proceeding under this chapter, the acquiring authority must obtain at least one appraisal for the property proposed to be acquired. In making the appraisal, the appraiser must confer with one or more of the owners of the property, if reasonably possible. Notwithstanding section 13.44, the acquiring authority must provide the owner with a copy of each appraisal the acquiring authority has obtained for the property at the time an offer is made, but no later than 60 days before presenting a petition under section 117.055, and inform the owner of the right to obtain an appraisal under this section. Upon request, the acquiring authority must make available to the owner all appraisals of the property. If the acquiring authority is considering both a full and partial taking of the property, the acquiring authority shall obtain and provide the owner with appraisals for both types of takings.
(b) The owner may obtain an appraisal by a qualified appraiser of the property proposed to be acquired. The owner is entitled to reimbursement for the reasonable costs of the appraisal from the acquiring authority up to a maximum of $1,500 for single family and two-family residential property and minimum damage acquisitions and $5,000 for other types of property, provided that the owner submits to the acquiring authority the information necessary for reimbursement, including a copy of the owner's appraisal, at least five days before a condemnation commissioners' hearing. For purposes of this paragraph, a "minimum damage acquisition" means an interest in property that a qualified person with appraisal knowledge indicates can be acquired for a cost of $10,000 or less.
(c) The acquiring authority must pay the reimbursement to the owner within 30 days after receiving a copy of the appraisal and the reimbursement information. Upon agreement between the acquiring authority and the owner, the acquiring authority may pay the reimbursement directly to the appraiser.
Subd. 3.Negotiation.
In addition to the appraisal requirements under subdivision 2, before commencing an eminent domain proceeding, the acquiring authority must make a good faith attempt to negotiate personally with the owner of the property in order to acquire the property by direct purchase instead of the use of eminent domain proceedings. In making this negotiation, the acquiring authority must consider the appraisals in its possession, including any appraisal obtained and furnished by the owner if available, and other information that may be relevant to a determination of damages under this chapter. If the acquiring authority is considering both a full and partial taking of the property, the acquiring authority must make a good faith attempt to negotiate with respect to both types of takings.
Subd. 4.Use of appraisal at commissioners' hearing.
An appraisal must not be used or considered in a condemnation commissioners' hearing, nor may the appraiser who prepared the appraisal testify, unless a copy of the appraiser's written report is provided to the opposing party at least five days before the hearing.
Subd. 5.Documentation of business loss.
Documentation related to a loss of going concern claim made under section 117.186 must not be used or considered in a condemnation commissioners' hearing unless the documentation is provided to the opposing party at least 14 days before the hearing.
History: 1Sp2003 c 19 art 2 s 3; 2006 c 214 s 5
[emphasis added] The argument would be not that there was error or wrong to Wise negotiating with the city while on council; but that he was legally bound to do so irrespective of other considerations; via MS 117.036, Subd. 3.
The argument would also hinge upon an earlier Ch. 117 pubic policy statement:
117.012 PREEMPTION; PUBLIC USE OR PURPOSE.
Subdivision 1.Preemption.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, including any charter provision, ordinance, statute, or special law, all condemning authorities, including home rule charter cities and all other political subdivisions of the state, must exercise the power of eminent domain in accordance with the provisions of this chapter, including all procedures, definitions, remedies, and limitations. Additional procedures, remedies, or limitations that do not deny or diminish the substantive and procedural rights and protections of owners under this chapter may be provided by other law, ordinance, or charter.
Subd. 2.Requirement of public use or public purpose.
Eminent domain may only be used for a public use or public purpose.
Subd. 3.Exceptions.
This chapter does not apply to the taking of property under laws relating to drainage or to town roads when those laws themselves expressly provide for the taking and specifically prescribe the procedure. The taking of property for a project undertaken by a watershed district under chapter 103D or for a project undertaken by a drainage authority under chapter 103E may be carried out under the procedure provided by those chapters.
