Comments on: What might you say to Mayor Lansing and the Council in your two minutes at Open Mic on Thursday?

By: Lisa Guidry

Lisa Guidry — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 22:46:52 +0000

Griff,

After reading the recent post on Northfield News regarding the lawsuit & tonights meeting I regret going out of town. I hope to read plenty about tonights meeting on this site.

By: Ross Currier

Ross Currier — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 16:14:44 +0000

Curt, your comment #29. I had been told by one of the Council Members that tonight’s meeting had been called so that the public could hear how the Council was going to assure the citizens that the Leftover 8 items were going to be explored by an entity that was independent of both the elected officials and hired staff. This seems kind of a bait and switch to me.

By: David Ludescher

David Ludescher — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 15:38:16 +0000

Tracy, if you think it is worth repeating, be my guest. I had assumed, based upon Griff’s post, that the Council would get all civil comments before the meeting.

By: kiffi summa

kiffi summa — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 14:27:48 +0000

I don’t know that it will do any good to speak at open mic (although I certainly encourage everyone to do so) because the council seems to be operating on the”last man standing” principle, at this point.

But I would like those who read this to consider this: The Mayor brought to the council the idea of gathering their (not citizens) complaints, and sending them to a state agency for review. Does that look like the action of a person with something to hide?

The council voted to do so, but after the auditor rejected the idea, the council has unsuccessfully attempted to deal with the initial 14, the submitted 6, the leftover 8. How is that the mayor’s fault? He is not the only council member to bear that responsibility.

Then the mayor files his lawsuit, which in its discovery has the possibility of exposing himself as much as any other councilor; does that look like the action of a person who believes he has something to hide?

The Mayor has put HIMSELF, as well as others, in the spotlight, and does not seem hesitant about doing so. So if council is trying to blame the mayor, weaken his position, they appear to be doing it do lessen any possible impacts on themselves. (remember a big part of the confusion is that the “city” is named in the lawsuit, that includes the mayor has a seated member of the council!)

It looks to me as if the Mayor is trying to do everything possible, no matter how difficult, to push the issues of conflict into the daylight.

By: Tracy Davis

Tracy Davis — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 02:51:21 +0000

Curt, the exact wording of the resolution is here on Scott's blog.

By: Tracy Davis

Tracy Davis — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 02:48:45 +0000

David, well said. Are you going to read that on Thursday? If not, will you give permission for someone else to read in your stead?

By: Curt Benson

Curt Benson — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 02:33:47 +0000

Actually, more correctly, the council is asking Lansing to “step aside”, temporarily--not “step down” as I said in #29.

By: Curt Benson

Curt Benson — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 01:53:08 +0000

Breaking news, the council is asking the mayor to step down. From the News:

http://northfieldnews.com/main.asp?SectionID=21&SubSectionID=44&ArticleID=21350

Hey David, I’m guessing you got an “A” in speech class. Well said.

By: Peter Waskiw

Peter Waskiw — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 00:27:23 +0000

ditto to #27 comment.

By: David Ludescher

David Ludescher — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 22:22:33 +0000

No one seems to have taken the bait on their two minutes. Let me try.

Dear Mr. Mayor and Council Members:

First, let me express my deepest appreciation for your willingness to serve me and our town. Having spent just 10 months on the Council, I know that the pay is absymal, the hours demanding, the critics omnipresent, and the duty weighty.

My grandfather used to tell me that no good deed goes unpunished. No matter what differences of opinion you have, I would guess that all of you think that this adage applies to you. The discharge of your duties, especially in these trying times, is not a sure, nor an easy path. But, it is necessary.

Mayor Lansing, earlier this year, you took time out of your many duties to pull me aside and offer your advice. Your advice that, as Chamber president, I needed to close the perceived rift between the Chamber and the NDDC was timely, needed, and ultimately corrective. Since then, our organizations have cooperated in many areas, including the Retail Strategies Task Force. That was an example of true and unselfish leadership.

All of you now have in front of you 14 issues, and a lawsuit to boot. The State Auditor would not, and cannot solve your problems. A private investigator will not solve your problems. Lastly, lawyers and courts are often medicene which is worse than the ailment regardless of who “wins”.

The solution to the 14 issues, and the lawsuit exists right here in this room. You know it; I know it; the whole City of Northfield knows it.

Now get to work. Make each of us proud to call you, “my councilman” and “my Mayor”. We want nothing more, and we will settle for nothing less.

By: Ross Currier

Ross Currier — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 01:30:24 +0000

As Chair of the Planning Commission, I always receive the Council Packet at home. In fact, this afternoon, I received the packet for the Monday, November 5th Council Meeting. However, I never received a Council Packet for the Council Meeting last night, Monday, October 29th. Perhaps there was something special about that meeting.

By: Lisa Guidry

Lisa Guidry — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 00:43:06 +0000

My source tells me that the Mayor refuses to receive his packet at home like the rest of the city coucil, so he receives his whenever he goes to his office. I suggest that they get a signature for receiving his packet. The police dept. reports when the council receives their packet, but they don’t say that the mayor is excluded.

By: Tracy Davis

Tracy Davis — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 23:57:50 +0000

Kiffi, in answer to your question, I don’t think the mayor can/should find out about a closed meeting via a website post. I was simply pointing out that the information was made public several days prior to the meeting.

