[1]: http://www.eastsidereviewnews.com/main.asp?SectionID=64&SubSectionID=130&ArticleID=657

The latest East Side Review hits my step with a [page one (below the fold) summary][1] of the continuing foibles of the Maplewood Minnesota City Council and their embattled interim City Manager, Greg Copeland.

The short of it is that the Maplewood City Council received the required background check concerning Copeland, but it may contain information which must be held as private. Maplewood’s City Attorney recently quit, leaving a new City Attorney, Alan Kantrud, to try to figure out what’s going on and advise the city on what parts can be discussed publicly.

Apparently this is from Maplewood’s city code:

> The results of the background investigation shall be kept confidential to the extent required by the Minnesota Data Practices Act. Only those with the need to know shall be allowed access to private and/or confidential data.

Private and/or confidential data being:

> …for example, criminal and medical records, psychological evaluations, marital and family status and data from disciplinary proceedings prior to a hearing.

The article goes on to note that…

> Within Copeland’s report is financial and credit information, which [City Council member Will] Rossbach said is one topic he would have asked about during the meeting, if allowed.

And he brought someone to back him up: Katie Engler, an attorney from the Minnesota Department of Administration who specializes in data practices issues. Whom it seemed the majority didn’t want to hear from.

Well, that doesn’t sound very good to me.

Now, I wasn’t there, but it seems to me I would have asked her to share what she knows. Of course, that likely means Rossbach would then demand that “See? It’s OK! Let’s talk.” And I would have said, “No. Not tonight.”

Her feedback is potentially valuable, but she’s not the one paid to make sure the city is acting lawfully. They have a lawyer who needs to hear her opinions and others, and then lay that data against the facts he has before him.

In fact, it seems she could only have spoken in generalities which would need consideration by the lawyer anyway. How could she be *certain* it was safe and legal? Has she seen the report?

I’m sure Rossbach would love to discuss Copeland’s personal finances, but that sure feels like skating on thin ice to me.

Well, anyway, the drama goes on. And looks like it will continue to for some time. I wonder to what end? Copeland is interim, not permanent. And it doesn’t appear he’s going to lose his 3-2 advantage. There was not “any one smoking gun or huge red flag,” according to *Rossbach*. There just doesn’t seem to be enough to get Copeland out. Why doesn’t the opposition start attacking something meaty? Is this really all there is to be in an uproar about? In all of Maplewood, *this* is the key issue

If so, Maplewood, MN has it pretty good.

Previously on this topic:

[f]: http://www.kpmartin.com/2006/07/26/it-seems-the-maplewood-city-council-attention-has-waned/
[e]: http://www.kpmartin.com/2006/07/24/maplewoods-city-council-draws-more-attention/
[d]: http://www.kpmartin.com/2006/07/15/maplewood-mn-and-greg-copelands-background-check/
[c]: http://www.kpmartin.com/2006/06/20/more-maplewood-minnesota-fireworks/
[b]: http://www.kpmartin.com/2006/04/29/the-local-paper-is-at-it-again/
[a]: http://www.kpmartin.com/2006/04/20/a-tiny-peek-at-local-politics/

– [It seems the Maplewood City Council attention has waned][f]
– [Maplewood’s City Council draws more attention][e]
– [Maplewood, MN and Greg Copeland’s background check][d]
– [More Maplewood, Minnesota fireworks][c]
– [The local paper is at it again][b]
– [A tiny peek at local politics][a]