History: 2006 c 214 s 1
Key Sect. 117.012, Subd. 1 language is, "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, [... government] must exercise the power of eminent domain in accordance with the provisions of this chapter, including all procedures, definitions, remedies, and limitations. Additional procedures, remedies, or limitations that do not deny or diminish the substantive and procedural rights and protections of owners under this chapter may be provided by other law, [...]". [italics added] Suggesting that Wise could not be on council and negotiate preliminary to a condemnation where the city is ostensibly the only instigating party would have "diminished" Jeff's substantive right to remain on council.
Moreover, additional law not impinging on procedural requirements of the chapter, or on owner rights, are the only exceptions allowed [along with inapplicable watershed stuff].
Finalizing the argument with authority on statutory construction, esp. MS Ch. 645, would flesh out the more mechanical aspects of things.
The argument, in essence, is that a general recently enacted statute applying specifically to all instances of eminent domain preempts considering Jeff's status as a city official, re MS Sect. 471.87 and similar statutes, which would apply in dealings other than eminent domain.
Continuing the argument - For the Wiser Choice site, because there was intent for a taking for a public purpose, even by litigation if needed, eminent domain law preempts contrary law, with clear recent statutory eminent domain law saying parties must negotiate first, without any implied or expressly stated exception or qualification upon whether the potential taking was or was not from a city official.
Surely a counterargument is that if statutes conflict the specific controls over the general, and specific to city officials there are measures absent in general legislation. It would be a pithy match between legal theories of statutory construction, which is the general and which the specific statute, had the argument been made in a timely way.
Back to the argument - It would put Wise in an untenable position if the specific statute about officials dealing with the government they are part of were to be read beyond applying only to an entirely voluntary purchase-and-sale dimension; vs. legislatively mandated negotiation with it already clear that a public use was intended which would require either eminent domain or successful bargaining.
A question is why am I beating this horse to death, and the simple answer is it interests me. My worry is prior to the new council taking over an appearance of cronyism might have been argued, particularly with Lazan as the city's fiduciary agent having a personal interest in seeing a closing with a commission to him/his firm, so that whether true arms-length bargaining existed, was unclear. Choice of appraisers on behalf of the city might have been unfair in some way, aimed at attaining valuations which other appraisers might not return. Now things are arms length, clearly so, and if the city seeks new appraisals with different numbers returned, that is the city's prerogative.
Things may need to start anew from square one. A key fact, Wise has remained in possession of his property throughout prior dealings and the entire council voted to reroute Sunwood and its intersection with Armstrong in a way where it did not matter how Wise voted. He was not a deciding vote, with Wise was powerless to alter the numbers his way, either way.
Nor would that normally be grounds to sue the city for damages, "They did road work down the road not touching my retail site and fewer in need of liquor sought me out given that there are competitors around and the driving to my store a bit less convenient." So?
Another key fact, for now there's not cash enough to modify Armstrong where it abuts Wiser Choice, so time is not of the essence. Nothing I know of in any statute or case says the city must file court papers at any time, only that it negotiate in good faith prior to that step, which allegedly was done.
The clearest and quickest resolution now would be for the present council to capitulate to whatever Wise wants, ending things, in a way the council has power to apply. Whether that is best is a subjective value question where opinions may differ, but the power to cut through things and give Wise everything he asks for rests with the council. The only question is whether or not they will go that route, now, with new faces, when the former council in November, for whatever reasons, did not. It was a discretionary thing then, and even if deferring was chosen by a mistaken view of constraints, so what? My preference, as an outsider-citizen, would be to see fresh appraisals by different appraisers, I worry that way, but beyond that, the council is bound to do nothing at all, if it chooses.
Were Wise to say, "I would not have voted for Sunwood alterations but for my seeing a personal interest of mine served by it," that would be an unsound argument, and hence one I would not expect him and his lawyer to make.
