On the Agenda for Monday’s Council meeting (pages 18-20 of the packet) is Approve RFP for Prosecuting City Attorney Services. Evidently, the process for selecting civil legal services is proceeding with the four finalists but they’re starting over for criminal prosecutorial services. It’s not really clear why, other than the oblique statement: (continued)
As a result of the interview process and discussions with the firms being interviewed, the interview panel believes it is in the best interest of the city to further solicit additional firms for criminal prosecutorial legal services at this time.
The REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR ATTORNEY SERVICES, JUNE 2009 (RFP) was approved by the Northfield City Council in June. On the agenda for the Aug. 31 Council work session: Update on City Attorney selection process.
In the June 26 Friday Memo, Deb Little, City Clerk, wrote:
The schedule for the City Attorney RFP process has been revised due to scheduling conflicts. The revised schedule is as follows:
- City Council Approval of RFP: June 15, 2009
- Advertisement of RFP begins: June 18, 2009
- Deadline for RFP: July 13, 2009 – 4:30 p.m.
- Review RFP’s: July 20 – 24, 2009
- Interviews: August 10 – 14, 2009 *
- Update City Council on process: August 17, 2009 *
- Consideration of approval of selected firm and award of contract by the City Council: Late August or early September 2009 *
- New contract begins: January 1, 2010
* Proposed dates subject to change
There’s a lot that could be said about this given some of the council decisions made, based on attorney advice (Mr. Roder’s separation agreement for starters),
but if you look at the city council packet information for this item, you’ll see a CHECKLIST which sets out the parameters to shape the search process.
One that caught my eye was this statement : ” Are there measurable criteria to aid with the decision making and have they been identified?”
Good question, one that you trust would be answered in the affirmative…
Well, actually, the box next to that statement has a big capital “N/A” in it…
generally that means “not applicable”.
Oh, well … haven’t we come to expect this sort of thing? i.e., NO ‘measurable criteria’.
I see that decision-making checklist box on Page 20 of the packet, Kiffi:
http://www.ci.northfield.mn.us/assets/p/Packet145.pdf
It is odd that that one is marked N/A.
I’ve also heard some grumbling that the interview panel:
includes only one elected official and no community members. Contrast that with the search for a new President and CEO for the Hospital. The Search Committee includes the following members:
John M. Lundblad, Board & Committee Chair
Dixon Bond, Board & Committee Vice Chair
James Schlichting, Board Member
Randy Reister, M.D. & Board Member
Rodney Christensen, M.D.
Robert Shepley, M.D.
Mary Quinn Crow, Administration
Mary Rossing, Northfield Mayor
Jim Blaha, Community Action Center
Karen Gervais, League of Women Voters Member
Mayor Rossing stated in her radio broadcast of 10/13/09 that the screening panel included 5 City employees, Little, McBride, Walinski, O’Connell, and Taylor and the Mayor. The Mayor also indicates that contracts are already being drawn up.
I would encourage the City Council to reject the “staff” recommendation. A more comprehensive panel would probably see the value from “Shopping Locally”.
I suppose I should ask some questions over the dinner table. (My husband, Lance, is a partner in the Lampe firm, and although he doesn’t do any of the City work, he would have a fiscal interest in this contract, as would I since I’m married to him.)
I haven’t talked this whole issue over with Lance or with any of the Council, so I’m not sure what the situation is. My biggest concern at this point would be the increased cost and decreased efficiency in using any out-of-town firm. That would always be relevant to the citizens, but even more so in the current economic situation. Plus, I’m always an advocate of “shopping local” wherever it’s feasible.
Griff, I think you make a good and valid point about the limited makeup of the interview panel.
If I find out any more details, I’ll post them here.
Hey! we could merge two threads: this and the Friday memo with the CCpacket for the 14th CC meeting re: the weirdness (with such an oblique statement) of going out for more RFPs for the criminal prosecution portion of the city’s legal service.
Of the first 5 candidates for that portion of the job, only four were interviewed… did the selection committee find none of those four adequate? or did the single non-interviewee object in some way to cause a need for more candidates? or a critical change in the RFP?
Maybe it’s just that whoever wrote the packet memo on the new RFP just wrote a poor explanation?
Considering the importance of good legal advice to the Council, I’m surprised that no one asked a question about why this second process was needed, since it was not stated that all of the first applicants were in some way not adequate, but I did get the impression that it was a revised RFP.