In addition, we don’t know that whatever regular policies for notification were *not* followed in this case. All we know is that Lee didn’t know about it till he read it in the paper, but we’re not sure why that is.

By: kiffi summa

kiffi summa — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 23:19:18 +0000

response to #22: if they decided not to allow comments on agenda items , they would have to rescind the resolution or whatever they used to institutionalize the agenda item comment card process.
They can’t just suspend a process that they themselves instituted , unless it was not done with a vote process.

By: David Ludescher

David Ludescher — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 22:35:30 +0000

According to Councilor Davis’s blog site, the Council may decide to take citizen input, but they are not required to do so.

By: Christine Stanton

Christine Stanton — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 16:53:43 +0000

Okay, that is what I get for going out on a limb and commenting as a “regular” citizen who does not always understand government. After reading more posts, I now understand the third discussion point--”Should any civil/criminal investigation have any bearing on city process or procedures point.”

In answer to that question, I say NO. Processes and procedures should follow in all circumstances.

By: kiffi summa

kiffi summa — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 15:34:52 +0000

The City Charter states that a time for the “Hearing of the Public” be provided at every regular council meeting. In my experience, this time is not provided at a “special meeting”. The council voted , some time during Susan Hoyt’s administration to allow comments on agenda items, if a card was filled out and submitted, and so that process couldn’t easily be changed.

By: Griff Wigley

Griff Wigley — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 14:24:07 +0000

David L, it’s a little confusing, but my understanding is that Open Mic technically means a time at the beginning of a council meeting for citizens to speak to the council on any issue.

For this meeting, citizens can only speak to the council on the 3 agenda items.

So my headline for this blog post is technically inaccurate but I don’t know what other term to use for it.

“Agenda item mic”??

By: kiffi summa

kiffi summa — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 13:43:53 +0000

Tracy: surely you are not saying that the duly elected Mayor should have to find out from the city website that a closed meeting has been called, are you?
I believe the process would be this : the required number of counselors that wanted to call a meeting would go to the city administrator, and make the request. If it was within the framework of allowability for the suggested date(timing, noticing, etc.) the meeting would be approved. Then a notice would be sent to each of the council members by the city administrator, stating the request, the subject, the time and place. I would assume this would be an inter-office memo; I sincerely doubt the council feels the need to check the city website to know what’s going on.
In the case of this particular situation it MIGHT also contain a legal opinion about the Mayor’s attendance. (Parenthetically, when the League of Women Voters observer called the City Attorney about last night’s closed meeting, Ms. Swanson said that there was no reason why the mayor could not attend; however, either he could CHOOSE to leave after the opening procedures of establishing the closed meeting. And of course the parties who called the meeting could ask him to consider leaving)
My point about the irregularity of last night’s meeting process, is that the Mayor, did not receive the sort of inter-office memo one should expect from the council’s staff.
No matter what the problems, the normal chain of procedure should not be disrupted.

By: David Ludescher

David Ludescher — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 13:41:28 +0000

Scott Davis’s blog indicates that there will not be an open mike on Thursday. Is that accurate?

By: Tracy Davis

Tracy Davis — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 00:00:22 +0000

Tonight’s meeting was posted on the City website several days ago. I don’t remember when I saw it, but it was sometime last week:

http://www.ci.northfield.mn.us/meetings/council/2007/10/29/special_city_council_meeting9

Agenda is there. It’s short and sweet—I’ll copy and paste it in its entirety.

CALL TO ORDER

_____ Lansing _____ Cashman _____ Davis _____ Denison _____ Nelson ____Pokorney _____ Vohs

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

AGENDA

1. Motion to close meeting to discuss pending litigation entitled Joseph Lee Lansing, et. al., v. City of Northfield, et. al., with attorney George Hoff, as allowed by Minn. Stat. Sec. 13D.05, Subd, 3 (b). Motion

CLOSED MEETING – DISCUSSION OF PENDING LITIGATION

ADJOURN

By: Bright Spencer

Bright Spencer — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 23:29:32 +0000

If I used the open mic on Thursday, I would suggest a three mayor town.
One to bring lawsuits to other council members, one to do whatever he/she
could to promote his/her own agenda, and one to work on behalf of the
people of Northfield. Then we’d see some hands free at least.

By: Christine Stanton

Christine Stanton — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 23:28:32 +0000

This is a comment on: “Should any civil/criminal investigation have any bearing on city process or procedures.”

I feel the word “should” is redundant at this point. Maybe a better question is, “Do the current civil/criminal investigations have any bearing on city processes and procedures?” In answer to that question, I would say, unfortunately, yes.

Should they? I guess that depends on the lawsuits. In this case they seem to have affected the functioning of the city council and staff.

By: Scott Davis

Scott Davis — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 22:39:16 +0000

Tonights meeting is with the City’s attorney representing the City, and the four people the mayor is suing. It is about the case, I am guessing. It is closed as I’m sure Mayor Lansing’s meetings with his attorney is closed.

Obviously the mayor would not be invited to the opposing teams meeting(s).

Scott

By: Stephanie Henriksen

Stephanie Henriksen — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 22:32:32 +0000

Saturday paper listed a closed City Council meeting for tonight that even the Mayor was unaware of until he read it? Has anyone checked with other Council members as to who called this meeting?

There used to be a City Hall call-in number that listed the meetings of the week on recording. Anyone know if it still exists and what the number is?