Comments on: Council votes to release closed meeting tapes on liquor store relocation; objections emerge

By: Anne Bretts

Anne Bretts — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 06:03:16 +0000

That explains it. I made the same mistake Scott did, thinking his comment had been cut. No wonder my comments seemed nuts (or more nuts than usual, to some.)
Too many overlapping threads, too long waiting for the truth to be heard. Sorry for the impatience, but it seems the result was worth the wait.

By: Griff Wigley

Griff Wigley — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 05:58:12 +0000

No problem, Scott. The discussions overlap in many cases and that can get confusing. FYI, I’ve put the Everett report info/audio in a new blog post tonight titled: Everett investigation: Mayor Lansing ‘exerted improper influence’ and ‘violated Northfield code of ethics’

By: Scott Davis

Scott Davis — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 05:42:38 +0000

Sorry, my apology; the comment I left regarding the lack of discussion about the Mayor’s settlement suggestions in the paper Saturday is intact and was NOT deleted. It can be found in “All will be revealed” blog by Ross. I would provide a link to it, but have not advanced beyond Blog Typing to Blog Linking.

Scott

By: Scott Davis

Scott Davis — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 05:34:47 +0000

Why did you delete my question regarding the lack of discussion about the Northfield News articles on Saturday? It was a pretty straight forward question. You made reference in this blog about hearing about a settlement from someone, but completely ingore the articles in the paper detailing the settlement requests made by the Mayor? That doesn’t make any sense.

Why not put the Mayor’s settlement proposal up for discussion and see what the public thinks?

My first question was not critical, but I guess this one is… do you publish folks who are critical of your blog?

Scott

By: Anne Bretts

Anne Bretts — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 05:00:42 +0000

Apologies, again. This has been a frustrating time. And many of us are as frustrated with other comments that run on this site as you are with mine. But this is Christmas. The report is out and requires no comment. There is no joy, only relief that at last the sniping on all sides can end. Perhaps this is finally over and we can have a truly happy new year.
Peace on earth…and in Northfield.

By: Griff Wigley

Griff Wigley — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 04:47:52 +0000

Anne, I have no clue what you’re referring to re: Scott Davis’ criticism of me in your comment #27 above.

As for your comment to Ross’ “All will be revealed” post, I’ve withheld it not because of your criticism of Mayor Lansing. It’s that you continue to insert snide remarks aimed at others here, not unlike your snide remark aimed at me, ie, “Of course I understand that you’re busy and that the 2-year-old photos of the governor’s ball were more vital…”

I’ve asked you repeatedly to stop doing that because it’s so insulting. And yet you continue to do it.

By: Anne Bretts

Anne Bretts — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 00:37:12 +0000

Griff, you’re censoring comments without letting readers know. Scott Davis wasn’t being sarcastic, just critical of your bias in handling the mayor’s published problems.
If this is no longer civic journalism and is a blatant political blog, then just say so.
Of course I understand that you’re busy and that the 2-year-old photos of the governor’s ball were more vital, but others might be interested in the mayor breaking his word to the public.

By: Jon Denison

Jon Denison — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 23:02:20 +0000

Scott,

Thanks for clearing that up for ppl. I was confused also when I saw Griff’s comment. It must be concerning one of the mayor’s other outstanding lawsuits.

By: Scott Davis

Scott Davis — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 22:46:41 +0000

According to our City Attorney, the city is not deposing anybody at this time. Must be another lawsuit you heard about.

By: Griff Wigley

Griff Wigley — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 20:04:09 +0000

I heard from someone today who was expecting to have to testify in the Lansing lawsuit but who was informed today that they no longer had to do so... indicating that there might be a settlement in the works.

FYI, the Northfield News had two articles on the mayor and the lawsuit this past weekend:

By: Anne Bretts

Anne Bretts — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 16:52:10 +0000

It seems to me that everyone is putting too much emphasis on polite behavior. This is a tough time and the councilors and mayor are getting grief from all sides — and have some really fundamental differences among themselves. As I understand it, the six councilors and staff seem to be getting along, so the difficulties are more limited than people are indicating. I think they just need the freedom to work their way through this and get it resolved, even if the process is a tad unpleasant to watch.
The English have managed pretty well for centuries (once they got past all the Tower of London imprisonments and the beheadings and such) and even gave us parliamentary procedure. Yet if you watch the BBC, their sessions are anything but civil.
The police chief is moving on, many issues have been resolved, we should have the results of the investigator’s report soon…things are getting done. Let’s have a little patience (and hope the lawsuit is droppd) and let city officials finish things up so we can start the new year with a clean slate.

By: David DeLong

David DeLong — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 13:59:16 +0000

In post #21 Anne Bretts writes

I don’t think it’s appropriate for the public to get up in the middle of a council discussion and speak to behavior. There should be a period for public comment on an issue, then the council should be left to do it’s work. This dialogue with indiduals in the audience distracts from the work of the elected body.

