Special investigator William Everett presented his findings regarding “various municipal issues and allegations” to the Northfield City Council tonight. The 61-page document (scanned PDF) was made available to the public. A supplementary 3-page addendum was made available only to the Council and city administrator Roder because of ‘private data.’
After receiving the report, the City Council agreed to meet for a special session, open to the public, on Saturday, Dec. 22 at 8 am to discuss it.
I took photos of pages 4-5 of the report, the Overview of Issues and Findings. Click thumbnails to enlarge.
Click play to listen. Attorney Cliff Greene introduced the report. William Everett’s remarks begin at the 7 min 30 sec. mark. Total length: 15:49.
Update 12/18, 8:20 am: Here’s the 61-page PDF. City staff had to scan it so it’s huge, 42MB.
Update 11:51a: I received this 3MB lo-res version of the report, and the letter from attorney Cliff Greene. – Tracy
Nfld News reporter Suzy Rook posted her story tonight at 11:20 pm: Mayor acted improperly; Report finds issues with TCO, liquor store site
I’ll have a paper copy of Bill Everett’s Final Report of Investigation Concerning Municipal Practices with me today. I’ll be at the Blue Monday this morning, 6-8 am, with timeout to go vote in today’s primary and maybe a visit to Sweet Lou’s.
(I’ve sent an email to city clerk Deb Little asking if a PDF of the 61-page report can be made available.)
Although the report specifically addressed the Select 6, it appears that others of the List of 14 are addressed as well. See Ross’s blog post All will be revealed for an explanation of what those entail.
It’s 8 am and I just got the PDF of the report from Deb Little. I should have it uploaded here by 8:30 am or so.
Only the first migraine of my life kept Patrick and me from attending. I’m glad we didn’t miss anything important…
Here’s the 61-page PDF. City staff had to scan it so it’s huge, 42MB.
Thanks to Tim Jackson at Computer Titan, that 40MB PDF has now been reduced to 10MB.
Posted at 10 am on the Strib’s web site by Sarah Lemagie: Northfield mayor misused power, investigator says
I just posted a lower-resolution PDF of the report, plus the letter from attorney Cliff Greene (see bottom of original post above).
Now that there is a finding of ethics code violations, what happens next? What is the process and what are the possible penalties and who handles the issue?
Nfld News reporter Suzy Rook filed this story just before noon today. It’s about Everett’s addendum that was handed out to only the council members last night:
Investigator clears Roder: Private 3-page report finds there was no wrongdoing
I don’t understand the ethics code violation:
Section 2-127 (a) clearly Lee made his interest known , and it was obvious to all
Section 2-127 (b) Lee disclosed his interest and recused himself. Any citizen could give papers to Al Roder and become upset at Al if he choose not to present them to city council
I don’t read this code as saying officials can’t act on their interests so much as saying you need to let everyone know up front that you have personal interest which Lee did. And not vote on the issue.
The park fee reduction might appear favorable unless it has been granted to others, or is commonly reduced for Division Street development, or is commonly reduced in similar small town main street projects -- I did not see this addressed in the report. I would guess the park fee concept relates more to development that would create need for additional parks.
One key issue would seem to be: do “documents” constitute “discussion and voting.” I take that “discussion” to be during council meetings. Any citizen can produce “documents”, if they were on city letterhead (I was not clear on that either) that would seem in bad taste but the fact is Lee had already made it clear he had a conflict of interest.
In today’s Strib, Sarah Lemagie has a story titled: Turmoil builds over report of Northfield mayor’s abuses.
In today’s Northfield News, Suzy Rook has a story titled Reaction mixed on what comes next. Helen Medin, Victor Summa, Anne Bretts, Dixon Bond, Galen Malecha, Scott Davis, Jim Pokorney, Noah Cashman and Jon Denison were all interviewed.
Today’s Northfield News editorial: It’s time for the mayor to leave office.
It seems the charter commission has a new issue to tackle. The community should not have to mount a recall campaign to remove a mayor when there is clear and well-documented evidence of not one but several ethics violations and a pattern of inappropriate behavior lasting many months.
The pattern of behavior is bad enough, but the mayor’s reaction is worse. He says he didn’t realize he was breaking the ethics code. Do we want a mayor who doesn’t understand the responsibilities and rules of the job?
