[1]: http://www.intercognition.net/MplwdCL/documents/NewsStories/KSTP_Hearing/KSTPresponsetoHjelle.htm

[savemaplewood.com](http://savemaplewood.com), though biased, is the go-to place for Maplewood new items concerning the contentious situation surrounding the Maplewood City Council and city administration. Of course, I’m the go-to guy if you want to add in a little fairness to the mix. :)

A bit ago, they [posted KSTP-TVs response][1] to Maplewood City Council member Erik Hjelle’s complaint against them for their TV news report on the city council. The complaint was [upheld by the Minnesota News Council](http://newscouncil.news-council.org/index.php?p=28). My posts concerning that story can be found [here](http://www.kpmartin.com/index.php?s=KSTP). I’ve devoted plenty of space to questioning that story. I thought it would be fair to bring you their response, too.

> You will see in the e-mail exchanges below both reporter Jo Ann Bemoras and news director Chris Berg offered to meet with council member Erik Hjelle and update our reporting on both the Gladstone project and the city council. Mr Hjelle did not respond to these offers. You will also note that Mr. Hjelle wrote to us that he was not representing the city in his correspondence with us, but two days later filed a complaint with the Minnesota News Council and apparently persuaded another city council member and the mayor to join the complaint.
>
> It certainly was and remains Mr. Trippler’s opinion that city projects were “in limbo.” As Mr. Hjelle points out, Mr. Trippler is a member of both the planning commission and the environmental commission. He is entitled to his opinion and it is correct for us to share that with viewers. It was in that context that we also used the term “stalled.” Sources in city administration and the development community that we spoke to used that term. We feel it is an accurate description of the effect the new council’s actions had on this major project. It has been stalled for months and remains so.
>
> In the intervening weeks since the story aired 5 Eyewitness News has tried to determine if the term “stalled” is still warranted or if the story should be updated. That has proven to be more difficult than one would expect. Mr. Hjelle has not responded to our offer to do a follow up story. A call to the interim city manager went unanswered. The city public works directors tells us he is forbidden to talk to us about the project. A voice message left with the city clerk has not been returned. A Google search for information about the July 20th news conference referred to by Mr Hjelle returns nothing. A look at the Maplewood Web site shows the information on Gladstone has not been updated since March 2006. A phone conversation with the consultant that was co-coordinating the Gladstone project yielded some information. The money and terms for the contract with that consultant ran out months ago. That is why the Web site is not updated. The consultant understands city staff may have been directed to update the contractual arrangement, but that has not happened yet.
>
> Mr Hjelle makes three main points as signs of progress on the Gladstone project. A closer examination reveals something else. It is true that city staff has asked the Metropolitan Council for $2.5 million. However Bonnie Kollodge of the Met Council reports this: “Maplewood’s proposal is 1 of 23 projects remaining under consideration for Livable Communities (demonstration) grant. 7 projects are no longer in contention after first scoring round by the advisory committee. Council has $8.8 million to award this year for such projects. Total request of 23 remaining projects comes to $27.1 million.” Also Kollodge reports the decision to award some, all or none of the money for Gladstone won’t be made till late this year or early next year.
>
> Mr Hjelle accurately states the city council voted 5-1 for Phase I of the Gladstone Plan. However the Phase I of the Gladstone Plan is ephemeral at best. The master plan is not in place, there are no design standards and currently there are no developers.
>
> A close examination of his other point reveals it is also a red herring. Mr Hjelle refers to “150 units in the Gladstone area.” First off the city has apparently not received any application from the developer for this project. Secondly this project is only in the Gladstone area it is not part of the Gladstone plan.
>
> In sum, we remain prepared to update the story whenever we can obtain reliable information from the city staff. However city staff appear to be intimidated into silence by the fact that two of their colleagues have been fired in the weeks since the political power on the council shifted and another has left. Meanwhile the Gladstone plan is a shadow of its original scope and is making no discernable progress.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Gary Hill, News Manager Special Projects, 5 Eyewitness News
> (Ed: I didn’t include the emails. They can be found at the link above.)

Very interesting. First, even though I can completely understand not wanting to talk with KTSP-TV after having been on the receiving end of a poorly done story, I think that more communication, not less, is how to battle it. If a reporter wants to interview you, say yes and record the whole interview yourself and release it should there be unfair treatment. (I wonder if reporters would tolerate such scrutiny and accountability.)

But notice something about the response? It’s interesting! It has what may be *facts*! Research seems to have been done. If only the story which aired that night had some substance like that, I personally may not have had a complaint.

But to quite seriously ask a clichéd question: How much did KSTP know and when did they know it?

In their response, KSTP appears to know who Dale Trippler is…

> Mr. Trippler is a member of both the planning commission and the environmental commission…

Good job! A point [I made](http://www.kpmartin.com/2006/07/26/it-seems-the-maplewood-city-council-attention-has-waned/), actually. But in the story that aired, Trippler was merely a “Maplewood Resident”. This is exactly one of the things I mentioned via [email to reporter Jo Ann Bemoras](http://www.kpmartin.com/2006/07/26/it-seems-the-maplewood-city-council-attention-has-waned/#more-135). Knowing who Trippler is and how he’s interacted with the current Maplewood administration is very useful to better understanding the story over there.

