This is just stunning to me. The local major paper, the Minneapolis Star Tribune, ran a pretty negative “news” (not editorial) piece about Republican Alan Fine, who is running for Congress against Democrat Keith Ellison (my small comments on the race [here](http://www.kpmartin.com/2006/06/13/keith-ellison-dfl-candidate-for-minnesotas-5th-district/) and [here](http://www.kpmartin.com/2006/07/03/alan-fine-for-congress-i-take-it-back/)).

The paper dug up an expunged court record of charges that were dropped alleging he’d slapped his wife ten years ago. A mini October Surprise, I guess. Well, the [gents at Powerline have done something amazing](http://powerlineblog.com/archives/015484.php). Basically, they completely took the Strib to the woodshed.

Keith Ellison appears to have done something pretty seamy, too. Last year. He was the subject of 911 call. And will be in court for it *this month*! Days before the election.

But the intrepid staff at the Star Tribune only found it fitting to report on Alan Fine (10 years ago, dropped charges) but not on Keith Ellison (1 year ago, still active). They ran the Fine article on the front page. They have apparently failed to make any note of the Ellison 911 call (as of this writing, Saturday evening).

Can anyone say “thick, steaming, sickening, deceptive bias?”

It was actually “[Minnesota Democrats Exposed](http://www.minnesotademocratsexposed.com/index.php?s=ellison+911+call)” that found the 911 call. Powerline just connected it to the Strib’s front page political advertisement… err… I mean story.

Ugh. Shame!

[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”?