[1]: http://www.intercognition.net/MplwdCL/documents/NewsStories/MCL_dividedCouncil.htm
[2]: http://www.savemaplewood.com
That’s the question Stephen Filister and Judith Johannessen address in [their editorial][1] on their website for the “nonpartisan” [Maplewood Citizen’s League][2] (MCL).
They seem to be bothered that City Councilmember Erik Hjelle had an article in the *Maplewood City News* which suggested that the city council is not as divided as one might understand based on local news coverage, and to suggest that previous administrations left things undone. I’m not a resident so I don’t get the newsletter, and it’s not available online, so I can’t judge the tone from here.
But that won’t stop me from commenting, will it? :)
The editorial is interesting to me for a few reasons. First thing: “We examined the public record and talked with Councilpersons Rossbach and Juenemann about some of Mr. Hjelle’s assertions.” Oh, so you spoke with people who consistently disagree with Hjelle. Daring. Well, at least it’s actually *labeled* an editorial.
And, interestingly, MCL seems to have found a way to circumvent their own standard – “open to all Maplewood residents who… are not elected officials” – and get commentary from elected officials on the site by simply interviewing their preferred elected officials and printing the comments seemingly unquestioningly.
Anyway, in the section labeled “Deferred maintenance” they respond to Hjelle, who seems to think that some of the maintenence on city properties should have already been done or be in progress. Others in the past thought they could put it off. They got someone in who verified that. So the editorial sticks up for the previous administration. I’m not sure why **both** Hjelle and Filister/Johannessen aren’t right here.
But perhaps Hjelle is simply looking at what the city is spending money on and thinks it could have better been directed at looming maintenance. Because something can probably last does not mean it’s best to wait and see if it does. Not sure what the big deal is there. People disagree; big whoop.
In “Gladstone progress”, Filister/Johannessen seem to feel the old administration didn’t get enough credit for the work the pervious administration did. Well, that’s fair. If they also were pursuing the right things, they are to be commended. But why should that exclude the current administration from being commended for currently doing the right things? There must be something more meaty in Hjelle’s article that I can’t discern via Filister/Johannessen’s editorial.
In “Divided council”, the funniest points appear. Filister and Johannessen strike hard at Hjelle by noting that in his count of the voting from a particular meeting, he missed counting the vote on whether to stay past 11. Heehehe… oooo, you got him there. That’s the only discrepancy.
Then they go on to lament that there are major, fundamental disagreements and that has resulted in “voting blocks”. Of course, it takes two to tango; if three are acting a voting block, certainly the other two are, as well.
Councilperson Juenemann laments that the days when “we were a 1-1-1-1-1 council” are gone. Well, first, Hjelle’s article actually demonstrates that they do, at least sometimes, operate exactly like that. His noted 3-2 vote sees people crossing the “division”. Second, I wonder if the “good ol’ days” had a little more fundamental ideological unity than now.
Y’know, it’s OK. This is how it works. Maplewood’s citizens voted in a majority with a different view on how to get things done than existed in the previous administration. Again, big whoop. If the citizen’s don’t like it, they’ll vote them out.
Certainly that appears to be the deep abiding hope of the MCL. Certainly that becomes more likely if the kind of poor news coverage provided by the likes of Lillie Suburban Newspapers and KSTP-TV continue.
**All that said**, if it’s true that the City Manager Greg Copeland is not sharing information equally with all members of the City Council (as is alleged), then he’s doing something wrong and must stop excluding people. However, if the allegation is just their way of saying that Copeland doesn’t come by and sit at the lunch table with Councilpersons Rossbach and Juenemann, well that’s a bit different.
I close asking again (and you can leave a comment right below): In what way is the MCL “nonpartisan”?
I think you may be backing the wrong horse, here. I won’t say something stupid like “Republican/Conservative politicians are bad.” That would be dumb. In Hjelle’s case, however, I’ll make an exception. He’s a bad politician, and not qualified to be a city council member. The guy’s defense when asked about some campaign donation mistakes was “I’m an idiot,” and he’s complained a lot about having to sit through meetings when he’d rather be doing something else. I don’t think he really wants to do the work of a city councilmember to begin with.
‘Sides, you should lay off Rossbach a little bit. The guy’s not some fire breathing liberal, after all. He’s actually pretty conservative, in the fiscal kind of way, and a reliable person who knows how city government works and is willing to plod through the tedious mundane tasks to do it.
Hi, Jackson… thanks for your note! I know it’s probably way too much reading now, but if you’ve read along as I’ve looked at Maplewood over the past months, my interest really isn’t either supporting Hjelle or picking on Rossbach. It’s more just observations about how people are acting and, more interestingly to me, what media says about it. It’s been very interesting from the media point of view.
I don’t have anything in particular against Rossbach, and I’ll bet if he and I sat down for coffee, we’d both enjoy the conversation. I just think he’s been a bit bombastic, a bit of a political gamesman (vs just getting things done), and has gotten incredibly supportive coverage through the Lillie Suburban Press papers.
On the flip side, I think the conservatives haven’t been bombastic enough, haven’t played politics in response, and have gotten dreadful, contrary local coverage.
Don’t get me wrong: I am biased. I’m conservative. Fiscally and socially. And so I tend to like conservatives holding office. But my emphasis is more about being fair and honest in the public square. Here, from my first post on the Maplewood City Council stuff:
In my early research about Rossbach, what you share about him is very much the impression I got. Nevertheless, his words or actions have sometimes seemed suspect to me, and he’s pretty much gotten a pass by any media I can find. That doesn’t seem fair.
I’m not so ready to discount Hjelle just because he’s inexperienced. That has not in the past been a terribly reliable indicator of effectiveness. And sadly, neither has long term service. I’m willing to just watch and see what happens.
And comment a lot on the way. :)
Thanks, Jackson, for taking the time to write.
As a 54 year resident of Maplewood, and attendee of Mayor’s forums for some 10 years, I found Mr. Copeland to be one of the best City Managers. He was the first City Manager to attend Mayor’s forums and be responsive to the citizens of Maplewood. Rossbach & Juenemann do not always vote for what is best for Maplewood. Co-Par Developer was turned down by the Planning Commission and the Historical Commission for development in So. Maplewood – Fish Creek Area, yet Rossbach, Juenemann and Nephew voted to let them develop the area. Our council now seems more like a “dictatorship”. I do not call that “Honest” or Government of the People, by the People and for the People. That was suppose to be the platform of Rossbach & Nephew when they were running for council. They also ran the dirtiest campaign in the history of Maplewood.