Finally, at a guess, I expect Wise gets his deal, possibly a bit of cutting and filling being done, but if he does not try to alter the ground rules in ways that might alienate opinion, the easy route of giving in to prior negotiations and, as boss, ratifying and going with the deal the agent negotiated is the most grief-free route for all concerned. And a bottom line is Wise is entitled to "due process" fairness, and to the city acting in good faith. I cannot see Wise in any way entitled to push things his way. He can resort to the courts as a matter of right, all it takes is a willing lawyer and the filing fee, but that consumes time and resources whether Jeff files papers, or the city files to condemn. I hope Jeff and the council make the wiser choice.
------------
Back to the headline, Sakry's Spring Lake Park report is online, here. Would a city-owned liquor store in Ramsey be all that great an idea? It could happen. It is unlikely, given the ups and downs of city land speculations, called by some, "the COR."
Private sector vs public sector debate will not end, however this liquor store question is resolved. Over the next two years before the 2014 election, the city has bigger fish to fry.
E.g., Town Center and what on earth to do to complete a best-feasible mop up.
I expect Jeff will get his deal.
________UPDATE_________
One typo was corrected, and links given for MS Ch. 645, and MS Sect. 471.87.
Beyond that, no changes. Now if you want more confusion I can give some. All in a single section of statutory construction law:
645.26 IRRECONCILABLE PROVISIONS.
Subdivision 1.Particular controls general.
When a general provision in a law is in conflict with a special provision in the same or another law, the two shall be construed, if possible, so that effect may be given to both. If the conflict between the two provisions be irreconcilable, the special provision shall prevail and shall be construed as an exception to the general provision, unless the general provision shall be enacted at a later session and it shall be the manifest intention of the legislature that such general provision shall prevail.
[...]
Subd. 4.Laws passed at different sessions.
When the provisions of two or more laws passed at different sessions of the legislature are irreconcilable, the law latest in date of final enactment shall prevail.
History:
1941 c 492 s 26
So, per Subd. 4, the later law, Ch. 117, preempts the earlier, Sect. 471.87. Right?
Now Subd. 1 has the earlier stated concept, the specific controls the general. So -
Is Sect. 471.87 specific as an exception to general eminent domain law of Ch. 117?
Or is Chap. 117 and its preemption language together with requiring negotiation a trump suit to the general requirement that officials not contract with their governmental unit, including absenting themselves from negotiations?
Clearly, council deliberations over what to do should exclude Jeff, and he did not participate, so that's fine. But he did negotiate the other side, as property owner.
Send it to Judge Judy? No, you are the judge - your decision ...
Look at MS Sect. 645.26, subd.1 above, ending sentence. Help me, tell me the "manifest intent" of the legislature in enacting Ch. 117 in its newest embodiment?
Never mind "intent" which says it all really - this says "manifest intent" which means what exactly, besides "intent?" Split those hairs, it is what lawyers do frequently.
RAMSEY - Today I submitted my application to be on the City's Charter Commission. NOTE IMPORTANT ENDING UPDATE.
The charter is online, pdf form, on the city website, here. That link is given, this city website subpage.
An earlier post noted the City is soliciting applications for boards and commissions.
Although the application packet is silent about charter commission, it exists and people can apply to serve, as with any other board or commission.
I did exactly that because of two beliefs. Beliefs of what might be beneficial governmental steps to take, in the public interest.
First, stringent conflict of interest recognition and regulations should be policy put into this grounding document. That is clear from past land speculator presence on council, where votes were abstained but where untelevised work session participation at the council table happened. Indeed that was the very case at the work session before the televised same-day council vote on preliminary plat approval of the Nedegaard LLC's Town Center exploit. There were "Feges-this" and "Feges-that" comments by the conflicted member during the work session, it was not silent participation, but the conflicted member stood down on TV, when a vote was taken. Also there was the Flaherty council-spouse employment, whereby the council person had facilitated a series of subsidies and a dubious use of city credit and bonding to advance the Flaherty adventure to a groundbreaking, after which the spouse got a construction supervision job. Curtailing such stuff at the most fundamental level of things, the charter, seems overdue.
