I didn’t attend last night’s Northfield City Council meeting (agenda PDF; photo is from earlier this year).
- I was told this morning by a citizen who attended the meeting that Mayor Lee Lansing opened the meeting but then departed, accompanied by Police Chief Mark Taylor. Anyone have details?
- Who spoke at the public input portion of the meeting on the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)?
- Did payments get authorized for the investment loss; for legal services?
- Did plan for City Hall renovations get approved?
Britt: It was (is) gossip. Locally Grown can do better.
I agree with David L’s post. How distasteful and disgraceful. I am so disappointed
Griff -- bad judgment on post #2. It sounds like you were not even there. Wow! So much for asking me to “Try again”. Get with it!
While many would ask for this thread to end -- as it should -- the issue emerging is that of the lack of civility and decency often displayed in this community. Gossip, innuendo and outright lying is not uncommon. Geezzz, it’s uglier than national political campaigns.
I’m very sad!
Griff has acted responsibly in bringing up this matter. The mayor’s public behavior certainly warrants discussion here.
“Capital expenditures” -- Britt quit trying to sober everyone up this is a ripon thread.
I was wrong about diabetics and belligerence. Comments here, some private email I got, and a quick Google search shows that it’s not unheard of. I should have checked that out. I apologize to any diabetics reading this.
As for whether whether I’ve engaged in gossip or encouraged it by allowing this discussion thread to happen, I don’t agree.
Curt B. wrote:
Curt, I think there’s a difference between diagnosing someone’s problem and describing/documenting (diagnosing?) their public behavior.
I spoke to someone I trust (the media person I referred to in post #2 who was there and standing next to Lee before the meeting) before I wrote ‘visibly intoxicated’ in my comment #2. (I initially used the word ‘drunk’ but changed it after about 5 minutes.)
So yes, that’s an anecdote, but I’d argue it wasn’t a reckless one. My subsequent comments in this thread and on the podcast were made after I spent many hours on Tuesday talking to City Councilors and other people who were there, both by phone and in person, trying to get a better understanding of what happened on Monday night. I tried reaching several others but they didn’t return my calls.
As for how this message thread on a public blog is helpful to Lee or the city, I think it’s important to have a place to discuss it responsibly. This was our highest public official in the most official and public setting. Dozens of citizens were there, the Northfield News wrote about it, and NTV broadcasts the meeting several times.
The City is served because his behavior in this condition in his capacity as mayor is extremely problematic to everyone and to the public business that he’s charged with dealing with. I was shocked to hear (from trusted sources who were there) that this has happened before in a public meeting. If people continue to keep it quiet, it’s a huge public disservice.
Lee is potentially served because the more that people know, the more likely it is that people will take action to help him. Silence is often enabling and enabling can be deadly.
So I’m not going to close this thread yet, though the discussion should probably stay focused for now on the pros and cons of this discussion.
This discussion is about the behavior of an elected official in his execution of his official duties. Therefore, it is an appropriate topic for public discussion.
That said, sympathy and well-wishings are due to Mr. Lansing in this. There have been a couple of overly personal and hurtful comments in this thread and on the Nfld News that did (to my ear) clearly cross the line of inappropriateness. I wouldn’t include Griff’s in that category.
Griff, I agree with Patrick that the behavior of an elected official in the execution of his official duties is an appropriate topic.
However, I think there is a difference between descriptive comments like Bill’s and Sean’s and yours (#32).
I think your comment is way more diagnostic than descriptive. First you bolster the weight of your opinion with your past experience in the chemical dependency field, and then write statements like this:
“Lee very well may be diabetic but his behavior at the meeting had nothing to do with it.”
That statement rules out diabetes. It is a judgement or diagnosis, not a description.
Griff, your comment #32 may turn out to be entirely correct, but I think it was inappropriate.
Let’s agree to disagree on this one.
Can we discuss the City’s $50 Million Plan for capital expenditures on this thread or should we start a fresh one?