In response to David H., it is not enough to acknowledge a conflict of interest. The mayor simply may not take any action in conflict with his role as mayor. That means he needed to assign his son or a lawyer or friend the role of representing his business interests. He cannot act as a mayor to gain information and then act as private citizen to use that information against the city. A private citizen would not have authority to order an employee to refuse an occupancy permit.
There must be a method of removal for cause in the future. For now, this is sad, but the mayor’s supporters must think of the good of the public and help their friend realize that this time he must act in the interest of the city and not his own.
Anne- with all respect, the very purpose of acknowledging a conflict of interest is to put everyone involved on warning that you absolutely are going to be acting in your self interest rather than in a neutral official role. I do not see a reading of the Northfield ethics code creating a standard as you describe above. I think the special investigator is also applying a standard that goes well beyond the code’s language.
Lee made his conflict known and this is why city employees reacted to his requests with refusals. Regarding Lee, everyone who voted for him knew he was a downtown businessman and knew he may have conflicts of interest while in office -- they still elected him. He is still mayor and none but the electorate can undue that. I would be careful in calling for a recall vote, Lee is tough, and if he prevailed against his opponents he would become as powerful as a dark lord in Northfield
.
One final point, because this issue has become highly emotional for all involved, everyone begins to have a conflict of interest in representing their emotional self interest as opposed to the interests of the city.
Interesting thoughts, David, and I’d like to think we all respect each other, even when we disagree. It would be so boring if we all agreed on everything.
I was thinking about your point that this is emotional, and I think that the report is great because it takes the emotion out of the discussion. For months we have heard that this was a clash of personalities, a clash of wills, when it really was a group of people trying to deal with someone who was breaking the rules and denying responsibility.
I don’t see this as an emotional issue at all. Think of it this way: I have a bit of a lead foot and occasionally I get speeding tickets. I admit that I have paid some steep fines and have insurance rates about equal to a 16-year-old boy because of it. I could argue the first time that I didn’t mean to do it, but over time it’s clear that I’m the one responsible and I have to slow down or pay up. I’m still a good Mom and a decent human being, but I have a behavior problem.
The mayor has had a lead foot on the job, trying to speed through a deal to fix his personal problems with city money. He was warned and warned and warned and he didn’t listen. Now it seems the report is the political equivalant of a reckless driving charge that carries a one-year suspension.
He’s not going to jail. His term is in its last months. He can file in the summer and run again. Perhaps the public will forgive and forget. I doubt it, but he has that option. Let him face the voters, but don’t make the voters have to organize to get him out. We don’t round up a posse to catch speeders, and we shouldn’t have to do so to deal with political wrongdoers.
Look, the mayor is not a bad person in other areas of his life (at least I don’t have any reason to believe he is). He just needs to set down his gavel and work on his personal problems out of the spotlight and let the good people at City Hall move on.
Griff -- where do I find a copy of ‘Northfield Code Of Ethics’? Does it address whether or not a Council and Charter Commission can ignore the results of a referendum, albeit legally (I am refering to the 2001 referendum which is discussed in another LG thread).
The code of ethics is in Division 2 of the municipal code, Norman, Sections 2-121 through 128.
The Northfield Code of Ethics allows for only one sanction -- Any person who willfully violates it is guilty of a misdemeanor. I think this would be pretty difficult to prove in a court of law as opposed to the court of public opinion, but that is the only punishment allowed by the Ordinance. What the Ordinance doesn’t allow is censure resolutions, a slap on the wrist, or a kick in the pants. I suppose the council could put on their private citizen hat and start a recall petition, but I don’t think that is very likely.
So what should they do? IMHO the mayor and council should both apologize for their respective actions. The Mayor for what he appears to have done;crossed the line of improper influence and the council for what they didn’t do; nip this in the bud back on March 20,2006 when the amount of the proposed park fee was reduced or even a year later at the closed meeting March 5,2007.
Who does staff go to when they have concerns about undue influence? Where did the policy, if we have one, come up short?
You know back in the day The Northfield Ethics Ordinance had a Northfield Ethics Board. Citizen, staff, or even council members and administrators could come with questions and concerns and seek advisory opinions. Maybe we should dust off the paper work and try that again. I know the budget wasn’t any where near $35,000 and I know that it didn’t take them a year,year and a half to form an opinion or suggest an action. I’m sure there will always be some prolem that needs a referee.
