In a recent post on the discussion of a possible “severance” payment to the former City Administrator, local attorney David Ludescher suggested that perhaps the Administrator had earned this bonus due to his mistreatment by the citizens of Northfield. Ludescher suggested that this goodbye gift was merited by “how difficult we (the citizens of Northfield) made his job”.
I generally enjoy the philosophical depth that David brings to his opinions, however, sometimes he makes comments for which I have trouble following his logical thought process. This one really seemed mparticularly peculiar to me. After all, the Administrator himself only suggested alleged mistreatment by the Mayor, not other elected officials or any citizens. I tried to recall situations where there had perhaps been a difference of opinion between a citizen and the Administrator and how that situation had played out.
The first one that came to mind was Judy Dirks raising her concern about the Administrator allowing the “Prayer Ladies” to use government property for personal purposes. When she voiced her opinion, she was attacked by some of the Councilors. The second situation that came to mind was Alex Beeby raising his concern that although some might have found the Mayor’s behavior in the liquor store process unethical, the Administrator did not have the right to shut him out of the agenda setting process. When he outlined his interpretation of the Charter, he was attacked by some of the Councilors. The third example that came to mind was Lee Runzheimer raising an idea for citizen review of investment policies and capital investment decisions. When he offered his assistance on the matter, he was attacked by some of the Councilors.
I had some disagreements with the former City Administrator myself. I was not supportive of swapping the public library for the city hall, I thought that the liquor store process should be moved to the back burner while more important matters were addressed, and, as always, I wondered why we were spending money on yet more expensive and labor intensive pavers when our streets were filled with potholes.
Mr. Roder took particular exception to my suggestion that the liquor store process be put on hold. His face got all red and twisted with anger; there were several witnesses present. When I asked him why it shouldn’t be delayed he said, “Because it’s ready to go”. I answered, “If you and your friends were ready to jump off a cliff, would you jump?” As always with Al, the lunch ended amiably, with sincere handshakes and that big smile for which he was so well known. I didn’t get the sense that he thought that a citizen disagreeing with him was considered mistreatment.
I’m not sure where David Ludescher found a theory of government where questioning staff’s actions is considered being difficult. It certainly doesn’t fit my understanding of democracy in America.
In fact, in my admittedly limited review of specific situations, the persons who appeared to have had their jobs made difficult were the citizens. When they brought their concerns before their elected officials, which I personally believe is part of their “job”, they were attacked.
Tracy recently wrote a post asking about the important issues in the upcoming campaign. Although the liquor store, street projects, rental ordinance, missing millions, new business park, and capital investment priorities, are all topics of significance, for me, the most important thing to find in a candidate is whether they will listen to, and acknowledge having heard, citizen concerns.
134 Comments
I think it would be more helpful to focus on how elected officials, staff and citizens all can treat each other resprectfully from here on out, rather than rehashing the past. City officials and employees need to be responsive, but there also needs to be a recognition that there’s a difference between listening to the public and taking orders from individuals with personal agendas.
And maybe instead of all this focus on process and criticism, it’s time to talk about how to compromise and get just one thing done. Then focus on the process and timeline for that project, and when it’s done, fine tune the process before tackling the next project.
This election is a wonderful chance for the city to drop the drama and focus on cooperation and shared goals. It’s interesting that cities that focus on common goals and accomplishments allow everyone to spend their time sharing the credit instead of placing blame. Look at the soccer fields and the dog park. People compromised, worked hard and can look back with pride at what they’ve done. Maybe the success of the downtown work being done right now can be the catalyst for getting the capital improvements plan done and continuing the positive results along the river.
So instead of spending a lot of time ‘proving’ whether anyone was mistreated, maybe we can discuss what would be the best way to move forward.
Ross: I am very glad you chose to write on this issue; I have brought this to the League of Women Voters as a concern re: the quality of our gov’t/ citizen interactions, but I did not limit my concerns to Mr. Roder’s behavior. I would agree that he set the stage for this kind of interaction with the Dirks incident, but the councilors joining in that night , and solidly supporting his criticism of a citizen, was pretty much a first in my memory. Frankly, I don’t recall that kind of open animosity from staff and council against a citizen even during the Target debates. Scott Neal, the administrator at that time, was much too professional to enter into that level of OPEN criticism.
In the last year, the Council has begun to respond to citizens after open mic or agenda item comments, later in their discussion time, when there is no possibility of straightening out the facts , or rebuttal. The citizen just has to sit there in the audience and “take it”. If the council feels a comment is incorrect, when it is being made, they could take the opportunity to reply, rather than wait to make a power play. This is bizarre behavior; they have even contradicted Jane Mc Williams, who is a most circumspect person in the comments she chooses to make.
Maybe the key word two paragraphs back is “professional”… If they haven’t learned it in City management 101, does the length of someone’s career instruct them in their public demeanor? I would think so, wouldn’t you, Ross? Mr. Roder’s resume does not show a long career before landing in Northfield.
I can put Mr. Roder’s comments to the public in the category of inexperience, and lack of control; how would you characterize the council’s adversarial comments?
I guess I have to think that unless they’re just completely unsuited to the public servant role by their personalities, I’d have to chalk it up to bad judgements. Bad judgements that started when, last summer, they picked one employee over the other (Roder over Chief Smith) in who to support. In my opinion they had no right , legal or moral, to choose one over the other with all the unknowns. Both of their employees deserved their support.
But bad judgement call after bad judgement call followed hard upon each others heels, one after the other, until all of a sudden they found themselves in too deep, and to change would have brought question on their ability to make good decisions. So they got to a point where as a council, they had to hang together, identify a reason or a scapegoat, for their positions taken, and defensively get the focus off of their own actions.
If I was directing a play entitled “Two Summers in Northfield with a Long Winter In Between” , that would be the motivation stream I’d tell the actors to work on.
The Greek theatre was constructed on the basis of a cathartic experience being a teaching experience; based on that we ALL, including the Council ,should have learned a lot from this last 18 months. Have we done so?
There’s a cultural (ab)norm afoot here that I’ve heard before, the misguided notion that holding someone accountable, challenging someone’s position, confronting someone about mishandling a situation or an ill-advised action, or really horrible votes on issues, that’s regarded as “MEEEEEAN.” But Griff, you’re dead on that raising concerns publicly is a part of all citizens’ job, and those who do not do so are asleep behind the wheel. And what’s particularly frustrating is when, after those of us “meanies” have done “our job,” others say, “That really needed to be said,” or “Thank you for saying that” and then merrily go on their way abdicating while the rest of us are in the line of fire. The notion of standing up and fighting was around long before Wellstone, and must be nurtured and encouraged.