Second, sewer-water extension is already a charter topic. It needs tightening and from experience a few years ago charter amendment games can be played against citizen efforts to have the charter amended according to statute. Then City Administrator James Norman, procured two legal opinions against charter protections being proposed by Terry Hendriksen and me. Basically, with precise language something that would benefit from the entire commission's input, the charter should by definition say that involuntary hookups or routing decisions of city sewer or water improvements does not benefit a single family residential property by being along adjacent rights of way unless/until a voluntary petition by the property owner to subdivide to allow multiple lots and increased density. The Charter should be clear: That substitution of city services for private services is an alteration of form alone without actual ongoing resident single-family present benefit.
Special sewer-water assessments are limited by law to not exceed benefit to a property so that definition by charter of no present or immediate benefit would serve to protect ownership property rights. Because the charter already has provisions related to sewer-water expansionism, any such change would be supplemental, and not preemptive of other charter property ownership protections.
Likewise, such a possible charter amendment would allow recoupment of city costs at the time of any voluntary subdivision application filed by a property's owner. But not sooner where a hardship might otherwise be imposed with no actual benefit to somebody wanting only to have his/her family continue to live in the family home.
Condemnation or negotiation in lieu of condemnation for rights of way, a partial taking of land, any of that would not be a subdivision triggering anything, since it would be involuntary, even if negotiation vs. litigation leads to the taking for public purposes. Words would need to be carefully chosen, which is why the City Attorney chairs charter commission meetings and why having lawyers on the commission as at present has benefits (with lawyers, of course, cost-benefit arguments always are possible).
Roughly, those are my policy reasons for wanting to become a charter commission member. I believe that they would benefit the citizens, and as the Minnesota Constitution begins:
Sometimes folks in government may be rushed and harried, and may neglect that, and referenda are not held sometimes when I would favor holding them.
Hence, I urge any like-minded citizens of Ramsey, wanting either tighter conflict of interest constraints in Ramsey, or greater property ownership protections re expansions of governmental provided sewer and water services, (or both); and who are deeply respectful of that Constitutional Article I, Section 1 mantra; to apply as I have, for charter commission membership.
_________UPDATE_________
I was ignorant of procedures, and presumed all boards and commissions follow comparable procedures. City Clerk Thieling emailed:
Since a form is quickest for a busy judge to review, I replied:
If anything more is learned, it shall be posted.
An earlier post noted the City is soliciting applications for boards and commissions.
Although the application packet is silent about charter commission, it exists and people can apply to serve, as with any other board or commission.
I did exactly that because of two beliefs. Beliefs of what might be beneficial governmental steps to take, in the public interest.
First, stringent conflict of interest recognition and regulations should be policy put into this grounding document. That is clear from past land speculator presence on council, where votes were abstained but where untelevised work session participation at the council table happened. Indeed that was the very case at the work session before the televised same-day council vote on preliminary plat approval of the Nedegaard LLC's Town Center exploit. There were "Feges-this" and "Feges-that" comments by the conflicted member during the work session, it was not silent participation, but the conflicted member stood down on TV, when a vote was taken. Also there was the Flaherty council-spouse employment, whereby the council person had facilitated a series of subsidies and a dubious use of city credit and bonding to advance the Flaherty adventure to a groundbreaking, after which the spouse got a construction supervision job. Curtailing such stuff at the most fundamental level of things, the charter, seems overdue.
Second, sewer-water extension is already a charter topic. It needs tightening and from experience a few years ago charter amendment games can be played against citizen efforts to have the charter amended according to statute. Then City Administrator James Norman, procured two legal opinions against charter protections being proposed by Terry Hendriksen and me. Basically, with precise language something that would benefit from the entire commission's input, the charter should by definition say that involuntary hookups or routing decisions of city sewer or water improvements does not benefit a single family residential property by being along adjacent rights of way unless/until a voluntary petition by the property owner to subdivide to allow multiple lots and increased density. The Charter should be clear: That substitution of city services for private services is an alteration of form alone without actual ongoing resident single-family present benefit.
