The Everett report #2 is a perfect example of Mr. Roder’s statement above, “It’s unfortunate we have to keep shopping for the answers we want”.

That’s a very telling statement to make, in the exact words Mr. Roder used.

The Everett reports were examples of successful “shopping trips”.

The state auditor won’t look into city engineering contracts, saying the city has sufficiently reviewed the matter… City Administrator Al Roder said the auditor’s decision reflects “what we’ve been saying all along. I felt the city was exonerated when the (independent) investigator said the were no improprieties,” he said. “The state auditor’s review is another step in the process. It’s unfortunate we have to keep shopping for the answers we want.”

I think we can learn two things from this debacle: The city’s processes for hiring professionals and consultants need to be improved. The city code or charter needs to be amended so that consultants hired by the city are subject to their provisions.

So…. where do we go from here? Should we lobby our City Council to change the policy that allowed this?

The “opinion” of legal experts does not make something right, correct, prudent, smart, stupid, etc. etc. It only says that THEY say it was not a violation of statute or rule.

There are many times that I disagree with the highest COURT ruling where a judge says that they have studied the law. Like, for example every time Justice Clarence Thomas says something, I picture him studying the law–and immediate dismiss his opinion as uneducated and poorly trained.

When OJ was acquitted, he wasn’t innocent. I know lots of people who fight tickets and other more serious infractions in court, and they may have their cases dismissed or the charge reduced. It doesn’t mean they didn’t do it. Sometimes it just means the cop couldn’t show for the hearing.

The city, as a matter of policy, should not hire their major engineering contractor to act as a city engineer. Said “non-employee” has ties–employment and ownership–in a firm that is contracting with the city. Whether or not there is a legal violation does not make it OK.

In fact, it is a conflict of interest–he cannot follow two masters, so IF he has a choice to make, where is he going to land.

Maren and a whole slew of legal professionals can tell me there is no conflict until they are blue in the face. I can see the facts for myself. He has two bosses, and he may decide for his permanent employer and away from the boss I am worried about, the City of Northfield. This is not a difficult concept. Just because something is legal does not make it right.

There appears to be a failure of administration at the city. This problem would have gone away if Al Roder had recognized the problem and either never hired the engineer in question or, after the fact, explain that he recognizes at least why the public would have the perception of conflict of interest, and promise to manage more prudently. Instead, we have a big bruhaha of whether it was legal or not to hire an engineer for the firm that has all or most of the engineering contracts with the city.

Maren’s explanation is that since he was not an employee, there is no conflict (for legal purposes.) Right.

You may be satisfied that all is right with the world because Maren said so. I am not, and I am not alone. Nowhere did Maren or the Everett report address the problem, policial, perception-wise, and financially of hiring an engineer from a firm that has the contract for all the major capital improvement projects in the city, and fail to discuss the issue of conflict-of-interest.

I will make my statement on what should have happened. Al Roder should have recommended the hiring with a lengthy explanation of why no one else was available for the job and the procedures in place to safeguard the city against any conflicts that may arise out of the fact of this person’s dual employment. Then an informed decision could have been made by the city council, and they could have referred to the explanations upon query by citizens. I think a prudent city administrator would have been looking out for the city and the city council, too, as this was certainly a forseeable outcome of the decision. This expensive little romp for legal opinions would have all been avoided.

My position is:

• That the statutes and ordinances governing what constitutes a conflict of interest are detailed and clear.
• That it’s not enough for something to have the “appearance” of conflict of interest; other criteria are used to determine whether such conflict of interest exists.
• That two experience legal professionals have determined that no legal conflict of interest exists in the above case.
• That it’s possible for something to be legal, but stupid.
• That it is now up to the citizens to put pressure on their elected officials if they believe there is a “loophole” in city ordinances that should be closed.

It generates more heat than light to continue pushing the idea of “YES! CONFLICT OF INTEREST HAS OCCURRED!” in the face of two legal opinions to the contrary. If we don’t like the current policy, let’s work to change it. That’s a completely separate issue from whether or not a conflict occurred. Not liking the process of the investigation is also a separate issue. We will be able to make more headway on the real issues of policy and process if we can drop the argument about whether or not the Kasma hiring was legal/ethical.

Now, in case this isn’t implicit in my comments above, I’ll attempt to answer your questions in your comment #31.

Question 1: I don’t understand the question.

Question 2: A legal investigator has to review all pertinent documents and interview and speak to people with direct, first-hand knowledge of events. It isn’t “one-sided” to do so. Everett spoke to Maroney enough to determine that he did not have direct first-hand knowledge.

Question 3: Sorry, I’m not sure I understand this question either, but I’ll take a stab at it. I believe both Dave Maroney and the Charter Commission are providing a helpful and necessary service to the citizens AND the city in asking these questions and raising these issues. The issue of whether or not a legal conflict of interest occurred in the specific instance of the City’s hiring the services of Mark Kasma has been answered.

Of course we should offer advice to our elected officials while they’re in office, attempting to persuade the to act in the way we feel is best. However, in the end, those decisions are the responsibility of those elected officials. Not the lawyer’s, and not the Commission’s.

I have not had time to decide whether or not I think this was a good or smart decision. I’m just glad to see that at least in this case, there seems to be no compelling argument that an illegal action was taken.