I think a fresh thread would be a very good idea.
Griff: there have been many “belligerent” statements made in council meetings, and Not by the Mayor. Indeed, later in the meeting under discussion, there were very negative comments made in reference to the item on the agenda that was to approve paying a bill for legal services incurred by the mayor (acting as a citizen, by his testimony) to question date practice violations. Two councilors made personal, disparaging , and contradictory comments after the city attorney’s explanation of why the issue had to be referred out to another firm. They appeared to not take note of, or value, what their own city attorney stated.
My point in this case is, many “belligerent”, “distasteful”, “disgraceful”, “disingenuous”, etc etc etc comments are made and are not even reported on or brought up for discussion.
I find it curious that you have “trusted sources” who will not be public ; I tend to put more faith in people’s comments when they will stand by them publicly, i.e. attach their name to them… especially in a non-professional journalism venue such as this. There are many people on Locally Grown who may disagree, even “violently” disagree with each other, but I certainly respect the responsible behavior that requires them to attach their name to their comment. So then why do you, as the monitor, have “trusted sources” that you allow to remain anonymous, although you quote them? As I have said before, I find it cowardly to make statements which one will not publicly own.
If the other incidents of “belligerence” you refer to have occurred in the council chambers, and involve the Mayor, as you imply, I haven’t seen them; and (freaky me!) I go to all the council meetings.
The problem some people are having with this thread appears to me to be the inequitable focus of interest on a questionably verifiable state of being that the Mayor was experiencing; and the tendency to define it, and assess blame for it, without any certification.
Ross, I think you should start a different thread on the capital improvement plan expenditures, tax questions, and related issues.
See also Jane McWilliam’s fine summary of the June 2 Council meeting at the League of Women Voters site: http://lwvnorthfieldmn.org/weblog/post/1077/
Memories of my father’s insulin reactions and resulting death in a tractor accident when I was a child come rushing back to me now. I hope my comment appears before this discussion is closed.
Dad’s condition was worse in times of stress and overwork. Had I known Lee was diabetic, I would have worried more about his survival during these stressful times as Mayor. I thank Barb Kuhlman, Robert Hall and others on this blog for a more generous attitude than some others have shown. And thanks to the Northfield News for printing Lee’s side of it.
Being diabetic myself, I can attest to the mood swings that occurr when my blood glocose gets out of whack. The degree to which this occurs does vary from person to person, also. I can become irritable at times, and I am completely unaware of it. Having an understanding family and bunch of co-workers makes all the difference in the world.
The point of the criticism in this matter is that the friends and co-workers — and the police who were present — should make sure that anyone who is impaired is detained outside the council chamber and assessed by medical personnel. No one who is impaired should be allowed to enter the chamber, much less conduct a meeting. (If this was a result of a diabetic condition, the mayor should have a medical bracelet and should have alerted his friends and co-workers in advance in how to deal with any such episodes.)
This is not a matter of personal criticism, this is a matter of public policy and public safety in dealing with impaired people in public situations. If a diabetic person shows up impaired at a public meeting and no medical treatment is sought, the person’s life could be in jeopardy — and the city could be held liable for negligence.
Anne- Yep. Practical, pragmatic solutions, as always. Are you really sure you’re supposed to leave town?
The Nfld News printed a different version of the Lansing story in Wednesday’s paper than they ran on their website on Tuesday.
The Tuesday morning version was titled Lansing: Behavior was related to diabetes, not drinking.
The Wednesday print version was a sidebar to an article titled Projects on city’s five-year plan could be delayed (sidebar displayed on the web version of that story, too).
The Wednesday sidebar version was titled Mayor leaves meeting and included this:
The Tuesday web version of the article ends with:
The Wednesday print sidebar version of the article ends with:
There were a few other minor word changes with the print version, too.
Nfld News editor Jaci Smith criticizes some of us in this discussion with an online-only opinion piece titled Real journalism key in story of mayor’s behavior at council meeting.
and then at the end:
If the discussion of the mayor’s behavior was not gossip, why did no one talk to the mayor? This was vigilante gossiping.