Ross: I am not suggesting, and did not suggest, that a “bonus” should be paid to Roder. I suggested that Northfield citizens made Roder’s job more difficult, often without justifiable cause.
David -
I looked up a number of definitions of “severance”. None of them fit the Roder situation. Therefore, I concluded that you must have thought that he deserved “battle pay” because of what you allege was bad treatment by citizens. When I could not find any examples of bad treatment by citizens, it seemed to me that you were proposing something like an “resigning bonus”.
Based on my experience and observations, Mr. Roder’s treatment by citizens was average to well above average. He claims mistreatment by the Mayor. Some have suggested that the the criminal charges filed against him by former Police Chief Smith were mistreatment, while others would argue that Chief Smith was simply doing his job. As far as I know, you and Ms. Bretts are the only people who have suggested that Mr. Roder was mistreated by the citizens of Northfield.
Personally, I think that the handful of officials and citizens who have suggested that we “owe” Mr. Roder additional payments are, at best, completely off-base and, at worst, are weakening Northfield’s legal position. Mr. Roder worked here for two years, was paid handsomely while he was here, accepted another job, and quit his job here. Let’s end the talk of “severance”, “bonus”, or “protection” payments.
We will soon be voting with our ballots instead of our comments. I repeat my opinion that I believe it is most important to select candidates who will listen to, and acknowledge having heard, the concerns of citizens.
- Ross
I think it’s absolutely ridiculous and off-base to say that Northfield citizens made “Roder’s job more difficult, often without justifiable cause.” David L, what are your examples of this? I would like to see some concrete examples. Ross cites examples where challenging Roder certainly are justified. Where is the unjustified teatement?
Are we an active, patrticipative community unafraid to challenge ideas? Certainly. Does that fact make the Administrator’s job more challenging, and perhaps even more difficult than the “average” City Administrator? Perhaps. Is that any kind of justification AT ALL to pay Roder a severance? NO.
There may be other reasons to pay him a severance…not going to get into that here…but “alleged” mistreatment by citizens is cetainly not a reason that should even be considered…unless a number of concrete examples can be cited where citizens mistreated Roder “without justifiable cause.” Only then would it warrant any kind of consideration…and little consideration at that.
This topic has resulted in a great exchange of thoughts. By the way, front page report in April 12 NNews “What People Earn” put Roder’s salary at $111,932.
Hey! That’s more than I earn - but less than any full-time working stiff deserves. (My salary’s just fine - I don’t work full time.)
That is to say: seems like a reasonable salary for a man in his position, but I can see why he’d want his legal fees covered.
In his defense, David L never (as far as I can tell) said that Mr. Roder deserves a severance package. He just said:
and:
I agree that Al Roer was treated harshly. I don’t mind the criticism of policies he advocated. Heck, I agree with criticisms of some of his proposals. However, I was quite disturbed by the cloud of innuendo put out into the community regarding not-quite-stated misdeeds, and something dark and terrible that happened in Dennison Iowa.
So I too have sympathy for Mr. Roder. But I don’t think he deserves a severance package for it. As I stated previously, the only reason to pay off (settle with) Mr. Roder is if we think he has a strong case against the city, for which we would stand to lose much more than we would in a settlement. But I don’t see that he does.
Patrick -
As David S. asked, could you cite some examples where Mr. Roder was treated harshly? Beyond the allegations of the Mayor’s behavior, I have found none.
The former Police Chief filed the charges against Mr. Roder. The “rumors” that I have heard include bid-rigging, soliciting kick-backs, and accepting bribes. Have you read “Denison, Iowa”? Those rumored charges were like deja vu all over again for me when I read the book.
Although the main theme of the book is a community’s systematic discrimination against Latino immigrants, including a new rental code, the above mentioned behaviors are well woven into the story. The primary method by which a handful of powerful leaders, elected and hired, tried to undermine the economic rights of Latino business people was bid-rigging.
In Northfield, the Police Chief, the Mayor and a handful of citizens did express concern that someone who might be guilty of such behaviors was being allowed to continue to execute contracts. However, a Councilor said that there was nothing that could be done until the Goodhue County investigation was completed.
We are fortunate to live in a country where people are innocent until proven guilty. Mr. Roder deserved, received and continues, while we continue to await word from the Goodhue County, to receive that protection. Based on my observations of the behavior of the citizens and Councilors, in my opinion, Mr. Roder was not treated harshly but rather was treated gently, perhaps unusually so.
- Ross
For examples, I would suggest reading posts in the following threads:
http://locallygrownnorthfield.org/archives/2578/
http://locallygrownnorthfield.org/archives/2795/
If you don’t want to read all the posts, just use the ‘find’ feature to look for the words ‘denison’ or ‘iowa’.
Oops. Didn’t read all of your post. (I’m trying to work, and leave town.)
No, I haven’t read “Denison, Iowa.” And yes, I believe in the presumption of innocence. So I’m withholding judgement on any alleged misdeeds of Mr. Roder here in Northfield, until I see them described in detail, and supported by evidence.
To me, it seems dangerously close to slander to repeat third-hand non-specific, whispered accusations, even if the whispering started with a (former) Northfield Police Chief.
And again, I’m not losing any sleep over Mr. Roder’s departure, and I don’t advcate any kind of pay-off to him. But I believe the whisper campaign against him is a bad thing for the health of the town.
Patrick: I also believe unreservedly in the presumption of innocence. However, when you see behaviors repeated, you might feel it’s worth calling attention to those repeated behaviors. I didn’t just read “Denison, Iowa” I went there specifically BECAUSE of the presumption of innocence. I didn’t want to make a wrongful conclusion, or function on supposition. And I have no idea what the outcome of the “Goodhue Matter” will be; I don’t have any idea what it’s about.
But re: Denison … After talking to many people there,after reading two years worth of their newspapers, after seeing unfinished or unsuccessful projects , after hearing and reading in their newspapers of the Job Corps pulling their Federal Funds out of a questionable project, after talking with the minority contractor who is the focus of one chapter of the book, and the list goes on and on … I began to feel very uncomfortable when the same dynamics started to show up here. (Actually, I wanted to go to a close-by town , Britt, Iowa, to see where my grandmother is buried, but there were so many stories to be listened to in Denison, and we had to be back in NF on the third day)
Then when you begin to see the same sorts of divisive tactics that caused so much trouble in Denison; the contracts awarded that just aren’t quite “right”, the bullying behavior to anyone who challenges or disagrees, and the lining up of council members into voting blocks, and scapegoats … well, then that old quote keeps coming to your mind: “those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it”.