I agree that such behavior would be inappropriate. That however is not what happened at this meeting. Both Jane and I had filled out our cards as required and waited for the public comment portion of the discussion. We waited to be called on and spoke only after being recognized by the chair. Jane also made it clear the she was not speaking as a LWV observer, but as a private citizen.

In Farmington the City provides live audio and vidio streaming of City Council meetings. I think personally this is a great option for people who are busy at home or even out of town to stay informed about what their city council might be up to or acting on at the last minute. I would provde the link but it’s beyond my current level of computer skills. It’s very easy to find on the City of Farmington web site under City Government.

I can’t believe that even though we spent somewhere around $80 -$90,000 on council chamber inprovements and now even have a tech on hand during council meetings, the City of Northfield hasn’t been able to accomplish the same thing.

By: Anne Bretts

Anne Bretts — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 17:06:37 +0000

I don’t think it’s appropriate for the public to get up in the middle of a council discussion and speak to behavior. There should be a period for public comment on an issue, then the council should be left to do its work. This dialogue with individuals in the audience distracts from the work of the elected body. If they do a bad job, so be it. The result was to do what needed to be done. They’re all grown-ups, so let them thrash it out and work they’re way through it. They’re in an untenable situation right now, so tension and frustration are to be expected. The tensions will ease when this is over, whether through a legal ruling, dropping the lawsuit, or the next election.

By: kiffi summa

kiffi summa — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 12:09:03 +0000

After watching the last council meeting on “disc” yesterday ( missed the actual, first time in a long time) I would agree with you, Patrick, that it is not as contradictory as it had seemed , to ask for a state ruling, thereby slowing up the release of the tapes. The city attorney made a reasonable case for them doing so.

But the tenor of the discussion was unacceptable, IMHO. The back-and-forth, of who’s to blame , who said or did what, was there confidential material in the tapes or not, did the attorney give then the correct info on that at the previous meeting, new statements about the need for the infamous closed meetings to be closed……well, on and on.

Personal “slams”, out of order requests, courtroom style sequenced questioning, general “meanness” … all these dynamics prompted two people, both of whom I highly respect for their knowledge of both procedure and city politics, Jane McWilliams and David DeLong, to get up to speak, admonishing the council for their conduct.

It’s not pretty, and I don’t see any facilitation/mediation helping. These positions are too entrenched.

By: Patrick Enders

Patrick Enders — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 00:33:09 +0000

It doesn’t seem to me that the Council is being contradictory in their actions first to vote to turn over the tapes immediately, and then later to ask for a state legal opinion after they were told that they might be violating a right or law by doing so. They are being given conflicting advice, and given that the Mayor has already sued them over aspects of this matter, it seems reasonable that they would want to be very careful not to further antagonize him.

As the Northfield News notes, the state commissioner’s opinion “isn’t binding, but if followed, it would give the council protection against further litigation.”

By: Anne Bretts

Anne Bretts — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 13:55:01 +0000

Mine too…didn’t mean to be sarcastic…just trying to do a shorthand description of the convoluted lawsuit…Apologies to all. I thought it no more sarcastic than the faux title given Roder in the xmas trees thread. I was wrong.

By: Griff Wigley

Griff Wigley — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 13:35:07 +0000

Kiffi, I guess I didn’t pay much attention to the ‘dutiful son‘ comment because neither Lee nor David Lansing are participating in this discussion. But you’re right, this did slide past me. I don’t like sarcastic comments in any conversations here that are aimed at people who live in the area, especially if those people might participate at some point. My apologies to Lee and David.

By: kiffi summa

kiffi summa — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 04:18:51 +0000

Griff: did the phrase “( and dutiful son)” just slide right by the sarcasm filter?

The Mayor did NOT sit in silence while the council voted to release the tapes; he had passed the gavel to the Mayor pro tem, and it was a councilperson, NOT the Mayor , who brought the resolution to release the tapes .

As far as “contradictory demands”: the council first voted (with the Mayor not voting because he was recused) to release the tapes … and then they turn around and vote to send the issue to the state office which may keep the tapes tied up for another fifty days. Does that fit the definition of “contradictory”?

Let’s at least try to keep the few facts we have, straight.

By: Anne Bretts

Anne Bretts — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 20:37:36 +0000

The mayor (and dutiful son) sued to open up the tapes, the mayor sat in silence while the council voted to release them to comply with his demand, then privately objected to releasing them, causing the council to delay while seeking legal guidance to deal with his seemingly contradictory demands.
It would seem there is no one else to blame, and it would seem he could end all the controversy with a simple decision to drop the suit, release the tapes and focus on the library, safety center and other needed public facilities.

By: Griff Wigley

Griff Wigley — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 20:22:58 +0000

Nfld News reporter Suzy Rook’s full story on the tapes for tomorrow’s paper is up:
http://northfieldnews.com/main.asp?SectionID=21&SubSectionID=451&ArticleID=21573

Jaci Smith has another blog post on it, re: a conversation with Mayor Lansing.
http://blog.northfieldnews.mobi/2007/12/04/from-the-mayor.aspx