Didn’t they do all of this wonderful Googling *before* the story aired, or was it just in response to Hjelle’s challenge?

It was trivial for me to find out about Mr. Trippler and many other interesting things, despite the terrific challenge that…

> …city staff appear to be intimidated into silence…

So? Investigate. Report. Whip up a little Freedom of Information action (or whatever the city equivalent of that is).

If, at the time the story was aired, they knew as much as the response above would indicate, then it seems they did a very poor job of sharing known and relevant information. If they did not know that much, it seems they aired a story after having done little research. Either one doesn’t seem great.

The comments concerning the Met Council seem very odd. I’ll bet every city who’s made it past the first cut would call that progress. Maplewood may very well get some or all that they’re asking for. And the “red herring” may be development that could provide tax dollars that may be intended to help the Gladstone project move without having to go hat-in-hand to the Met Council.

Maybe not, of course. But it seems like KSTP-TV wants to just play one side here. And even if it’s entirely true, it’s *still* only one side of the story.

This seemed interesting to me, too:

> However the Phase I of the Gladstone Plan is ephemeral at best. The master plan is not in place, there are no design standards and currently there are no developers.

Well, let’s skip past the news manager’s authoritative sounding judgement that it’s “ephemeral at best”. Didn’t Mr. Trippler have had a hand in developing the ephemeral “Phase 1?” He’s plainly willing to talk: ask him about it?

But the larger issue, and something that could have actually been interesting to the story in question, is that perhaps the new majority think that the Gladstone project was going in a bad direction. If so, it would be pretty unlikely that they’d want to “stay on track”. That could have been Bemoras’ story. What’s going on with that development? Does the new leadership wish to take things in a new direction? Why? Is that a core issue dividing the council? What would changing direction mean? What would it cost? It certainly would explain, for example, an irate Mr. Trippler, if his plans dear to him are now being set aside.

Look, at some point 1940s Germany’s “plan [was] a shadow of its original scope and [was] making no discernable progress,” but most folks consider that a good thing. Change or stasis alone are not really interesting. History, context and details are.

Hjelle’s complaint was “that KSTP-TV inaccurately reported that Maplewood City Council had stalled progress on an area redevelopment plan”. Well, they did. It was obvious. Regardless of difficulties, only one point of view was shown. KSTP-TV seems to want to play this in two ways:

* “Well, we just didn’t know any better and aired what we had.”
* “Well, it *was* stalled. But it wasn’t newsworthy or even possible to share any perspective other than those who dislike that it was stalled.”

Do either of those perspectives make you feel confident you’re getting the best, most informative news coverage possible when watching KSTP-TV?

And talk about a red herring… KSTP-TV didn’t need Hjelle’s permission to follow-up or come clean or clarify. They could have just run a “here’s more information about the Gladstone development we reported on…” (I hope they aired a good followup and I just missed it.) Do they only air balanced stories if the “other side” complain and then agree to terms on further stories? What do I mean by “agree to terms?” From KSTP-TV News Director [Chris Berg’s](http://www.kstp.com/article/stories/S272.html?cat=28) email to Hjelle:

> …if you want to sit down and speak on-camera about these issues and **others being faced by the city council**… (emphasis mine)

Gosh, ain’t that swell. Come and subject yourself to, well, whatever we want, and we’ll give you a chance for your side to be heard on the issue we’ve already mis-characterized. If it makes it past editing. How benevolent and even-handed. Why not just address the matter at hand, and the follow up another time with other issues?

Y’know what’s funny? I like KSTP-TV. I tend to watch their news more than any other. But here I am looking at this story that landed on my doorstep [months ago](http://www.kpmartin.com/2006/04/20/a-tiny-peek-at-local-politics/), and it just bothers me that a schnook like me can come along and know that what I’m reading or seeing is incomplete, misleading, or just plain wrong. From sources I used to think were reliable. I thought news was news. I guess I’m finally seeing that news is both more and less than I ever thought.

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”?

In one of her comments here on my site, [Maplewood Mayor Diana Longrie noted](http://www.kpmartin.com/2006/06/20/more-maplewood-minnesota-fireworks/#comment-1262) that the fact the her husband had a restraining order issued against him was something that had been picked up on in various news stories in the past. Here’s an example mention from the Pioneer Press [by Steve Smith, posted on Thu, Nov. 03, 2005] (no longer available by direct link; I got it via Google’s cache ):

> [Diana] Longrie hosts a weekly cable show, separate from the one her husband of 11 months, Kevin Berglund, used to produce. Longrie rebuffed any questions about Berglund, who two years ago was served with a temporary restraining order barring him from contact with four female city employees. A judge later lifted the order for lack of evidence of misconduct.

Now, of course, that sounds icky. He was “barr[ed] from contact with four female city employees”. Eeew. And the order was lifted for lack of evidence. Not really a resounding absolution.