I don’t understand why people are so willing to tolerate repetitive patterns of negative behavior, but are also willing to assume that a Police Chief is basing the filing of a criminal investigation on whispers, or innuendo. It is certainly not easy for a police chief to file a criminal investigation against the city’s administrator. And if the complaint is presented to him , he must follow through.
It seems to me to be a “presumption of guilt” to even insinuate that the filing of that complaint was done in a less than serious manner.
Also, I don’t think there was a lot of “whispering”; I think there was a lot of outrage, and outrage that was openly spoken in many public places as well as in the council chambers. And if one persisted , even just in inquiry, a dismissive, one sentence letter was likely to appear in your mailbox, not answering, but telling you “case closed”.
One positive thing that has come out of all this mess, is that those citizens referred to as “the Prayer Ladies”, who spent many months secreted in Mr. Roder’s office, don’t even appear to have their Bibles with them now, as they participate in the chambers, at the council meetings. They are listening, watching, commenting, and one is running for office! So, the more engaged citizens, the better!
Oh, by the way, you can pick up a copy of “Denison, Iowa” at the Northfield Public Library (if they haven’t gotten rid of it for lack of shelf space or embarrassment) or buy a copy of it at one of our fine bookstores. It’s a good read … not because of Mr. Roder’s part in it … but because it’s by a Pulitzer Prize winning author, formerly at Stanford Univ., and most recently teaching at the Columbia School of Journalism. And then you can take a trip to Denison, Iowa, and read their bound newspapers; not as high literary quality, but very informative.
And Yes, Mr. Roder is still innocent, except of the behavior witnessed .
Patrick -
I find it quite offensive that you accuse me of slander. I am not charging Mr. Roder with those crimes, I’m just pointing out that the accusations circulating were not trivial and yet he has been given not only the full protection of the law but, based on what I have witnessed myself, protection that, in my opinion, is, at the very least, eyebrow-raising in its vigor and enthusiasm by a few Councilors.
Now, those Councilors have every right to protect their friend, as long as their behavior does not hinder the criminal investigation. My point is that, based on my observations, Mr. Roder got extra special treatment from several Councilors, as well as a few citizens, and the toughest treatment he got, from less than a handful of citizens, were a few questions.
I do appreciate your lengthy quotes of Mr. Ludescher’s statements. It inspired me to go back and read the conversation once again. I now understand what David L. considers to be the means by which citizens made Mr. Roder’s job difficult…they simply disagreed with him.
Mr. Ludescher lists four issues which are apparently of significance to him, along with his, what I would called sophisticated analysis and expressed opinion and what he would call common sense and practicality, summary positions. They are, as I recall, Prayer Ladies - Who Cares?, Annexation - No Brainer, Criminal Allegations - Sour Grapes, and Rental Ordinance - Not the City’s Problem.
So, if a citizen had some concerns about Mr. Roder’s unauthorized use of public property for a private function, questions about the cost estimates and sources of payment for the infrastructure for the new business park, an interest in the behaviors being investigated in Goodhue County, and desires to address some of the issues arising from rental housing, he or she would be, in Mr. Ludescher’s view, lacking in common sense and impractical. If these concerns, questions, interests and desires in any way slowed down Mr. Roder’s implementation of his vision for the City, the citizen would be making Mr. Roder’s job difficult.
In all my interactions with Mr. Roder, I never got the impression that he viewed concerns, questions, interests, and desires as being difficult. I sensed that he believed that it was part of the job and the reason that he got the big bucks, as you note, at least 20 to 40 percent more than a doctor.
In fact, I will genuinely miss Mr. Roder’s direct communication style when I challenged him on an issue. He would share his personal opinion, his passion for a project, and his intended implementation plans. It was much preferable to Ms. Hoyt’s approach, although not quite as impressive as Mr. Basset’s level of directness, at least with me.
My point, once again, is that I personally do not believe that a citizen’s asking of a question, raising of a concern, requesting more information, or expressing an opinion can be considered mistreatment of a staff person or making someone’s job unacceptably difficult. I strongly believe that in future hiring processes or election decisions, a candidate’s willingness to listen to, and acknowledge having heard, the voices of the citizens, is a crucial criteria for the final decision.
- Ross
Asking questions is not slander, and questioned asked by citizens about city projects or process, should be answered.
Speaking with others about concerns raised by questionable behavior is not slander either, as long as it does not make firm accusation.
Accusing people in writing, in the newspaper, on the news website or on this “blog” can be libelous; there have been times when such accusations have been made, and response not allowed .
There is a fear of making “waves”, making “trouble”, and being in the questioning minority brings attack.
Everyone seems to be sure that an election will cure the ills of our community; I’m not so sure. We need real, brave, strong leadership that has the ability to take strong stances and provide leadership direction in directing the hard conversations.
And we need to quit trashing anyone who raises an uncomfortable issue, before the question is even considered.
The August 18, 9:06 comment is Mine, not Victor’s… He gets blamed for enough without having to take more for my comments, mistakenly written from his “side” of the computer.
kiffi
Ross, maybe heading your post with a picture of Stalin and his henchmen isn’t “slander”–but it is a cheap shot. If you’re trying to be witty, I don’t get it.
Other than that, I agree with your original post.
The councilors have diminished their credibility by attempting to extort an apology from the mayor, and by proposing a preemptive payoff to Roder.
Wait for the results of the Goodhue investigation and let the chips fall where they may.
Curt -
My use of the photo may be a cheap shot and/or it may be witty. However, when I thought of a place where citizens expressing concerns was considered by the leaders to be “difficult”, it was the image that came to my mind. If you prefer, in the future I could use scowling but familiar faces instead.
Perhaps you consider it to be a ludicrous exaggeration of our situation. However, you have to admit, bad regimes often begin with an individual or a small group that goes unchallenged for too long.
Let me assure you that I realize how fortunate I am that Northfield does not have a Gulag.
- Ross
Well Ross, if you change your mind about a Gulag, I’m sure you’ll want it built downtown. (note: this was an attempt to be witty)
Curt Benson, # 16, writes:
I see it differently, Curt. Ross uses a valid dramatic form. It sets up and sells the point. That’s the writer’s goal. Read Brenden Etter.
A “cheap shot” would be a different emotional use [sic] if I wanted to denigrate the strong religious perspectives expressed on LG … were I to use a shot of the Crusades slaughtering thousands of muslim women and children as an example of Christianity at work … then I’m really loading the gun … even though it might be fact based.
If your looking to make the strongest allegorical statement, Ross’ use of the Stalin pic (particularly ) in that photo opp group shot, is pretty lame.
Perhaps a tryptic of the Stalin shot .. next to a shot of Emiliano Zapata, hat in hand, expressing the plight of his people to El Presidante … and this next to a shot of Judy Dirks at the open mic, a menacing Al Roder looking on … now that’s a editorial remark.
