[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]

[1]: http://www.kpmartin.com/2006/04/29/the-local-paper-is-at-it-again/
[2]: http://www.kstptv5.com/article/stories/S17813.html?cat=1

Sauron’s all seeing eye no longer lights on my little blog. Yesterday, the day after the record-breaking day I noted, was yet another record breaking day. Lots of folks were interested in the happenings at the Maplewood City Council. But things are settling down now.

Not much new to note on the topic here. I had a brief email interchange with the reporter of the aforementioned [TV story][2]. My email to her (which you can see if you want by following the “Read the rest…” link below) just noted that it seemed like only folks who wanted to complain got the airtime, and she replied kind of what I expected: she’s limited to who will actually speak on camera in the time given. That make perfect sense. It’s the people who want to talk that want to talk. And grumpy people often have more to say than content people. Otherwise, I think she did a nice job of showing the general disarray. She had a great slo-mo of one of the council members rolling their eyes. :)

I did want to note that Dale Trippler got a little airtime complaining that the “Gladstone project” hadn’t made any progress. I’ve [noted previously][1] that he may not be the most unbiased person in the world concerning the newly conservative city council. However, I wanted to remind folks that he isn’t merely a “Maplewood Resident” as was noted on the screen, but also someone who in February lost his bid to be on this city council to Rebecca Cave, and was actually on the Gladstone Planning Commission for Maplewood. He’s also served on the “Environmental Committee”.

Does this mean he shouldn’t have gotten screen time? No! In fact, he may be the most knowledgeable person around concerning the Gladstone project. And besides, he *is* a resident, too, and should have his voice heard. But knowing he’s not just a randomly sampled resident helps fill out the picture.

He may be *the* expert. He may simply want his pet project done. He may simply be mad he got beat. It opens up a lot of fair questions.

I think I would not like to be a reporter. To come in and hear “you, go there, report on this… and you’ve got 50 seconds on the 6 and 60 on the 10” seems like it would be really hard to know who to talk to, what the situation is, etc. And it all changes the next day. “Investigative” reports must be a station’s way of throwing a reporter a bone; let them focus a little and stretch their legs.

Anyway, I imagine this will become more interesting as we draw nearer election time. (*Are* any of the city council seats up for re-election this fall?)

Previously on this topic:

[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/

– [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]

Follow the jump for the email. It’s not that interesting, but it’s there if you want it.

Continue reading It seems the Maplewood City Council attention has waned →

[1]: http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/15107171.htm
[2]: http://www.kpmartin.com/2006/07/15/maplewood-mn-and-greg-copelands-background-check/
[3]: http://www.google.com/search?q=maplewood+city+council+blog
[4]: http://www.kstptv5.com/article/stories/S17813.html?cat=1

[The Saint Paul Pioneer Press has done a nice article][1] on the drama unfolding in the Maplewood Halls of Power. My previous coverage of the issue is available below (two posts down or click [here][2]).

And man, has my site seen a lot of visitors from search engines on this topic over the last 10 days.

**UPDATE:** In fact, this day was my blog’s busiest day yet! Both in visits and page views.

**UPDATE 2:** Ah. There was also a [local TV news story][4] on the issue last night. And the reporter mentioned a blog had been formed by community members displeased with Maplewood’s current city council, so that explains why I’m getting so many “[maplewood city council blog][3]” searchers coming here. (That’s right, baby… number one.)

Well, welcome visitors! I’m pleased to see so many of you linger and read a few of the posts. I’m interested in your comments! And shame on that reporter for not mentioning me, too. :)

[1]: http://www.eastsidereviewnews.com/main.asp?SectionID=64&subsectionID=130&articleID=520
[2]: http://maplewoodmn.blogspot.com/
[3]: http://www.intercognition.net/mplwdcl/documents/referencedocs/schultz_Report.htm

Well, I’ve had this in “Drafts” for a while; largely unwritten. I thought I’d better push it on out.

Very little to say, but there was another [East Side Review](http://www.eastsidereviewnews.com/) article, noting that (cue the dramatic music) The Copeland Report is in. I can’t link to the article as it seems the paper didn’t post articles from the issue I’m commenting on, July 3, 2006.