I often wonder why the Councilors don’t ask the obvious questions; if councilors are frowned upon (by whom ? ) for asking pertinent questions, that’s BAD.
Today’s Nfld News: Northfield still trolling for counsel.
The reporter, Jim Hammerand, wrote that the interview panel also includes Police Chief Mark Taylor, Community Development Director Brian O’Connell and Finance Director Kathleen McBride. Is that true?
It was refreshing to see Tim Morisette speaking plainly, assuming these quotes are accurate:
But it’s not clear to me if he’s referring to the city staff or the council or both.
Griff: I would agree it’s “refreshing” to see some plain speaking, but I wasn’t aware that the more attorneys you hire from a firm the cheaper the rates are, re: Mr. Morisette’s comment about NOT splitting the services, or the 60% of their hourly fee that the city pays is not sufficient.
That’s rather bizarre … I would think intellectual capital had a fixed price or a fixed value, but wasn’t cheapened , like grocery sales, by two-for one.
I would also think the council would have had to be given some information about this second round, but then the item was on the Consent Agenda for approval, so unless a councilor pulled it off consent it goes by without the information to the public which might be provided by the council’s discussion.
Kiffi,
I think you are misunderstanding the meaning behind Mr. Morisette’s comments on economic feasibility.
My understanding is that by doing the legal work for the city the two lawyers are taking a 40% discount on his normal hourly rate. Let say between them they currently do 80 billable hours per week. If 16 hours per week is for the city, one day per for city attorney work one day for prosecutor work, they have to do an additional 6.5 hours at normal billing rate to make up the shortfall of there normal hours. So each lawyer does 3 hours or so per week of “make up” work.
Now if one lawyer does both the city attorney work as well as the prosecutors work they would still do 16 hours per week for the city. However since they are now on there own they would need to do the 6.5 hours on there own. This basically creates an extra day of work per week.
My guess is that 2 lawyers are not cheaper it is just easier to give the city the 60% rate and make up the billable amounts split between two lawyers.
Kiffi,
I think you are misunderstanding the meaning behind Mr. Morisette’s comments on economic feasibility.
My understanding is that by doing the legal work for the city the two lawyers are taking a 40% discount on his normal hourly rate. Let say between them they currently do 80 billable hours per week. If 16 hours per week is for the city, one day per for city attorney work one day for prosecutor work, they have to do an additional 6.5 hours at normal billing rate to make up the shortfall of there normal hours. So each lawyer does 3 hours or so per week of “make up” work.
Now if one lawyer does both the city attorney work as well as the prosecutors work they would still do 16 hours per week for the city. However since they are now on there own they would need to do the 6.5 hours on there own. This basically creates an extra day of work per week.
My guess is that 2 lawyers are not cheaper it is just easier to give the city the 60% rate and make up the billable amounts split between two lawyers.
Well the search issue for city attorney services that stared back in June moved closer to a conclusion Monday night (10/12) when City Administrator Walinski delivered his account of the Search Committee’s suggested attorneys to serve the City for the foreseeable future.
Laying out a process that seemed thorough, flawless and well balanced, Walinski walked the Council through the various iterations of interviews and investigations in announcing the Committee’s choice: I my have the names butchered here … but in the envelope, had there been one, the choice to handle Civi Law -- Maren’s Swanson job since 1988, will go to the firm of Flaherty and Hood. Chris Hood will get the lions share of the responsibility, but the firm has adequate backup personnel to handle the job.
On the criminal side, the nod was given to Elliot Knetsch (SP?) with the Eagan based Cambell Knutson. Incidentally, Flarity and Hood are based in St. Paul.
The Council will have to approve this recommendation at a future Council meeting. If all goes smoothly, The new firms will pick up the reigns in January.
Who’d a thunk?
Thanks for the update, Victor. Wow. No more local law firms involved.
This sounds like a REALLY bad idea. Doesn’t anyone remember Rate Search and the Crossings? What happened to Shop Local(ly)?
Why is The Crossings being dragged into this?
Blog post with audio: Mayor Rossing discusses City Attorney recommendations
http://kymnradio.net/archives/3209
David L … bad idea or not, evidently the reality is only two local attorney’s (or firms) applied. One, the current duo: Morisette and Swanson -- and for what ever reason, evidently they were both seen as not a good fit any longer.