Speaking of back in the day, I think the last recall petition was Marv Grundhoefer and that petion was found to be non-sufficient before it ever made it to the council for action.
They need to talk this out. Get every thing off their chest but realize nobody is going away till the next election. Talk it out then put it away in a drawer and speak of it no more. Besides with Maria’s out of the picture the smart money is on the Q-block as the site for a new liquor store.
Hold yer horses thar, David. Maria’s is prime for fish ‘n chips wrapped in copies of the Northfield News and burger ‘n fries.
Norm, Fish n’ chips AND VINEGAR! Yum!!! I would prefer that to the liquor store! (Granted, I will still miss Maria’s fish tacos!)
That land has great potential. I would hate to see it become a new spot for the liquor store. How about resurrecting a miniature golf course? (Was there one in that area before, or am I dreaming?) Going back to my dream of canoe rentals, it would also be a great site for “Northfield Outfitters.”
How the “ho-tel” did this discussion of the Everett report get diverted to fish and chips UNLESS that’s about what you think the value of the report is….. fish wrappers !
In a meeting of leading NF citizens (???) early Wednesday AM, ALL agreed that the report was not up to ninth grade standards as far as documentation necessary for conclusions… Opinion of the investigator is then stated as fact AND admittedly so, and I quote from page 3, paragraph entitled : Interpretation of Evidence.
” … the investigator found it necessary to consider both ambiguous and sharply conflicting evidence and to draw reasonable inferences and conclusions from the evidence a a whole. The investigator found it necessary to sometimes reject the factual contentions of one individual IN FAVOR (emphasis mine) of those put forth by another. Accordingly, in INTERPRETING ( emphasis mine, again) the evidence, the findings and conclusions set forth in this report to some extent constitute the investigator’s opinion ….”
Had enough yet?
Would you want one person to reject your “factual contentions”, “in favor” of anothers? Would you want an “interpretation” by one person,resulting in an “opinion” that impacted your life? And what do you think a “factual contention” is? As used, those two words are factually in contention with each other.
People will praise a result that supports their own POV, whether it is informed or simply an opinion; by his own words this report is stated to be an “interpretation”, an “opinion”.
Remember the quoted paragraph is entitled “Interpretation of Evidence”…
Would you want to go “to Trial” with one person holding your fate and have that person state that they interpreted “in favor” of one testimony over another?
I think not …
I think that’s why juries have twelve people on them.
Well, everyone is having such a darned good holiday week, I almost hate to bring up this minor little detail, but the council is planning on Saturday to take away the mayor’s keys to City Hall, pass a resolution asking him to resign, and turn the whole report over to the county attorney for consideration of misdemeanor charges against him. Jim Pokorney has written a moving letter asking the mayor to step down. Both pieces are on the Northfield News site. The Star Tribune, Pioneer Press and Minnesota Public Radio are doing stories and I wouldn’t be surprised if television cameras were on hand for the meeting.
Councilors say they are being deluged by demands from residents to take a tough stand.
Sounds like those suggestions for everyone to sit down with a mediator, have a group hug and sing ‘Kumbaya’ aren’t gonna work out.
MPR reporter Sea Stachura filed a story for today (both text and audio) titled: Northfield City Council to discuss allegations of mayoral misconduct
Northfield News reporter Suzy Rook filed this story yesterday at 6 pm: Resolution asks mayor to resign
Councilor Jim Pokorney has a letter posted to the Northfield News website re: Mayor Lansing.
In today’s Pioneer Press, reporter Nick Ferraro has a story titled: Northfield, Minn., mayor accused of using ‘improper inflluence’ to aid son’s development project
Councilor Jim Pokorney has asked (via email) Nfld News managing editor Jaci Smith for a correction:
I’ve edited my comment above that links to Pokorney’s letter, removing the phrase “…asking Lansing to resign.”
To bad I can’t be there for the council meeting Saturday morning. Two remarkable resolutions.