It’s a more balanced article. Kudos. Only one complaint about the reporting, and you’ll have to wait until the end for it.

One of the money quotes (front page pull quote) was from Council Member Will Rossbach:

> “I do not think the summary contains any one smoking gun or huge red flag; however, I think it contains many many small flags.”

Keep in mind that Rossbach never seemed particularly happy that Greg Copeland – that *activist* (activist is the new A word and should be said with disgust) – was narrowly voted in as interim city manager. In fact, Rossbach “voted ‘absolutely not'”. I wonder, though, if there are *any* current members of the Maplewood City Council with whom someone from the opposition might not find “many many small flags”.

Especially given the report. And I really enjoy Eric Hjelle’s feedback here. He’s also a Maplewood City Council Member, alongside Rossbach.

> The content of the background check includes newspaper articles cited as facts about Copeland and comments from political opponents, Hjelle said. “I don’t know how you can consider that to be a factual basis for a background investigation.”

I think I laughed out loud when I read that the first time. I still snicker now. I can see Rossbach in the council chambers pointing to a document and saying “the report says there are ‘many many small flags!'”

From the back of the room somewhere, “Uh, Council Member Rossbach? *You* said that.”

I’ve already noted that the East Side Review was happy to print “a long laundry list of 25 alleged improprieties” – alleged. I wonder if they showed up in the report. I can’t imagine it takes much to get something into a paper. Especially a local paper. It seems like a crazy echo chamber. It seems hardly an apolitical fact finding endeavor.

Well, I suppose the meeting to discuss the report (ah, tax money at work) has happened. I’ll watch the paper to see. Funny, I don’t live there; just near there. But the drama is like a train wreck. I can’t turn away.

Ah, but my complaint about the reporting. Nothing terrible. In fact, there was really nice balance and I don’t even think the A word appeared. But this quote from Hjelle appears near the end of the article:

> “If you don’t like the guy [Copeland] a week later, you fire him. You call a meeting, you fire him,” Hjelle said. “From what we had I don’t think it could have gotten any worse.”

What? WHAT? This is the first, tiniest glimmer of a peek into the question I was asking from the beginning: Why was Richard Fursman fired? Article after article has meandered from Copeland to peoples’ thoughts about Copeland and even to unrelated (however interesting) council member campaign transgressions. But never has the simple, obvious question “Why did a majority of the Maplewood City Council fire Richard Fursman?” been asked.

We should know this. Especially, as Hjelle puts it, “we’re not going to make the same mistakes that were made when we hired Richard Fursman.”

Those two quotes paint a picture that Fursman’s firing perhaps wasn’t merely an act of political whimsy. Are both quotes from one guy who’s on one “side”? Sure. But there’s at least as much there to examine as there was reason to print a decade old “a long laundry list of 25 alleged improprieties.”

C’mon guys. There’s a story there. A story about how a divided city council became more so. About the genesis of meetings and reports and interim hirings and new hirings. About a city council [that needs][3] “to learn how to act like adults, respect differences, and then use the electoral process to resolve outstanding differences.” (Hat tip to [What’s Left of Maplewood][2].)

“[U]se the electoral process to resolve outstanding differences.” Amen.

And I thought I had little to say.

Previously:

– [More Maplewood, Minnesota fireworks](http://www.kpmartin.com/2006/06/20/more-maplewood-minnesota-fireworks/)
– [The local paper is at it again](http://www.kpmartin.com/2006/04/29/the-local-paper-is-at-it-again/)
– [A tiny peek at local politics](http://www.kpmartin.com/2006/04/20/a-tiny-peek-at-local-politics/)

[1]: http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:nx1GbeRwU08J:startribune.com/dynamic/story.php%3Ftemplate%3Dprint_a%26story%3D5557773+delasalle+site:startribune.com&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=5&client=safari
[2]: http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:njOYgHi1N9wJ:www.startribune.com/dynamic/story.php%3Ftemplate%3Dprint_a%26story%3D5557774+delasalle+site:startribune.com&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=8&client=safari
[3]: http://www.delasalle.com/
[4]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeLaSalle_High_School_(Minneapolis)
[5]: http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/members/members.asp?district=59B
[6]: http://www.delasalle.com/SitePlan_files/v3_document.htm
[7]: http://www.minneapolisparks.org/documents/NicIs1983.pdf
[8]: http://www.startribune.com/357/story/427579.html