Speaking of which, would you find an editorial cartoon making the same point, a cheap shot?
And, what did you think of the recent Obama cover on New Yorker Magazine.
And, finally, in a society where a lot of public opinion is framed by late night TV host’s “standup” remarks … when is a cheap shot not acceptable? When it doesn’t get a laugh?
I’d say that much of the “differing” opinions placed on LG by those who express overarching knowledge of how things have been done for decades, in all matter of other communities they’ve worked in, and how that “supposed knowledge” is expressed on LG, as empirical proof … thus validating its dictatorial point of view … that is far more suspect, than one-on-one observations of Al Roder in action.
Still we are talking LG “speak” here and that’s a peculiar one to sort out.
Remember, you also wrote:
I’ve a problem with a lot of the so called LG faux news/humor, etc.
I might be able to take being referred to by G. Wigley as a turd … but what is really suspect commentary, is comparing me to David Ludescher. Is that witty? What do you think?
Curt -
Maybe I better keep an eye on that Capital Improvement Plan for the late addition of a Gulag.
Downtown might be a good idea, that way somebody could smuggle a laptop into me by hiding it in an Alaskan Doughnut.
Then again, putting the Gulag in the Northwest Territory could be a justification for building the multi-million dollar infrastructure out to it.
- Ross
Ross: In my version of representative democracy, which Northfield is, a citizen voices his issues or concerns with his or her representative, rather than directly at or to an unelected official.
Hence, if one was concerned that Roder was an empire builder, you could and should have expressed those concerns to your ward rep, at-large council person, or the Mayor. Roder could not build an empire without Council approval.
The idea that the City Administrator is “our” administrator is technically and practically incorrect. The administrator’s job is to carry out the people’s will as expressed through the City Council. He is the “Council’s” administrator.
Lastly, if you are going to circulate the rumors that you have heard, common decency dictates that you reveal the source of the rumors. Either that or you should apologize. I find it ironic that you are “quite offen[ded]” by Patrick telling you to stop gossip blogging (my term).
In addition to the presumption of innocence, the law also requires that the accused has the right to know the charges against him or her and to confront the accuser in a speedy manner. Certainly, you have to agree that Roder has not had the opportunity to even know the charges against him, nor to confront the accuser. This is intolerable, even if he is guilty as accused.
David L. -
Go back and reread my comments. All of the examples that I cited were of citizens voicing their concerns directly to their elected representatives.
I have said nothing about Mr. Roder being an empire builder. I have said that I strongly disagreed with some of his priorities and decisions. I accept the fact that if the Council supports his priorities and decisions, then they will be implemented and we, the people, the citizens, the taxpayers, will finance them.
My understanding of the charges against Mr. Roder came from the list of 14 items for potential investigation by the State Auditor. At the special meeting, I think it was back in November, the Council asked if we had any concerns about the items on the list. I read three out loud and, hoping to make my great concern clearly apparent to my elected representatives, said that in plain English I would call them bid-rigging, soliciting kick-backs, and taking bribes. There was no comment from the Councilors.
The Council then asked if they should take any specific actions going forward based on citizen concerns on the list of 14 items. I stated that I would be uneasy about someone dealing with contracts who was suspected of, let us say, mishandling the contracting process. I was told by a Councilor that we could not discuss any of the 14 items that might be part of the Goodhue County investigation.
That was the total extent of my involvement in this issue. It was not until some of the Councilors suggested that we owed Mr. Roder “severance” and you suggested that he had been treated unfairly by citizens that I thought it necessary to remind people that there has been more than one side to this conflict that has been plaguing our community since last June.
- Ross
David L: One can certainly be frustrated with the Goodhue County process, if that’s what you’re referring to in the statement “Roder has not had the opportunity to even know the charges against him, nor to confront the accuser.”
Would have to agree, however that’s the legal process, and you’re part of that by the parameters of your profession, so if you don’t agree … work for change!
But I would ask, given the unknowns of substance of the accusation in the criminal complaint filed against Mr. Roder, what the heck has all the $$ been spent for, with his attorney? Can you enlighten us as to what could run up the fees to 15? 20? thousand before the attorney knows what he and his client are up against. ( It was noted somewhere here that part of the billing was for Mr. Lillehaug to read Chapter 3 of “Denison, Iowa”; that’s bizarre as I think that’s just an American history chapter… the three or four chapters at the end would be more pertinent) Does this fall under the council oversight as to “reasonable attorney’s fees”?
Anyway, back to the main thread; I still don’t see any specific incidents of citizens being “mean” to Mr. Roder. I can tell you of a specific incident of NOT being mean: when we left Denison Iowa, a gentleman there who you might characterize as the ultimate “good old boy” for his lifelong community involvement with the city govt and local philanthropy scene, pulled a sheet of paper out of his printer, took out his pen and signed his name on the bottom, and said” I don’t care who you show this to, or what you do with it. If you don’t do something, he will do to your town what he did to ours” . It was a listing, single spaced, of questionable actions by Mr. Roder while in Denison. Pretty strong words, and with his signature, pretty strong action, wouldn’t you say?
Well, we didn’t do anything with it, and didn’t even talk about it for a long time, and then only to one or two very trusted people, and never showed the paper to those people. PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE, and all that, you know… Now I think, that in the interest of bending over backwards to be fair, it was wrong to NOT share that document.
But the council was already heavily into support for the administrator and accusation of the Mayor, as was the Northfield News, and so who was there to listen? Would you have listened at that point? Would the newspaper have listened at that point? Certainly the council would not have; it would have just been a discussion over the poker game table.
Oh, and P.S…. re: the Stalin picture, Curt, another instance of “malevolent “pokenose” behavior? Yeah, you’re right I can’t totally let that one go…
You got me Kiffi. I hit the send button too fast with the pokenose comment.
Mea culpa.
Ross: It sounds like your beef is with the City Council and its support of Roder. You talk about Roder’s vision for the City and your disagreements about “his” vision. But, I don’t get it. What do you think that he has done on his own that is of his own doing?
I hope that our next administrator listens LESS to the citizens, and that the City Council gives a more definite statement of that intent. Northfield has way too much direct democracy, and not enough representative democracy. We can’t have 17,00 people thinking that they have their own personal City Administrator.
David L., I hope you can hear the sound of the applause…You’ve been great every time you were at bat in this thread, but you hit that last one out of the park!
I totally concur with Anne’s statement in #26, David L. Hats off to you for getting this correct.
Kiffi: I didn’t say that the citizens were mean to Roder. Those are Ross’s words. I said that the citizens made it difficult for him. I specifically noted that the NIMPU’s (Northfield Is My Personal Utopia) make management much more difficult.