The first one is to authorize$5,000 more for the Everett Report. He was selected September 10, had about a month to determmine the scope of work necessary and come up with a cost. At the October 15 council meeting he told them what he was going to do at a cost of not to exceed $35,000. He presents his report December 17 and the next day requests that the City pay him an additional $5,000. I thought not to exceed meant- I promise to do what you want done and it won’t cost you more than this. I guess I’m wrong. More money is needed because one part is still hanging and somebody needs to redact all the non public stuff, but $5,000 more should cover it. Maren has recommened this so I guess the council is likely to approve. I wonder if they would be as likely to approve additional money if “The investigator had not found it necessary to sometimes reject the factual contentions of one individual in favor of those put forth by another.” Would the likelihood of passage be the same if it was a different individual facts that were chosen? IMO not to exceed means not to exceed. I think the council should vote no.
The second resolution contains two subjects in the same resolution. First subject accepting the report, adopting findings and passing it along to the County Attorney, which is absolutely what needs to be done, and the second subject intermingled in the resolution, censures the mayor and calls for his immediate resignation. These are completely different actions. Is Resolution #2007-143 about the report or the resignation? This resolution contains two related but different actions items. How could a council person who wants to accept the report and pass it along to the County Attorney but thinks it may be premature or out of order to consider a censure motion, vote? Do they vote for or against the resolution? Do they have to vote against it, to vote for what they feel is proper and correct? Does someone vote his conscience or get swept along by the popular tide? Is it a forgone conclusion that the Mayor willfully violated the Ethics Code?
What about the Mayor? There is no memo or information that says he shouldn’t vote on this. I don’t recall any objection when he voted to have the report done. Any member may make a motion to separate but given the atmosphere would such a motion be seconded much less passed? The Mayor might welcome the report being sent to the County Attorney, it could vindicate him, but vote to censure himself or calling on himself to resign, come on. Is the purpose of the wording of the resolution an attempt to take away the Mayors vote? This is why resolutions are only supposed to have only one subject. The council has been painted into a corner. Are they going to fix it or will they say oh there’s no problem with the resolution, staff knows what their doing, let’s vote.
How does it go…oh the games people play now, every night and every day now, …hum, hum,hum, hum, hum, hum. Or should I hum Ho, Ho, Ho, Ho, Ho, Ho.
The city actually spent $40,000 cash to justify obstructing a private project to improve Northfield by showing that Lansing lobbied, after stating he had a conflict of interest, to save $20,000 in park fees (which every I assume every builder would) ? I would suggest spending another $40,000 to investigate the efficacy of how the first $40,000 was spent.
Kiffi wrote:
Kiffi, an election, even a recall election, is NOT a criminal trial. As citizens and voters, we are not asked to determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and we are not meting out criminal sentences. We are asked to make our judgement as to whether or not a given person is fit to serve in a particular public office.
When we consider that decision, we, as citizens, can each look at the published documents available through the Northfield News, Locally Grown, the city, and whatever materials Lee Lansing or anyone else wants to put forth into the public sphere.
Proving criminal malfeasance is an entirely different affair, that is properly left to the County Attorney, the state, and the courts. This is not about that. This is about, variously, 1) asking him to resign, 2) giving him a formal rebuke (censure), and possibly 3) mounting a recall election to have him removed from office. Lee Lansing will not be put in jail, nor will he suffer any other harm to his private person, based on these actions.
Criminal conviction WOULD, of course and quite rightly, be required to pass the legal threshold of evidence you demand.
(I’m sorry, that first paragraph in my post #32 was supposed to be a quote of Kiffi. How does quoting work on this page? Other people seem to be able to do it?)
In #20, David Delong states that
According to the Everett Report, the council was not told how/why the fee was reduced. This is corroborated by the packet and minutes of the March 20 2006 council meeting. In the packet, starting on page 30, there are references to the higher fee in excess of $25,000. The minutes then state that Roder notes an error in the resolution. The park dedication fee should be changed from $25,544.97 to $4,900.00.
One cannot retroactively expect the council to have nipped in the bud something of which they were not aware. I do wonder why Mr. Roder did not bring the full issue to the council, but that is an entirely separate question from how we should act regarding the Everett Report’s findings relating to Mayor Lansing.
PS -- Kiffi, I would appreciate it if you would refrain from references to leading citizens of Northfield. We are all citizens, and all our votes and opinions should count.
PPS -- Apologies to all if my html doesn’t work. That would certainly make this post unreadable!
Sorry, my quotes DIDN’T work! OK, triumvirate, how does one make the shiny block quotes?
Felicity -- you have to enclose whatever it is with HTML tags:
So then it displays like this:
Felicity: re: my “leading citizens” remark, it was a piece of sarcasm that passed by the Griff-ly filter…it referred back to an earlier very specious remark; excuse me for thinking everyone reads everything…….