Anyway, [Mayor Longrie noted](http://www.kpmartin.com/2006/06/20/more-maplewood-minnesota-fireworks/#comment-1262) that she’d provided the actual Order to a site called [SaveMaplewood.com](http://www.SaveMaplewood.com) or the [Maplewood Citizens League](http://www.intercognition.net/mplwdcl/publichome.asp) (MCL), in order to set the record straight (I assume).

MCL bills itself as “a nonpartisan organization”. I question that. For example, the domain “savemaplewood.com” was registered on March 31, 2006 by Peter Fischer and seems by it’s title and timing to be a reaction to the new conservative majority leadership in Maplewood. Peter Fischer was at least at one point vocally critical of the current Maplewood leadership majority ([my comments here](http://www.kpmartin.com/2006/04/29/the-local-paper-is-at-it-again/)).

The mayor also noted that Dale Trippler, Judith Johannesen and Stephen Flister are involved in the site. I finally verified that [here](http://www.intercognition.net/mplwdcl/Board.asp). It’s not like they hid it; I just never looked. [Dale Trippler](http://www.kpmartin.com/index.php?s=Dale+ppler) is a name my readers might recognize.

I wonder why they cast SaveMaplewood.com as nonpartisan. I wonder in what way nonpartisanship expresses itself. They *do* do a *very good job* of keeping up with events and news concerning Maplewood; for those following these things, they’re a must-read. But nonpartisan?

Not posting Mayor Longrie’s information seems to me to be a possible indication of being partisan. It’s a bit of information that Maplewood residents who may have heard about the restraining order may be interested in.

Now that I’ve read the order, it seems so even more.

This wasn’t just a “lifted order”. This was nearly a rebuke of those who brought forward the complaint. The order was “[dismissed with prejudice](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prejudice_%28law%29)” by District Court Judge Michael F. Fetsch, and found that Berglund, while annoying and persistent, was within his rights in his requests for information from the city. And the judge found that…

> A culture developed with the City of Maplewood to make Berglund’s acquisition of information as difficult as possible and to punish him for perceived transgressions, all of which were related more to social etiquette than to safety, security or privacy issues.

Isn’t that interesting. So much chatter has gone into how the Maplewood city administration has *become* foolish or childish. I have to admit I agree on many counts. Perhaps against both sides, to be blunt. But it doesn’t appear it was a sudden turn of events with the arrival of a conservative majority. Rather, it seems like dysfunction has been festering for a while. (This was all early and mid 2004.)

###What can we get from all this?

We can legitimately wonder if SaveMaplewood.com is truly nonpartisan if they are unwilling to publish something that:

– Gives a glimpse into pre-2006 Maplewood City behavior, showing that oddities don’t appear to be something brand new this year
– Gives a glimpse into how city leaders at the time chose to spend city time and money
– Gives a glimpse into a city culture which made it difficult for a member of the public to obtain information the city was bound to provide (a point that directly touches on their “Your neighbors working to restore and preserve open government in Maplewood” header on their site)
– Clears up some public misconceptions about the husband of the current mayor

We can re-read that paragraph I quoted from the Pioneer Press and wonder “if I read that at the time, what would I have thought? And how accurate would I have been?” It’s a decidedly different impression after reading the order, isn’t it? I can’t shake wondering about how news gets to us. That’s actually the underlying thread that’s more interesting to me than the Maplewood stories themselves.

Well, since the “nonpartisan” [Maplewood Citizens League](http://www.intercognition.net/mplwdcl/publichome.asp) doesn’t see fit to publish the document, I’ll make the PDF available here:

* [City of Maplewood v. Berglund – Restraining Order Dismissed](http://kpmartin.www62.a2hosting.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/09/BerglundRestrainingOrderDismissed.pdf) 6 page, 900 KB PDF file

###Quick notes

* I searched SaveMaplewood.com via Google and via their own searchable archives to verify that they have not uploaded the PDF prior to this post. I can find no mention of “Berglund”. If I am wrong, **please** correct me so I can correct this post. (Time of writing: Saturday, Sept. 23, 5pm)
* If the offer of the file was not extended to MCL or it’s individual members, **please** let me know so I can correct the Mayor’s assertion.
* I really would like to know if there actually is some conservative balance on [Maplewood Citizens League](http://www.intercognition.net/mplwdcl/publichome.asp).
* The PDF has some interesting stuff about the allegations brought against Berglund. For example, something Kathleen Juenemann alleged turned out not to show up on videotape… how does that happen?
* Though Berglund and Mayor Longrie may be happy someone’s willing to post this information publicly, keep in mind that now the world can know that a judge has found Kevin “insistent”, “argumentative”, and “at times offensive”. Reading this, I hope I never have information you want. :)
* I now have reason to know it was *very* likely Peter Fischer [visiting my site from the Minneapolis Club](http://www.kpmartin.com/2006/06/13/to-whoevers-visiting-from-the-minnapolis-club/). C’mon, man… where’s my honorary membership? OK, I’ll settle for lunch. (On you, of course.) :)

For my previous coverage of the Maplewood City Council happenings and related news coverage comments, [click here](http://www.kpmartin.com/index.php?s=maplewood).