The search/review committee consisted of Mayor Rossing, Administrator Walinski, City Clerk Deb Little, Finance director,. Kathleen McBride and Police Chief Mark Taylor.
I’d speculate McBride was most interested in good business advice, Taylor good prosecutorial acumen, while Walinski, Rossing, and Little have little track record in hiring city attorneys. Evidently at least one of the five had enough clout to hustle the others … or, there is a lot of pent up dissatisfaction over at the City Hall with the attorneys of record.
It would be interesting to have been a fly on the wall where these discussions took place. You might conclude Maren Swanson was rejected early on (don’t know this as fact at all) and then Morisette played his ace card: when the firm said: all or nothing. At least the latter is true. Why would Morisette make such a bold move unless there was little to lose?
If Swanson was out … then by his own maneuver, Morisette was as well. And, maybe they’re just fed up with Northfield.
Only one other attorney from Northfield submitted a response to the RFP, and we were told Monday night by Walinski, was rejected, saying, “he had no prosecutorial experience”.
I haven’t seen his CV.
So in answer to your question (allegation) why no locals … evidently there were no acceptable applications. Maybe the local attorney’s know too much to want to get involved.
I thought Betsey Buckheit’s comment at Monday’s meeting that city law is a specialty was interesting. David, how difficult is it for a law firm which hasn’t done municipal law before to “tool up?” Is there an advantage for the city to hire a firm which has already done that kind of law previously?
Jane: I think the disadvantages to hiring a self-proclaimed specialist far outweigh the advantages. A lawyer’s first job is to understand her client, the client’s concerns, and to counsel the client in the law. This fellow from St. Paul isn’t going to care about his client.
And to hire a firm in Eagan to do prosecution when we have capable firms in Northfield? Mr. Morisette has more criminal experience than the whole Rice County attorney’s office put together.
We’ve had the Rate Search and Crossings experiences. We would not have had either of these problems if we had taken our own advice and stayed local. Every local bank or contractor could have done a better job than these “big boys”.
This is just my opinion, but seeing how the city government climate has fared over the last couple years, perhaps it is best we have an outside source for legal affairs. By no means do I infer that local barristers are not qualified, but Victor’s comment, “…And, maybe they’re just fed up with Northfield…” may have more merit than implied humor.
Interesting that there are 3 doctors on the Hospital CEO selection committee, but no lawyers on the city attorney selection committee.
Also would point out that if the state used the criteria for selecting judges that the city used for selecting a prosecutor--we would never see a new judge because they would lack prior judicial experience.
I wonder why a candidate gets tossed for not having prior prosecutorial experience, but candidates with no community experience are good to go. I agree with Ludescher about once a decade--but on this issue, he is spot on.
Nfld News:
City to drop Lampe lawyers
http://northfieldnews.com/news.php?viewStory=50094
Tim Morisette’s response
http://www.northfieldnews.com/photos/File1118.doc
I thought Tim Morisette’s response letter was excellent:
I stopped by the Lampe Law office earlier today to drop something off for Lance, and I chatted with Tim for a few minutes. He said that Joel W. told Maren a few weeks ago that part of the objection to Tim continuing to do the criminal prosecutions for the City is that Tim “didn’t take directives from City staff”.
!!
Maybe that sheds another beam of light on this. At least I find it extremely interesting.
Tracy,
Doesn’t the string of “you said that Tim said that Maren said that Joel said…” give you even a moment’s pause before you put quotation marks around something that is, at best, a third-hand report? I know blogs are not bound by the rules of journalism or courts of law, but isn’t that what an attorney might call inadmissible hearsay? I’m not sure what light you think that sheds.
It’s definitely third-hand. But considering the sources, I trust that both Maren and Tim relayed the statement with a fair degree of accuracy.
However, I agree that I shouldn’t have put it in quotation marks. I was just trying to clean up a messy paragraph with punctuation, but definitely not to journalistic standards.
That’s why we should leave journalism to journalists, and selection of legal services to people who actually know what’s involved.
Tracy- Does that mean blogs are free domain?
The City is being pretty tight-lipped about how the decision was made. Of course, the decision is not really made because with a professional services contract, the City does not have to accept the lowest bid.