Posted to the Nfld News web site at 6 PM today by Suzy Rooks: Resolution asks mayor to resign.
Posted to the Strib web site at 4:30 pm today by Sarah Lamagie: Resolution calls for Northfield mayor to resign.
I would like to see each council member state on record prior to the motion tomorrow that they are not going to use the Lansing affair in the future when running for office to claim “they rooted out corruption.” Something smells fishy in Denmark -- I would hate to see action taken to hurt a solid citizen in order to embelish a resume.
Yeah, David … Something smelled fishy in Denison Iowa, also; I would also “hate to see action taken to hurt a solid citizen in order to embellish a resume”.
Unfortunately, History repeats itself.
Thanks Tracy! And thanks Kiffi for relieving my mind. I obviously hadn’t caught the sarcasm.
In my comment #20 where I said the council could have nipped it in the bud, I guess I slipped back into time and thought how I acted during my time on the council. I used to spend a lot of time playing devil’s advocate and I asked alot of questions, some would say too many. I asked a lot of questions because I wanted information out to the public Too many times before and since I’ve thought to myself how did the council ever arrive at that dumb decision.
While I haven’t reviewed the actual tape I did put myself into the other persons shoes and said to myself- If I was on the council March 5th 2006 and a resolution was presented about a park fee for 600 Division, and the mayor had stepped down because his son was one of the owners, then I’m told that the fee should be reduced by half because of an “error”. What would have been my reaction?
Well for me a red flag would pop up. I would have asked questions about the “error”, and what our usual policy was and why did staff change it in this instance?
For some people this would and I suppose always will be seen as criticizing staff but as a devil’s advocate, if you don’t ask the questions first then you’re hiding some thing. You know Lee has been in business along time and probably has had his share of detractors all along but you try not to give ammunition to them. Didn’t any one on the council think, wow, some one that doesn’t like Lee could have a field day with this, we better be sure to make an extra effort to make sure this was all squeaky clean. So me, I would have asked more questions and perhaps have been told that it was the mayor pointed out the “error”.
We’re all taught no likes a tattle tale, but there is a big difference between volunteering information and having to reply to a direct question. So in my mind questions would have been a perfect opportunity for staff to tell the council , the mayor pointed out the error, we felt uneasy with this but saw that he had certain points. Uneasy would have been another red flag and chance to discuss the bounds of the mayors involvement and set out or clarify expectations of the mayor in this matter and tell staff what to do if they fell uneasy in the future.
But I am not on the council and nobody fills the role of devil’s advocate and so nobody asked. The prayer ladies weren’t given special consideration when using the administrator’s office, because no one else had asked. Maybe that should be the mayors line also, I would have advocated for a reduced park fee for any one else, but, nobody asked.
In case any one asks, I’m off to do Christmas suff now
David- Those are good observations on your part. You are speaking out of experience. I can only speak out of speculation, and since that is the basis for many an unofficial opinion on this blog, let me propose this. Is there evidence, now, of complacency on the part of the council? When you trust someone, and there has not been previous behavior to raise suspicions, would a person pick up on small nuances of behavior? I agree, it seems someone should have at least asked about the change in the park fees, but even if they had, and it had been indicated it was the mayor’s input that changed this, would any additional investigation have ensued? If there had not been previous behavior to spark suspicion, I doubt it. Hind sight is always (or should be) 20/20. But at the time, if you trusted the mayor, and wanted to afford him the best motives in this, would you have really pressed the issue? I don’t know if I would have. Maybe I just trust people too much.
As far as the City Charter, somewhere in a previous thread on this site, there was some discussion about the charter/mayor issue. If I remember it correctly, there was a proposal to better define the roles of city administrator and mayor. This was presented to the council and adopted according to proper procedure. I don’t remember this changing the overall format for the city government away from a strong mayor pattern. Perhaps, in hind sight, again, it would have been better to change it. Now we are faced with the sticky wicket of a mayor who has been accused of unethical behavior by an independent investigation and who has chosen not to accept the findings of this investigation. If a City Manager had done this, he could simply be fired. With the mayor, this draws in the whole populace in a recall venture and brings division to the whole community.