Special sewer-water assessments are limited by law to not exceed benefit to a property so that definition by charter of no present or immediate benefit would serve to protect ownership property rights. Because the charter already has provisions related to sewer-water expansionism, any such change would be supplemental, and not preemptive of other charter property ownership protections.
Likewise, such a possible charter amendment would allow recoupment of city costs at the time of any voluntary subdivision application filed by a property's owner. But not sooner where a hardship might otherwise be imposed with no actual benefit to somebody wanting only to have his/her family continue to live in the family home.
Condemnation or negotiation in lieu of condemnation for rights of way, a partial taking of land, any of that would not be a subdivision triggering anything, since it would be involuntary, even if negotiation vs. litigation leads to the taking for public purposes. Words would need to be carefully chosen, which is why the City Attorney chairs charter commission meetings and why having lawyers on the commission as at present has benefits (with lawyers, of course, cost-benefit arguments always are possible).
Roughly, those are my policy reasons for wanting to become a charter commission member. I believe that they would benefit the citizens, and as the Minnesota Constitution begins:
ARTICLE I
BILL OF RIGHTS
Section 1. Object of government.
Government is instituted for the security, benefit and protection of the people, in whom all political power is inherent, together with the right to alter, modify or reform government whenever required by the public good.
Sometimes folks in government may be rushed and harried, and may neglect that, and referenda are not held sometimes when I would favor holding them.
Hence, I urge any like-minded citizens of Ramsey, wanting either tighter conflict of interest constraints in Ramsey, or greater property ownership protections re expansions of governmental provided sewer and water services, (or both); and who are deeply respectful of that Constitutional Article I, Section 1 mantra; to apply as I have, for charter commission membership.
_________UPDATE_________
I was ignorant of procedures, and presumed all boards and commissions follow comparable procedures. City Clerk Thieling emailed:
I am in receipt of your email to Colleen re omission of the Charter on the list of Boards and Commissions. She did not omit the Charter. Vacancies on and appointments to the Charter are all done under a separate announcement. The Council does not interview and appoint Charter members; the appointments are all done by the Tenth Judicial Chief Judge. Someone interested in being appointed to the Charter may send their request directly to the Judge - or to me - and I will pass it on to the Judge. I would be happy to send your paperwork on to the Judge as is - or if you would like to include a letter of introduction and request to be appointed, I will wait and send that all together. Please let me know what you would like me to do.
Since a form is quickest for a busy judge to review, I replied:
Why not just send it on as is, with a note of yours saying I misunderstood the process, and whether that form suffices if/when there is an opening on the charter commission. If you find out more is required, please let me know.
If anything more is learned, it shall be posted.
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
RAMSEY - Moving away from contracting out essential services -- In the news. City engineer opening. Updated date: 01/14/2013 - 9:10am
City Website, off the homepage to: This link.
Here for the application packet.
Note that "In the news" items change, so hopefully sooner than later, the two links go dead - meaning a suitable hiring would have been made.
Two absolutely fine engineers were lost in the past year or so; Brian Olson and Tim Himmer. With luck, applicants of comparable quality are available, in the metro regions or statewide.
Contracting out was an interim step, but continuity of institutional memory should be the goal. Institutional memory was lost when both Olson and Himmer departed weeks apart.
Olson was city engineer for over a decade, and his loss hurt most. Steve Jankowski was also long tenured and is missed.
Here for the application packet.
Note that "In the news" items change, so hopefully sooner than later, the two links go dead - meaning a suitable hiring would have been made.
Two absolutely fine engineers were lost in the past year or so; Brian Olson and Tim Himmer. With luck, applicants of comparable quality are available, in the metro regions or statewide.
Contracting out was an interim step, but continuity of institutional memory should be the goal. Institutional memory was lost when both Olson and Himmer departed weeks apart.
Olson was city engineer for over a decade, and his loss hurt most. Steve Jankowski was also long tenured and is missed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)