It appears that the winning firms were pre-destined. Hopefully, the Council will give the matter the thorough look it deserves.
Britt Ackerman and a sainted relative of mine discussed the council’s recommendation for city attorneys on “The Law Review” this week. You can find it on the kymnradio.net website.
At the Chamber forum, the councilors continued to be tight-lipped about the reasons for wanting a change, and the costs for the proposed attorneys.
Let’s hope that the information comes to light before, not after, the City Council vote.
A Google search for the proposed civil attorneys reveal that they only represent two cities -- Park Rapids and Sartell, and their primary area of expertise is lobbying.
One item for possible discussion: Several Council members at the Chamber forum indicated that they DIDN’T think that it was appropriate to give consideration to local businesses just because they are local.
When the City is considering doing business (spending money) to what extent should whether or not the business is local figure into the decision making process?
In today’s Nfld News: Keep it local, attorneys say.
http://northfieldnews.com/news.php?viewStory=50240
In today’s paper, the Mayor is quoted, from the Chamber forum, as saying that the dropping of the Lampe law firm “in no way a reflection of past services”…
Well then, what was the reason?
It seems the main evaluations would be quality of service, and cost, with a big dollop of convenience/ proximity.
If it was not the quality of service, obviously not the lack of convenient proximity, then it must have been cost… why not just say it?
Every other decision in this tight budget year is being evaluated as to cost.
(Well, not the Safety Center…)
From the Council that campaigned on transparency, too little explanation on what has become a prominent issue.
Kiffi: I think that we need to remember that the committee was just the Mayor and staff.
There is substantial merit to the City Council revealing the details of the bids before they vote. I think a lot of people are skeptical about political motivations, costs, and the move out of town.
These service contracts are not like other Request for Proposals. My understanding is that the the City can reject all bids, negotiate the bids that they currently have, or relet for bids again. I also understand that the City does not have to keep the bids secret. In fact, if the City wants to negotiate on price and service, it would seem prudent to keep at least 2 firms in the running so that they can compete against each other.
Nominating one firm as the favorite and then trying to negotiate on a lower price or service doesn’t make any sense.
Good points, David… We’ll have to see how the entire Council handles this. I guess I am just expecting (having been ‘trained’ by the general dynamic this year) that there will be little objection to the staff/mayor committee selection.
The difference in this type of RFP is good to remember , also.
What’s your opinion of why more local attorneys didn’t apply?
Today’s Nfld News editorial: Attorney debate comes down to logic and emotion.
Sounds a little like John Glenn’s comment from one of the early NASA news conferences:
I recall a lecture by John Glenn, the first American to go into orbit. When asked what went through his mind while he was crouched in the rocket nose-cone, awaiting blast-off, he replied: “I was thinking that the rocket had 20,000 components, and each was made by the lowest bidder.”
No holds barred discussion on this on “The Law Review” now available at kymnradio.net
Nfld News posted this aft: Attorney wants to remain with city
I hope the rest of the Councilors will be as thorough as C. Buckheit has been (see her blog) in explaining their reasons for their vote on the City Attorney process.
The Mayor’s statement at the Chamber forum, that it had nothing to do with past quality of service, was not an adequate explanation given the cost comparisons; especially relative to costs in Ms. Swanson’s letter to the council which the NFNews linked to on their website.
There were certainly some very good reasons for keeping Mr. Morisette given at a recent council meeting’s open mic statements by Greg Colby, a public defender, and the director of the Hope Center in Faribault(sorry, don’t have that name). It seems the persons most in need of proximity to legal relationships often have the hardest time getting there, i.e. no car, time off of work , etc., so the arguments for keeping those services in NF rang true to me.
[...] discussion. I’ve turned off comments here. Continue the discussion on our Sept. blog post, What’s up with the City Attorney selection process? [...]
As you can see from the trackback above, I’ve got a new blog post up that excerpts from the Council packet for tomorrow’s City Council decision on the city attorney contract. I link to yesterday’s Nfld News story, too.
I think much of the negative reaction in the community could have been avoided if:
1. The selection committee had included others from the community, not just Mayor Rossing and 5 city staff members.
2. The selection committee had been more transparent from the beginning about the selection process. I complained about it 6 weeks ago (see blog post above) and it had been going on a long time already. We finally have some very helpful details on the process, but it’s a mere 3 days before a Council vote.