For the last year Roder had to deal with:
1. An insubordinate subordinate,
2. Unknown allegations of criminal conduct,
3. The mayoral conflict of interest questions, and
4. Citizens (primarily NIMPU’s) blaming him for the city’s problems.
The “job” of a productive citizen is not to just question everything that they don’t like, but to work toward the good of all citizens.
For example, the City Council passed the annexation request 7-0. The Planning Commission voted against the same or similar request by 4-3. This a classic example of the citizens (on the PC) trying to make City governance more difficult. In my opinion, the four citizens did this because of personal, not community objectives. They were trying to implement their vision of Northfield, not the elected officials’ vision. A similar myopic vision exists in the Comprehensive Plan (which admittedly is much better now than it was).
THREAD DRIFT. But I can’t help myself.
David L, your last paragraph about the annexation request vote was way off the mark. Too bad you didn’t attend the meeting in question in order to have first-hand information about why the planning commission voted as it did. (For the record: I was on the “winning” side of the 4-3 vote.)
Contrary to your somewhat unexplainable belief that the planning commission consists of a bunch of coercive utopians who are “trying to make City governance more difficult”, I maintain that the planning commission consists of a bunch of extremely hard-working individuals who have the long-term interest of the community at heart and understand the weight of making significant land-use decisions that will have effects for a full generation or more. As appointees, the commissioners are also less vulnerable to shifting with the prevailing political winds than elected officials may be.
I would also add that if our elected representatives vote unanimously (7-0) on an issue that is both complex and controversial, at least half of them may not be not thinking, or do not have sufficient understanding of the issue.
Re: comment #23
Re: Post #23
If a well-known person in Denison had the courage to come forward with a statement of warning to Northfield, I’d like to know his name and see the list (”questionable actions by Mr. Roder”). Most certainly, it should be shared w/Roder as well.
David Ludescher says he hopes the next administrator listens less to citizens. I dare say he may have listened to individual citizens, but it certainly wasn’t me. I asked him at an annual LWV meeting if he saw potential for the Nfld Planning Commission including a non-voting member from townships as was done in years past and he said no, he did not. In no uncertain terms.
.
Well, David, your comment re: direct versus representative democracy might be less specious if there was strong and active representative democracy displayed by this council. They have spent more time representing their personal agendas than their constituents. When did a citizen come to the council and ask them to remove the “accoutrements” of the Mayor’s elected position/office? What happened when a citizen asked them not to allow a prayer group to be secreted in the administrator’s office?
Since people are not responding to specifics here, let’s just deal with those two first …
Tracy, just because people disagree with you, it doesn’t mean they are stupid or ill-informed. It could be that they’ve listened to your arguments and come to a measured agreement that the objections, while real, aren’t enough to block the project that is in the best interests of the future of the city as a whole. The idea that a majority on the Planning Commission equals a majority in public sentiment is a rather large assumption
On another point, Ross, I am a cynic who has a high tolerance for mean-spirited humor, but equating Roder’s alleged disrepect of a few overwrought individuals with Stalin’s torture, starvation and murder of millions of his own people is funny in what way?
I realize Spamalot reduced the Crusades to musical comedy, and The Producers turned Hitler into a joke, so Stalin’s Follies may be next.
Even so, making a joke out of Stalin’s reign while the Russians are terrorizing Georgia is, at the very least, profoundly poor timing.
Stephanie, you were an individual asking him a question and getting his opinion. Nothing in that exchange indicated he had any authority to block such a move or that he would officially fight such a move, only that he didn’t see that happening. As David L., mentioned, your question should have gone to the council and not him. There is nothing in the exchange that precluded the townships from passing resolutions formally requesting such a position. And even without such approval by the council, there is nothing that precludes the townships from appointing someone to attend all Planning Commission sessions and give input from the townships.
Did you really expect an employee of the city to speak to one individual and agree to lobby for outside influence on his employers’ operation?
Tracy: I think that you made my point more clearly than I could.
I have no doubt that the Planning Commissioners are hard-working individuals who understand that land use decisions have a long-term effect upon the City. But, it makes governance extremely cumbersome when the Commission chooses to ignore the recommendations of “handsomely paid” staff with years of experience, and ignore the likely wishes of the elected officials (and the people) in favor of some other vision.
This style of governance has to be very taxing for staff and the chief administrator as they are often forced to try and bring together these various visions into a cohesive plan that can actually work in practice.
I have a lot of respect for David Ludescher. I have to say that I think he’s generally on the mark. Northfield was a tough place to work. I have been the city manager or city administrator in four communities in Tennessee, Iowa and Minnesota. Northfield was - by far - the most challenging place to work.
I’ve thought a lot about why that is since I left there in 2002 to go to Eden Prairie. I don’t really know the answer. I think part of it is that residents in Northfield have a strong connection to the community. I think that some of it is related to the influence of the colleges and academia in the community.
But more than anything else, I think it’s a tough place to work because of basic role confusion among the staff, Council, Mayor and citizens. That will be tough to sort out, but it can be done.
That’s my two cents. Take it for what it’s worth.
News flash: Roder is gone and the city is still standing. If the city could survive Jesse James and Prohibition and the Great Depression and World War II the move of Ryt-Way and the closing of Jacobson’s, it can survive 18 months of alleged boorishness by one doughy middle-aged bureaucrat.
Clearly people here need to toughen up. As a long-time captive of Chicago television, I can tell you about real City Hall fights that would make Tony Soprano blush.
But a picture is worth a thousand words…and if you want funny, if you want examples of extreme government, if you want real disrepect, if you want mean, Roder isn’t even in the same league as the folks below:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xUy2inkGHQ&feature=related
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-10/27/content_386089.htm
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/88688/parliament_brawl
http://www.flixya.com/video/522905/Parliament_Punch-Up:_South_Korean_Lawmakers_Brawl_
Also, alcohol is allowed — and consumed regularly — in the House of Commons in England. Maybe we could build the muni INSIDE City Hall, or a combination police station and liquor store.
Think of the possibilities. It would save people from having to rush through happy hour. Of course, with beer on hand, there’d be no incentive to adjourn.
David : another specific question which you will probably choose not to answer… re: your post #34… if the planning commission should do whatever the staff recommends without thinking for themselves, and should only respond to the staff’s desires and the “likely” (your word not mine) wishes of the elected officials, then what is the purpose of the Planning Commission???
Or the purpose of any citizen board and commission ? … would you abolish them all or just provide them all with a rubber stamp saying “We approve of whatever staff and council want; so we’ve all gone fishin’ ! Put our paychecks in the mail. “
Scott Neal wrote:
Scott, do you think changing the Charter would help remedy this?