My friend Amy brought up the fracas concerning the DeLaSalle school athletic fields at Nicollet Island. I found a summary of the issue from StarTribune.com in [Google’s cache][1]:

> DeLaSalle, a highly regarded Catholic high school, has been a mainstay on this magical island for 106 years. In tougher times it could have fled to the suburbs, but instead has stuck to its noble mission of educating inner-city kids, rich and poor.
>
> In 1983, as the island’s turnabout began, the school negotiated a joint agreement with the Park Board to construct an athletic field for the school’s use, partly on park land. Now, 22 years later and still longing for a field of its own, the school wants to resume the project and the Park Board seems poised to go along. But affluent neighbors who have arrived in the interim are furious.
>
> Actually, both sides are right on this issue.
>
> DeLaSalle can’t be faulted for wanting its own field and bleachers on campus. And the Park Board is obligated to pursue some sort of “athletic facility,” as the 1983 agreement stipulates. There’s nothing sinister about such a partnership — the Sculpture Garden and the Nicollet Island Inn are examples of others. And, in this case, the Park Board is right to seek concessions that shift financial burdens to the school and broader use of DeLaSalle’s field and gym for the public.
>
> But the neighbors are right, too. Although the Park Board owns the land on which their homes rest, they’ve invested heavily in their properties, and they and the wider public deserve extra consideration because of the island’s unique character.

Well, if DeLaSalle has a deal, shouldn’t the city honor it? It’s about *kids*, it’s about *education*, it’s about a *school* that stuck with the *inner city*… and oddly, all of these normally DFL foundational issues pale in apparent value to the personal desires of a few wealthy folks. Interesting.

And sure, their investment should definitely be honored. But are they the only ones who’ve invested? Are they the only ones who get to invest? And their investment means the “wider public deserve extra consideration?” I’m missing the math on that one.

Also from the Strib (via [Google’s cache][2]), quotes from interested parties:

> “We have an obligation to honor our 1983 commitment to DeLaSalle. We also need public input to get the best project possible.” – Jon Olson, Park Board president.
>
> “What hasn’t happened is the discovery of a compromise that everyone can live with.” – John Erwin, Park Board vice president
>
> “The Park Board should follow its own ordinances, which call for a citizen advisory council when a project is proposed, not after it’s passed.”- Barry Clegg, Nicollet Island resident

These may be old quotes, but to Mr. Clegg’s point, citizen’s have indeed been part of the process and concessions and adjustments have been made in light of their feedback; see [DeLaSalle’s Site Plan][6], approved by the Park Board last March.

But my favorite quote…

> “It’s pretty hard to deny DeLaSalle two acres when private houses are taking 30 of the 45 acres of Park Board land.” – Walt Dziedzic, Park Board commissioner

These “residents” are **living on Park Board land, too.** Ungrateful.

Well, a “resident” of *106 years* called [DeLaSalle High School][3] – the [most diverse private school in the state of Minnesota][4] – simply wants the city to live up to a 23 year old agreement (see page two of the [1983 agreement PDF][7]). They want to use space. Just like the other residents do. And they have an agreement which allows them to.

And they have [resident politicians][5] [ed: error removed, see below] with multi-million dollar homes (according to my searching MLS listings for the area) fighting them? Can anyone say conflict of interest?

By the way, I’m pro-wealthy people. I hope to be one some day. I’m also pro-contract. And pro-property-rights. I just don’t think wealth and political savvy should win the day over existing agreements and property rights.

[Ed: I removed the link to the politician I incorrectly linked to originally. I simply remembered it wrong, and there’s no reason her name should live on in Google associated with something that has nothing to do with her just because I remembered something wrong.]

UPDATE: Good heavens. I can’t believe Coleman [wrote something I agree with][8].