This would have been the perfect issue for the Council to deliver on its #1 Goal for the year: Council will implement effective methods of communication with citizen advisory groups and community, and its #1 Action Step for that Goal: The Council will establish an effective two way communication process for the community.
I unsarcastically agree with you, Griff, that so much ill-will and misunderstanding could be avoided through proper communication. When will people learn?
I think that some good arguments have been made for the selection of the recommended firms. But a larger issue still concerns me. Many members of the city staff don’t even live in Northfield. I’m bothered by the appearance that the operations of the City of Northfield, and important decisions that affect Northfield citizens, are being outsourced to staff members who don’t even live in town. Now the City wants to hire out-of-town attorneys. To me it seems like part of a pattern of putting Northfield into the hands of people who only know the city professionally, and don’t have a personal stake in it. Perhaps that gives these people a measure of objectivity, but I think it also undermines a sense of community.
Griff: It is good to point put the Council’s #1 goal. (above, #34) It has not been realized; and it’s maybe the simplest of all their goals.
Rob is right …Why is it so difficult., once a person is elected to office, to see that their responsibility is to the citizens, not the Staff?
What is the dynamic that makes them feel they are betraying the Staff if they disagree with them?
Who is the employer and who is the employee?
I think it is a disservice to a professional staff to think that they are such weak incompetents that every staff decision must be protected, rather than just not being a differing opinion or just not the decision the employer wants.
I understand that Staff has called councilors ” to task” about questioning staff in meetings. Again, who is the employer and who is the employee?
Tracy wrote on this thread (#18) that The City Administrator told the City Attorney that Mr. Morrisette did not take direction well enough from Staff. I sincerely hope Mr. Morisette was his own professional man, and did NOT take direction from staff.
Things are just plain “out of whack”; as Rob’t Burns said, the plans of mice and men “gang oft agley”.
Maybe they are just all confused about the community dynamics , since the former administrator and some council members got off pretty easily when they attacked a commission chair, after she had left, and at the end of the meeting when she could not have responded had she been there. There was little outcry against that citizen bashing then … and there has been none when it happens with this council.
Communications should not be so difficult, but when you let every little negative thing go by as if it did not matter, or because you find it embarrassing to correct at the moment,or worse yet… because you think you are in a power position and need not address the problem … those little issues tend to ball up into something big.
This is just a philosophical question, but are we seeing a trend in our city government that has been overtaking the whole country over the last few decades? The trend I am talking about is the reliance upon “specialists.” In the medical field, we used to go to our family doctor for whatever ailed us. The profession has become so complicated now, that if we doctors specializing in skin ailments, internal medicine, neurology, cardiology, etc. The same can be said for the building industry, auto mechanics, even retailers. Now, we are discussing the merits of a city staff and how they are involved in carrying out the governance of the city. Some people feel that unless a staff can be micro-managed, they cannot function sufficiently. Others feel that the staff was hired so they wouldn’t have to be involved in the day to day operations. My opinion is that somewhere in the middle of these two extremes is the correct way. Perhaps, because of this general shift in thinking in our society, the council and staff believe they are only carrying out the duties with which they have been charged.
I agree with Griff, Kiffi, Rob and others in their opinion that more communication would have allayed some fears and hard feelings. I also wonder just what percentage of the population of Northfield even cares about whom is hired for the city attorney and what process this hiring follows. I suspect this census could pretty much be taken from those participating in this blog.
Speaking of communication, I was told by a Council member last Thursday that members have agreed not to talk with each other concerning attorney selection before the vote Monday night. All discussion is to be at the Council meeting. Seems to suggest there is a lot of angst out there.
John: Good points. I would have thought that the Rate Search and Crossing fiascos would have taught the City Council the value of staying close to home.
Do Chris Hood or Elliot Knetsch care about Northfield? Are you going to see them donating time to the Lions, Sertoma, or the Rotary? Are they going to be donating to the Arts Guild or the Historical Society?
Citizens and the councilors should care about shipping services out of town. We’ve had bad experiences in the financial and construction sectors, and now we are going to repeat it in the legal services. One of the Chamber’s messages at the forum was that we have competent, capable people in all of these businesses,and it reflects poorly on everyone else in town in that industry when the City goes outside of town.