As previously reported , I think on the Charter thread, when we invited the former mayors to Politics and a Pint, to speak on the roles of Mayor/administrator, they said that they didn’t feel they had problems with defining the roles relevant to the Charter, or in general. ( This was Mayors Hager and Rossman)
So it would be illuminating to hear Mr. Neal’s POV . I would also like him to comment on the effect of the perceived difference between a town like Northfield, and a suburb like Eden Prairie, which I think “grew up” in a very different manner, with respect to citizen behavior.
Griff, I don’t think it’s the charter, I think it’s the way people here misinterpret what are pretty standard principles and processes.
Maybe we could send a delegation of citizens, staff and elected types to study Eden Prairie, or Chaska, or some other city to get some pointers, and then have a delegation come here to critique what’s going on.
As a “lurker” and only occasional commenter, I must say that Anne Bretts’ comment # 32 is a good example of one of the things that bother me about the “Blogosphere.” Tracy Davis, in comment #29 said “…if our elected representatives vote unamimously (7-0) on an issue that is both complex and controversial, at least half of them may not be thinking or do not have sufficient understanding of the issue.” Ms. Bretts characterizes Tracy’s comment this way: “Tracy, just because people disagree with you, it doesn’t mean they are stupid or misinformed.” Ms. Bretts has put her own spin on Tracy’s words, implying that Tracy is calling people stupid. NEWSFLASH!! Tracy didn’t say that. Sometimes what is remembered in these threads is what people think someone wrote, not what they actually said. It wouldn’t surprise me to read somewhere down the line, in this thread or another, that Tracy Davis called city councilors stupid.
And, David L., I agree with Kiffi. What do you think the commisions are for, if not to mull over the issues the council members may not have time to study in depth? Why have them if they are not free to disagree?
Scott Neal, thank you for your respectful and insightful input.
Ross, when are you going to run for city council or mayor? I like your way of thinking.
In my humble opinion, Roder’s part in the mayor/administrator fiasco wasn’t looked at adequately, and paying him off preemptively to avoid threat of a lawsuit was a bad use of our taxpayer dollars. He was paid well for doing his job, and severence was not in the contract. His implied threat to sue the city, in my opinion, amounts to extortion of the community, perhaps not in a legal but in a moral sense. But then I am not a lawyer, just a humble citizen. I would go talk to my city council representative but I’m not sure where he lives.
Also the whole conversation about the photo to me is a “red herring” (double entendre intended.) I never even looked at the photo when I read Ross’s post. I just thought it was the LG triumvirate at the DJJD barbecue.
Barb, just a reminder on our guidelines. When disagreeing with someone who’s participating in the discussion, you must address them by name in the first person. You didn’t do that in your criticism of Anne’s comments.
My humble apologies. I guess I wasn’t thinking of it so much as a disagreement, but as a comment on something that happens with some frequency on LG, and using that as an example. Sorry.
Barb: I think that we can assume that Scott Neal is accurate in describing Northfield as a difficult place to work (for any administrator).
The question is do we want to continue to make it a difficult place, or can we deal with some of the role confusion issues and other causes for making it so?
I’m not convinced that everyone is Northfield wants to make governance easier, more efficient, and better. Certainly, if someone with the experience and insight of Scott Neal doesn’t fully understand the dynamics making Northfield a “difficult” town, I’m not sure that the answer is easy.
Anne, thanks for your effort to instruct me on the proper relationship between a city administrator and a private citizen (comment #33). I don’t write much on this blog because I don’t have time to flesh out my ideas to the extent that I am sure they will not be misread.
My question to Roder was for the purpose of making him aware there was a precedent for having a non-voting township person on the Northfield Planning Commission. And to set the stage for a township rep bringing the idea before the Council. To my surprise, he did not suggest that. He simply put down the idea and I did not pursue it. No big deal.
Having attended the hearings on the annexation proposal, I was very impressed with the Planning Commission and am sorry to see Ross Currier and Ron Griffith leave the group. I join Barb K in saying I like Ross’ way of thinking and wonder when he might run for mayor or Council.
Stephanie, I wasn’t trying to instruct you at all, just trying to determine what you expected Roder to do and how he failed. I was trying to see whether there was something I missed and what your point was.
Perhaps you can elaborate on what you expected.
David L: I’d like to reply to some of your comments from yesterday’s post, # 28 …quote: ” For the last year Roder had to deal with:
1. an insubordinate subordinate
2. unknown allegations of criminal conduct
3. mayoral conflict of interest questions, and
4. citizens (NIMPUS) blaming him for the city’s problems”
(Hope the indenting etc holds up here, so it’s clear)
Replies: 1. Yes, as structured, the Charter makes the Police Chief “under” the Administrator. But I do not see how that makes the Police Chief responsible to clear every criminal complaint, that is filed with the Chief, with the Admin. The Police Chief obviously has to be autonomous, while subject to legal controls of process, in the business of pursuing “crime”. Would you want a police chief who only submitted claims that were approved by the Administrator? An uncomfortable task, when it concerns his “boss”, but unavoidable.
2. It is not the “citizens” who caused a problem for Mr. Roder; it is whoever filed a complaint. And the fact that the nature of the allegations is unknown, at this point, is part of the legal process; won’t they become known if charges are brought? One can assume that some action of Mr. Roder’s caused the complaint, either deservedly or not deservedly.
3. I was at the meeting where the Administrator said that 618 Division could not be considered as a site for the infamous liquor store , as he was advising the council that it carried a conflict of interest, BUT he did not give any caution re: 600 Division, and the council went on identifying that site as one of two preferred, and there was no argument from Mr. Roder, and indeed Mr. Roder continued to carry out the process with Donnelly assoc. on the consideration of that site, i.e. expending more time and dollars.
4. Yes, some citizens did blame Mr. Roder for much of the conflict of the last year, and some citizens blamed the Mayor. That is a pure division of opinion. Mr. Roder had the newspaper and the council on his “side”; I would have thought he felt like he had the upper hand. Nobody tried to take his office or keys from him; a humiliating experience that he didn’t have to deal with.
Actually, I think for the most part, it was an easier year for Mr. Roder than it was for the Mayor.
I just read something in a publication from the MN League of Cities, June/July 2008 The Importance of Ethical Conduct”. I found it informative. Here’s a quote: “Most often when we read about the suspect conduct of public officials, it involves a lapse in good judgement and not violation of the law.”
Griff: You asked me if I thought that a charter change would be helpful in remedying the role confusion issue that I believe complicates Northfield’s city government. I’ll answer that question, but I must admit two things: a) I’m not a resident of Northfield anymore; and b) I have a particular bias when it comes to city government organizational structure.