Also, David, when you are asking questions and trying to dig out the truth, I wouldn’t call you the “Devil’s Advocate.” My understanding of him is that he doesn’t like the truth very well. An advocate for truth is an advocate for truth, so don’t put yourself down.
I’m tired of hearing that the council should have stopped the mayor. Every time the council or administrator tried to question Lansing’s actions during the past year there were a handful of people in the audience of council meetings and here who maintained they should support the mayor no matter what. That’s how this whole “mess at City Hall” perception started, with people criticizing the Roder and the council as obstructionist for not rubber-stamping Lansing’s ideas and actions. The comments indicated Roder should be fired for being difficult because he resisted the mayor’s authority.
As for something smelly in Dennison, there are many rumors about the mayor’s misbehavior far beyond the range of this investigation, but people have tried to show restraint by dealing with facts.
Since the rumors about Al Roder still are being touted here, here’s a partial list of rumors that could be investigated in regards to the mayor:
…rumors that he called the first choice for administrator and got him to withdraw, then immediately told Roder he “owed him” for arranging his hiring so that he could exert influence from his first day on the job.
…rumors that the council took away the master key in part because the mayor had an unfortunate habit of using it to snoop through the offices of city employees (more of an threat to employee space than the prayer ladies ever posed)
…rumors that the last city administrator, a respected professional, quit in tears over the abuse she suffered from the mayor and that the reason no one from Minnesota applied for the administrator’s job was that she was well connected and warned her colleagues not to come here
…rumors that the mayor called the EconoFoods executives in Wisconsin and immediately after those calls the firm mysteriously withdrew its site from the competition for the liquor store.
It would seem that we should stick to the facts and the report at hand. The people who don’t believe the report never will.
John George: “As for the City Charter…”. John, you remember it incorrectly. Please read the threads on this issue (the Suzie N’s podcast thread gives the background and others elaborate on it).
The result of the referendum in 2001 was against the City Manager/Weak Mayor form of government and, ergo IMHO, in favor of a Strong Mayor/City Administrator form. The Charter Commission disregarded this and worked instead to “better define the roles of city administrator and mayor” towards what we have now and what we expressly rejected in this our representative democracy (Cashman) and where the “process” (Pokorney, Dennison) and the “best interests of the community and not narrow self-interest” (Pokorney) are what matters -- the City Manager form.
Anyone who wishes to verify some of the “facts”, or “rumors” about Denison IA, under Mr. Roder’s administration, should call the current Mayor, Nathan Mahrt (although he’s probably thinking by now that Northfield should deal with their own problem by documenting it the way he did), or Richard Knowles, a civic booster who has been on every organizational board, brought their packing plants to town, used to publish the newspaper, etc.etc.etc., or possibly even the young Hispanic contractor, Luis Navar, who ALMOST (except for a lot of civic reaction) got screwed out of his low bid renovation contract.
Don’t take my word for it; go out there and read two or three years worth of newspapers on the subject of the inkind gifts etc. for the new convention center,the auditing of that project and the subsequent add’l loans required; look at their city finances in relation to failed or stalled large building projects; look at their uncompleted downtown streetscape
project and ask why it wasn’t completed. That’s enough to start.. or don’t do anything… just read the Northfield News, and think you have gotten the report.
Because it is way, way easier to hold one person responsible, than Seven.
And , by the way, I’m not wishing for anything… except that all this had never happened , and that we had a newspaper that was/is committed to pure, old-fashioned journalism and the associated values of that discipline.
Norman- Thanks for the clarification. At my age, I should know better than to trust my memory. I haven’t had a chance yet to go back and review it all, but I probably misinterpreted it.
Griff: any chance of piling all these different threads re Mayor, Everett, etc onto one thread?
I am so sorry that my attention had to be on the antics of Rice County Commissioners these past months and not on Northfield City government. Most of all, I wish I had gotten to the public meeting Saturday morning….
My instincts still tell me there is plenty of blame to go around. And that it is simply wrong to talk of ousting the mayor on the basis of the Everett Report while the investigation of the city administrator is still going on. I do not like to pass judgment until I see the whole picture.
I agree, Stephanie. Does anyone know when the investigation of the city administrator might be complete? It seems like it might be a crucial piece of the puzzle.
This conversation (ongoing in at least three threads) has been confusing for me, in that voices of people that I’ve agreed with in the past are on opposite sides of the discussion, and are making strong opposing arguments.