David; what the heck do you mean by referring to the Rate Search and Crossings fiascos as examples of the value of staying close to home?
Both of those examples occurred under the umbrella of the current City Attorney! You’re just not making any sense! (IMO)
That said, let me clearly state that I would NEVER cast blame on Ms. Swanson for either of those “fiascos”; both clearly beyond any influence of her …
The Rate Search fiasco was the result of an unpredictable crime of embezzlement, and the failure of the Crossing project was replicated thousands of times across the country, as the processes of the banking industry failed.
Kiffi: If we had used local banks and local contractors, we wouldn’t have had either problem.
David,
I don’t get what you mean when you call the Crossing some kind of fiasco that wouldn’t have happened if the City got together with a local contractor instead.
Did we have a local contractor that wanted to do the Condo buildings and had similar experience in doing them as Mendota Homes?
It seems to me the only thing that could have “saved” The Crossing was a healthy housing market, but the market tanked and yet this is the second time I have seen you take a shot at it in the name of “not being local”…I don’t get it, please explain.
Matt: There were local contractors interested in a project down there. But, Mendota Homes sold us on the idea of a beautiful mixed-use development that fit into some people’s dreams of what Northfield should look like. Mendota even got tax-increment financing. It was impractical even in a good market.
Now we have a piece of property that no one takes care of. It doesn’t have a small-town feel, and I would guess it is still receiving the very favorable tax structure.
As I recall, the locals had more modest and realistic plans.
David,
I hadn’t heard of any local contracting companies looking to make the investment that Mendota Homes did to get that project off the ground. I thought it was a good idea given what had been occupying the space for so many years and Mendota had done several similar projects to this one with pretty good success.
We’ll have to disagree on this and that’s fine, it was a big project to take on and at the time it looked like a great idea to “expand” downtown, but it didn’t completely fly for a variety of reasons and I hope when the market swings back that the pieces can be picked up and we see the development of that area pick back up.
I think it’s worth noting that our mayor, 3 other councilors, our city administrator, and our police chief are all new to their jobs, ie, they’ve never had these positions before.
Which is not a reason to not criticize, of course, but just to keep it in context.
At tonight’s council meeting, following about an hour and a half discussion, the council, on a divided vote, authorized Mayor Rossing, City Administrator Walinski and Councilor Vohs to negotiate contracts with the two recommended firms (Flaherty & Hood and Campbell Kutson) for the city’s legal services.
I’m told via email that the resolution to accept the committee’s recommendation for new attorneys passed 4-3 tonight.
In favor: Buckheit, Pownell, Rossing, Zweifel.
Dissenting: Denison, Vohs and Pokorney.
Interesting: All the rookie councilors voted in favor, all the veterans voted against.
I know I’m late to this party, but I think there may be compelling reasons to have legal representation from someone who isn’t local. I’d argue that attorneys who have no personal or political ties may be in a better position to give unbiased, unvarnished, straightforward advice. Local attorneys my feel the such a strong need to get along with everybody that they’ll compromise their standards. I am not saying that this has been true, but it’s worth considering.
Jim: No one has suggested that the Council was getting bad counsel or that the lawyers were compromising their values.
Jim- I think you have a good point, there. It seems that in so many small city government decisions made, no matter what the community, there is the fear of accusation of cronyism. Just look at the accusations around the video recording work done at city hall. It seems that if there is any relationship between city officials and contractors, then any contracts granted are suspect. This is really hard to get away from in a smaller town like Northfield where everyone knows of or has had work done by many of the bidders.
I’m not entirely clear on the role of the city attorneys. Are the city attorneys responsible for providing the Council with legal advice on the drafting of city ordinances, such as the rental code?
Also, are the city attorneys responsible for providing advice on the structuring of legal settlements, such as the agreement with Al Roder?
Patrick: The city attorney is actually in the employ of the council, to do just what you describe … general legal advice, ordinance issues, and sometimes even as a parlimentarian.
When there is a specific issue which Ms. Swanson felt needed a particular expertise, outside help was sought. In the instance you refer to, “the structuring of a legal settlement … agreement with Al Roder,Ms Swanson brought in Roger Knutson of the Campbell-Knutson firm. He provided the legal advice to the council on that settlement agreement… ‘old news’, but urged, repeatedly urged the council to enter into a ‘pay-off’ agreement with Mr. Roder, as “insurance” (Mr, Knutson’s word) against being sued by Mr. Roder.