We, as citizens have every right in the world to tell our elected officials we don’t like what they are doing…….without waiting for the next election. Am I mistaken that that is the purpose of a representative gov’t. ? Is this still a small town in MN, in the USofA?

This attitude, held by some, that anything is OK if somehow an almost “tortured “legal argument is found, is just ludicrous. You can make a legal argument to support almost any point, if you use the language intelligently.

This city council, and administrator, and some staff, are fond of getting their way by “bullying”. ( Has everyone forgotten the Judy Dirks incident? The administrator attacked a citizen after she had gone and some of the council joined in).

They aren’t there for themselves. Yes, we elected them to make decisions, and we have every right to tell them when we don’t like the decisions they make.

Here’s an example: At the council meeting where the skateboard park was being voted on, a councilor made a whole case for another location by saying that no citizen at spoken, at the comment section,FOR Ames park.
But that was NOT true; there was a long and very eloquent reasoned citizen comment about that being the perfect place. But the councilor kept going on and on about how important it was that no one had spoken FOR Ames. So another citizen put in a card, and was allowed to speak, and reminded the council that there had been support for Ames. The councilor then roundly criticized both the citizen for submitting a card, and the mayor for allowing the comment. POINT BEING, citizens need to be able to respond; comments were allowed all during the Woodley St. process whenever response was prompted by council discussion.

This council has proved over and over to be citizen service adverse, and they will dig their heels in every time, rather than respond to the issue raised. They take out their angst with the mayor, on the citizens.

Furthermore, people are becoming afraid to speak because of threats implied, stated publicly, ridicule in various places (including staff reports),the bullying attitudes displayed, treating the council chambers like a courtroom, etc., etc.,etc.,

So, keep saying it, Jane, and keep taking the criticism that brings, and when all the facts, and votes are in, it just MAY be possible to sort it all out.

Unfortunately, I am under the misguided notion that hired professionals will help our elected officials, knowing that elected officials need guidance in order to understand what is normally done in certain situations, that, hopefully, in which the professional will have some related experience.

Tracy, my remarks were “off the cuff” on “making smart decisions.” Let me restate. I find it sad that hired professionals limit their interaction with the city council by such a narrow definition. It appears to be to cover their own back sides (when they are not covering the city councils’.)

In a reasonable world, I would expect an attorney to be a trusted advisor who gives advice, not a forensic attorney who comes up with a legal explanation after the fact.

I am glad you are all happy that it was perfectly legal. It does not make it very smart, or even a little smart. Maren Swanson’s statements are regarding the Charter Commissions right to raise certain issues with the city. Great, we have a legal pronouncement that says the city council doesn’t have to respond.

How about the city council responding to citizen concerns that they hired a temporary employee who had ongoing ties to a repeat contractor with the city?

The hiring of Mark Kasma has the appearance of conflict-of-interest. The fact that he has ongoing ties with Bolten & Menk takes it beyond appearance. Just because it does not meet a legal threshold (per Maren Swanson) does not make it good, smart or right.

Northfield is not located in the boonies. There are many, many engineers seeking employment from which to choose for interim or temporary positions. Northfeild did not choose wisely–and none of the professionals foresaw their mistake. It seems a mad scramble to cover up and place the blame on the Charter Commission and pesky citizens.

The city did not do anything illegal. Great. How many thousands did that cost?

I care about substance over form. However, what constitutes “smart decisions” is not a legal or a Charter question. It’s a democratic one.

The Councilmembers’ are the ones we have chosen to determine what is smart. That’s what we elect them for, and we can elect them out for failing to do the smart thing.

The role of the Charter (and its Commission) is to lay down the guidelines, and the role of the lawyers is to make sure what the Council does is legal.

Each has their appropriate role, and should strive to fulfill that particular role to the best of their abilities.

I have wondered, though, whether the city has an attorney review all their employment or consulting contracts.

My point is that your point is pointless. Maren should be advising the city council on how to make smart decisions, not charging them to say that the stupid thing that was done was perfectly legal.

Our hired advisors do not advise–they paper the backsides.

The city council is not trying to do what is right, they just want to avoid the “appearance” of doing something illegal.

Doesn’t anybody care about substance over form?

Just because a person (or governing body) has the right to do something, it’s therefore right to do. That’s why I’m glad the Charter Commission is trying to shine some light on the issue, and I agree that we should lobby our elected representatives to review an ordinance that would allow this situation.

But again - that’s a totally separate issue from the question of whether or not a legal/ethical violation occurred, and I don’t think it helps things to confuse the two.

So the city council can claim they did everything legally. I would say that is a very stupid way for a city council to decide what it should do for its citizens.

I want my city council to do what is best for everyone involved, and sometimes that means some people lose out. I don’t like the idea that they are doing what is legal and then what is best for Bolten & Menk and what is easiest for them as a city council. That could turn out to be very expensive for the city, and its citizens.

So, I see the charter commission trying to shake some sense into the city council, and the city council having its pit bull say nah nah nah to the charter commission rather than looking at a mistake they made in hiring the fox to watch the henhouse. Why can’t they just admit it was stupid and they will try to do better? NO. They hired a consultant at great expense to the citizens to prove that it is legal for them to do something stupid.

So I guess it will take an ordinance that will say that the city shouldn’t do dumb things like hiring an engineering firm to supervise itself. Maybe we could call it the “anti stupid ordinance.” I think it might even be good to amend the charter to make it illegal to do such stupid things.