Northfield’s home rule charter is not a problem when personal relationships are good among the Mayor, Council and Administrator. When these relationships are strong and professional, the organizational structure for the city government is likely to be as well. The vulernability in Northfield’s city government structure is that when these relationships are weak or even hostile, the system can break down very easily and quickly.
Why? Because in my experience, the respective roles of the Mayor, Council and Administrator are not clear in the charter. This is not unusual in cities with home rule charters. Citizens and elected officials in cities with home rule charters are proud of their HRC’s because the HRC allows them more freedom and flexibility in local goverance. That can be a good thing, but many times the ability of local citizens to design their own local government can produce complications as incremental change creates conflicts and compromises within the fundamental governing structure over time.
I have been a city manager. I have been a city administrator. I have a strong preference for a Council-Manager form of government. That’s what I work within in Eden Prairie. We have a Plan B form of government as spelled out in Minnesota State Statutes. The lines of authority are clear. The powers of the city manager and the elected officials are clear. The division of power among elected officials and the city manager does not change from year to year or from whim to whim. The system works pretty well for all concerned.
The Council-Manager form of government can become problematic when the city manager forgets that he/she is not an elected official, and starts acting like one. I’ve seen plenty of city managers fall into that trap. I think that I do a pretty good job of knowing my place in Eden Prairie’s city government. Nobody elected me here, so it should not be my agenda for the community that rises to the top. It should be the agenda of the City Council, and it’s my job to make sure that happens.
As for Northfield, I’m not sure that having a Council-Manager form of government would be the cure to the ills that people are talking about. It works well in Eden Prairie, but Northfield’s city government customs and the way the Council sees itself and its role in the community would not jive well with the order and structure of a Council-Manager government, in my opinion.
Ross wrote:
Ross, I am sorry you took offense; my statement was not directed towards you at all, but towards some of the comments that appeared in the threads that I linked. I was not aware of you spreading whispered accusations, apart from “The rumors that I have heard” that you mentioned in in post #9.
Scott: You hit the nail squarely on the head in your post #48 , in the second paragraph, when you referred to the breakdown of the system when personalities OVERIDE the system.
No Charter change is capable of controlling human nature, and the failures of the last year + were human. But when other humans talked to the council (humans) the system broke down because the council did not IMHO respond humanely. If they had, they would have stopped what they perceived to be functional problems between the Mayor and the Administrator long before they came to the point where they ( council humans) tried to unelect the Mayor that almost 6000 other humans had elected. (The Supreme Court can mess with my vote, and I think it has, but the NF City Council should not even TRY to have that power! )
I guess, again IMHO, they tried to progress from ordinary humans to creatures of God-like omniscience, and with a little help from the hired help, both in-house, and out of the house. And once again the taxpayers paid for the out-of-the-house “help”. I don’t think I’m alone in saying: I didn’t find it “helpful”.
Someone said Roder is gone and Northfield is still standing; Yeah, right! But battered and bruised, and the coming election is not going to bandage it all up under a “plays well together” t-shirt, unless the citizens demand better, i.e. real facts from the candidates. Don’t just say we need to fix the Charter; tell us what you specifically would fix in the Charter, and what you think that change would correct. Don’t just tell us of all the neat projects we could have; tell us where you will find the $$$ to accomplish those neat ideas. And, tell us what you would do to correct the situation, faced with a city hall/council environment like the last year. And tell us how you would respond to the electorate if they came to the open mic and asked a serious question. (see Ross’s # 20)
Ask these mayoral candidates hard questions; if you don’t get the answer you want, follow up. Don’t just accept a lot of ideas, ask them how they will IMPLEMENT their ideas. “Wants” are, or should be, in the background; the “budget woes” tell us that the “needs” will be really hard to find the $$$ to pay for.
Thanks again Ross, for bringing up the untouchable subject/ opening the back room door. I wish, for Northfield’s sake, the questions asked here could have been answered.
Kiffi: I think Scott Neal did an excellent job of answering whether the City Administrator’s job is difficult (even without the unique problems that Al Roder faced). He even answered why he thought that it was difficult, and explained that the solution was going to be doable, but tough.
It is certainly not going to be doable if citizens think their “job” is to resurrect “rumors” about city staff, the Mayor, or the Council (”rumors” which they created?).
Now that Mr. Roder has rejected the council’s latest offer, what will they do?With his remarks that the offer was not “in the spirit” of their former discussions, one can only surmise that the councilors who did the negotiating were even more conciliatory than they had allowed. Only Mr. Pokorney, at the special council meeting, was outwardly very supportive of “paying” Mr. Roder the two-step payment of $35,000; he was right when he said that he didn’t know if Mr. Roder would sign the new proposal offered as a result of that meeting. Mr. Vohs was in favor of a rather more strict offer that night, one that had a $10,000 cap with review, and former very vocal supporters of Mr. Roder, Denison and Davis, were noticeably quiet.
So I suppose next Monday, will bring another difficult discussion.
I simply cannot understand the council’s fear of Mr. Roder suing; would he want to be doing that to his previous employer, given that he has just begun a new job? What will his new employer think? Will he want to front all the costs himself? He’s certainly aware of the city’s insurance coverage. Will he want to take the chance that the council, or a council with some new members, will be as unequivocally supportive as the old voting bloc was? Will he want the aggravation of that type of rather iffy lawsuit, especially considering his contract terms, when he has just embarked on his desired new job, in the city where he finds the values more like his own?
What will the city’s employment attorney recommend as the best choice for the council?
What will Dixon Bond say ???
Posted to the Nfld News at 7:30 last night: Former city administrator rejects second attempt at settlement.
Roder’s letter, according to the News:
Griff: Are we talking about two different things here? Isn’t there a question of Roder’s ongoing legal expenses, and the question of “severance”?
Let’s see the language of the city council’s proposed agreement. Griff, do you have that text to post?
I still contend that it is absolutely ridiculous to pay Mr. Roder severance, as he is not contractually entitled to a penny.
What is he referring to when he states “This agreement allows for the council to discontinue the indemnification at any time following my signing the release and I am not able to agree to this proposal.” What is the city indemnifying Mr. Roder for?
Does this mean that we’re going to pay him severance (for no reason), and agree not to sue him in the future (for any reason), and then if he’s found innocent of criminal wrongdoing we’re going to pay him a bonus for not being a criminal?
By the way, it sure seems like Northfield is covering the costs of Mr. Roder’s attorneys fees to receive advice and negotiate this severance. Why are we paying for Mr. Roder to negotiate more money and no liability from the city?
David: You have previously commented that you do not approve of “gossip blogging” and rumors” brought by citizens.