Many people thought this was bad advice, when combined with the payment of Mr. Roder’s legal fees, because it provided what some called an ‘open checkbook’, and the threat of a successful suit by Mr. Roder against the city was thought to be minimal, i.e. the advice was not necessarily in the client’s ( Council) best interests.
Who knows … It’s not over.
Thanks Kiffi. Do you know who advised the Council on the constitutionality (or lack thereof) of the various parts of the Rental Ordinance?
Patrick: As I recall, the City Attorney advised the Council of the possibility that what they wanted drafted might be unconstitutional. I recall that she was told to do it anyhow.
The RFP the council approved last June 15 may be helpful for your question in 42, Patrick.( http://www.ci.northfield.mn.us/assets/a/approve-rfp-for-city-attorney-services-motion-attachment.pdf) That evening they also approved, without dissent, the committee members at that meeting.
None of the council members brought up the preference for local candidates at that time, although last night this was an important criteria for several members. Nor did any council members request changes in the composition of the committee. although again, last night, some councilors seemed to have felt left out of the process.
There were no citizens on hand in June to comment on the RFP or the committee.
Listening to the discussion and reading the RFP leads me to understand why the 4 “rookies” voted to support the committee’s recommendation in spite of the obvious opposition of many influential Northfielders.
Jane: Help me understand. There was absolutely no public support for what the rookies did.
David,
You can certainly complain ’til the (dis)contented cows come home about decisions you don’t like, but please spare us the generalizations that there was “absolutely no public support” for the council’s actions. I, for one, feel that my council representative did what I hope she would do when I voted for her: make thoughtful, informed decisions that she feels are in the best interests of the city.
It would be nice if you would stop using the pejorative (as you use it) term “rookies” to describe four sitting council members. I think if they’ve demonstrated anything this past year, it is that they are smart, hard-working and deserving of more respect.
Randy and Jane: Idon’t think that it bodes well for the future to see our four inexperienced coucilors not listening to the three experienced councilors and the vocal opposition to the committee’s recommendations.
David : there was a lot of public support for what the 4 new councilors did… remember YOU are the one who cautioned to NOT listen only to the people who appear at open mic; you have repeatedly said here and at the armory, and at meetings, that those people (at open mic)always speak and the larger public needs to be listened to.
Most of the people who spoke Monday night were not what some might refer to as the “usual suspects”; additionally there are many people who have been calling their councilors and telling them not to go with the remainders (councilors) from the previous council who presided over such “chaos”, and did so with what has been called an ‘open checkbook’ in hand for the former administrator.
What is really strange to me is the picking of the “open checkbook” firm; after all Roger Knutson, was the advisor and negotiator on the settlement agreement with the former administrator, and that does not appear to have been good advice for the taxpayers.
So in my POV, it was very much a mixed bag, with a lot of mixed messages, i.e. “not based on dissatisfaction with previous services” or whatever that specific quote was …
I am also amazed at Councilor Pownell’s amazement; she is everywhere, constantly working people… certainly she heard some of the myriad comments out there. Did she just not ‘hear’ them?
I think in the interest of social justice in the courts, Morrisette should have been retained. I think the general cultural difficulty NF exhibits in dealing with any kind of ’embarassment’ did not allow that contract to be separated, even if it was offered later in the game. The losers on that one are the people who have already ‘lost’ something.
How do you know there was no public support for what they did, David? There certainly wasn’t any in the chamber last night, admittedly, but can we assume that group represents the views of the rest of the public?
My point was that the people voting yes apparently thought the committee had played by the rules set by the council. Rhonda Pownell seemed to say so. She acknowledged that there was a lot opposition out there, but then said that the committee had done its homework before voting to support it.
Don’t know why all of the formatting data appeared at the top of the previous comment (47.1). It didn’t show in the comment box. Sorry about that…
Randy- It probably has something to do with artificial intelligence, or perhaps the curvature of the earth. Now, if it had been my comment, it would definitely been PEBKAC.
I removed it, Randy.
With the new editing feature that we installed for comments, if you copy/paste from Microsoft Word, it’ll include some of the hidden formatting from Word. Just paste it into the HTML view next time.
Today’s Nfld News: Council OKs new attorneys.