It seems you are directing that comment specifically to Ross, and/or I; regardless of whom that comment is directed to, could you please be explicit as to what you consider to be “rumors which they(citizens) created” ?
Kiffi: Ross’s post #9. It is gossip and viligante blogging.
Ross, in your comment #9, you wrote:
“The former Police Chief filed the charges against Mr. Roder. The “rumors” that I have heard include bid-rigging, soliciting kick-backs, and accepting bribes. Have you read “Denison, Iowa”? Those rumored charges were like deja vu all over again for me when I read the book.”
The former Police Chief didn’t file charges against Mr. Roder. He opened an investigation. It is up to Goodhue County to file charges, if necessary.
Also, I’ve heard the same rumors you list above, and more. Some with amazing detail and purported eye witnesses etc. I’m taking it all with a grain of salt and waiting for Goodhue. (Mr. Etter, couldn’t you do something with the “Waiting for Goodhue” theme?) Anyway, I don’t believe frequent repetition of rumors makes the rumors any more true. Hopefully, if Goodhue finishes up in our lifetimes, some clarity and resolution will result. Or maybe not….
The more I hear about this story, the more cynical humor I find in it. Our First Amendment does not give us the right to petition our government about our complaints, it prevents the government from retaliating against us for doing so. This is a cornerstone of a free and functioning democracy. Suggesting that officials should be paid, or worse, actually paying them, for hurt feelings is a strange, new policy.
Those taking government positions should study the First Amendment. It’s a citizen’s right and responsibility to demand government officials be responsible and accountable. It’s alarming when officials complain about citizens holding them accountable. Citizens should be respectful when their officials make good faith mistakes. But when not acting in good faith, or when incompetent, no official should bemoan upset citizens nor be paid for suffering their criticism.
As a candidate for the Second Ward, I’ll work for your respect. With around 5000 people in our Ward and nearly 20,000 in our city, I can’t please everyone, but I will always act with the good faith and dignity that we should expect, and sometimes demand, from our elected officials.
Ross: Good thread. Lots of good observations.
The News reported that, if an apology from the Mayor didn’t work, plan B might be money paid to Roder — is that correct?
I wonder: If in fact the request for the apology was because we have a mayor who was in conflict with the administrator and council, one would think that it would be enough for the council to pass, with or without the mayor’s vote, a resolution to give Roder a letter of apology from the council, or for individual council members to give Roder letters explaining some of the conflicts about which Roder is concerned, which may or may not impact his future employment.
In other words, if Roder wasn’t satisfied with the letter from the Mayor, you’d think Roder could be satisfied with a letter, or letters, from those members of the council willing to sign it. The lack of an acceptable letter from the mayor should not cost the city and taxpayers 10k.
If Roder’s treatment was undeserved, I would think this might be enough. If some of Roder’s own faults or limitations, perhaps as displayed in past employment, played any role in bringing down upon his own head some of the trouble, well, then you call it a learning experience.
That said, Northfield is a hard town to work in, but 111k is pretty generous compensation. I remember when I interviewed for a church music directing job in Northfield, and was asked how I dealt with criticism from parishioners at previous church jobs in the Twin Cities. I said I didn’t get much criticism in previous jobs, and there was an audible snicker, or restrained snicker, in the room that was mysterious at the time. A year or two later, it was less of a mystery.
And BTW, I didn’t make 111k in a church job.
So we’re an opinionated town, both a curse and a blessing we should learn to deal with better.
Hey Jerold, good to have another council candidate join the discussion… kudos on getting your Gravatar in place, too.
In today’s Nfld News: Roder settlement on ice for a while.
Thank you Griff. Having been involved in social activism mostly in Los Angeles, and seeing the broad range of personalities among citizens and especially officials there, I am not surprised to see some of the same personalities here. Nonetheless, the Al Roder story is remarkable.
Yes, Jerold … “the Al Roder story is remarkable”. But what is even more remarkable to me is how people can ignore the facts as presented.
David: Once again, in your comment # 57, you say that Ross’s comment # 9 is “gossip and vigilante blogging”. And yet , no matter how many times you are asked, you refuse to be specific about WHAT it is that you consider “gossip”; and what it is that you consider “vigilante blogging”.
Please put the words out there, or else you are simply doing what you are repeatedly accusing Ross of doing.
Let’s just take a simple , clear cut example: Last summer, the Police Chief , Gary Smith, brought/filed (whatever the exact correct legal term is) a complaint against Al Roder. Passed from Rice to Goodhue County , it is/ has been stated to be, a Criminal Investigation. The newspaper , when referring to this ongoing criminal investigation, uses terms like “it is believed to be”, “believed to be”, even the very qualified term “purported”, when referring to this active criminal investigation in Goodhue county. IMHO, for whatever their personal reasons are, the newspaper is simply not dealing with the facts. It is not “purported” , it IS. This is as far a deviation from the truth, as what you seem to consider “gossip” and “vigilante blogging” to be.
Now can you give me an example of the “G and VB” that you are referring to?
Kiffi: Vigilante blogging is when Gary Smith makes accusations against me when there is a 0.007% chance he is right.
David: I’m 83.879% certain that your figure is off by at least .01362.
David: I give up; it must be the headache I have that is keeping me from seeing the connection between that remark, and your concerns with Ross’s comment # 9…
Kiffi: Give me a call 645-4451 when your headache goes away.
David: Unfortunately the “headache” lingers when you make accusations of “gossip” and “vigilante blogging” here, in a public space, but suggest answering in a phone conversation.
You need to “make it whole” here, or let people think what they will …
Kiffi: If you or Ross can cite your (or any) basis to believe that any of the gossip mongering about Roder has merit, I would gladly recant my allegations. Presumption of innocence means exactly that; any presumptions that suggest guilt are just gossip, quite mean-spirited gossip at that.
P.S. What did the Everett Report say? Didn’t we hire that fella to do an investigation?
David: You tell me what item , or items, of “gossip mongering” you are referring to, and I will tell you what the basis for belief is…
Please, Make a numbered list, so it can be efficiently answered.
Kiffi: For crying out loud, they are right in post #9.
Here are the rumors:
1. Bid-rigging,
2. Soliciting kick-backs,
3. Accepting bribes,
4. Bid-rigging in Denison,
5. Soliciting kick-backs in Denison,
6. Accepting bribes in Denison,
7. Systematically discriminating against Latinos
and the worst rumor of all,
8. That any of these charges are being investigated by the Goodhue County Attorney’s office.
Ross: What, if anything, did you personally know about these rumors at the time you repeated them, especially 4-7?
Ross, since you have an affinity for “witty” historical photographs (i.e. Stalin as in your original post), why don’t you use one for your own gravatar? May I suggest Senator Joseph McCarthy?