IMO, idle speculation seems to be rampant in Northfield. I remember the things that were said last year about the prayer ladies at city hall, too. My grandfather had a comment for people who express an opinion or take an action prematurely- it is going off half-cocked. I don’t think anyone in our fair city has a monopoly on this characteristic.
Too often I have heard people tell me that they witnessed something that DID NOT HAPPEN. If someone acts in a way that appears drunk, suddenly several people say they smell alcohol. Eye witnesses are unreliable unless they are trained.
I have witnessed diabetics with low blood sugar who act drunk--they slur their words and have difficulty focusing attention--it is disturbing to me to hear symtoms described as if the witness knows the cause. That is leaping to conclusions.
Anne Bretts in #64 you say that we should automatically have police and medical personnel called when we think we think someone who is impaired and attempting to enter the council chambers. This suggestion is impractical and not compassionate. Obviously Mayor Lansing behaved in an odd manner. It is easy to call the ambulance when you don’t have to pay for it--but if you are considerate of others, you will not force them to incur medical expenses. (Yes if they are bleeding profusely or have some detached parts you have to call 911--but lets be practical.)
I just stopped by Lansing’s garden store and Sandy Molkenbur said that Lee Lansing’s father died, so Lee is in Iowa.
Thanks for letting us know, Jane.
Ross and Tracy and I met at 10 this morning to discuss this conversation. We agreed that further discussion should focus only on our handling of this issue in this discussion thread — as well other any other media who touched on it, eg, Northfield News, KYMN, other bloggers, other public comments, etc.
We also thought it would be good to encourage discussion of the larger issue of what the guidelines should be for media reporting on/public discussion of public officials’ conduct that might fall into that gray area between public and private.
The Northfield News made a decision in Wednesday’s print edition to reveal that a friend of the mayor “… said Lansing may have taken more antidepressants than prescribed.”
It seems to me that in this case, whether or not a person is taking antidepressant medication is a private matter and should not be published in the paper unless the person in question states it to the reporter.
Moreover, I don’t think the paper should publish a friend’s speculation that a person might be abusing their prescription.
In resonse to Britt’s comment #50, nothing personal Britt, but I wonder why in this society we have to build something right away all the time.
In past societies, people spent 40 years building something like a cathedral or public building. Forty years.
Not every moment is meant to move forward. Many moments are meant
for reflection and wonder and education and lifting our spiritual eyes upward.
FOrgive me for waxing on so.
I did visit Lee Lansing today at the flower store and I was very happy to speak with him and he treated me like a long lost friend, We barely know one another in real time, but I pray for his relief, and thank him for his
volunteer services as mayor.
Griff: I agree that the News should not have quoted a friend on speculating about the Mayor’s health or behavior. I know that Victor was only thinking of his friend, and the News should not act like some gossip sheet, taking advantage of people when they are under stress--but then, neither should LoGroNo.
Britt: I (comment #50), I share your frustration. Northfield certainly studies everything and has good consulting employment but when are they going to DO something?
Jane, can you be specific about what I/we/LG have done to “take advantage of people when they are under stress”?
Griff: Is there an editorial standard that would classify this story as something other than gossip?
David L. -- what is your definition of “gossip”?
Tracy: Tell me that LoGro cares.
David,
I care what you think about this. You know I respect you for your record of civic involvement both here on LG and elsewhere.
The Wikipedia definition of gossip is a starting point: Gossip is idle talk or rumor, especially about the personal or private affairs of others.
Imagine if I ran for mayor or council and got elected (Randy’s suggestion!).
It seems like it would be irresponsible gossip for a blogger or any local media to report that I had a porn collection. Or that I was seen visibly intoxicated at a local pub. Or that I was seen departing a gamblers anonymous meeting. Or that I was behind in my child support.
If any of those ‘habits’ lead to behaviors that land me in court, it seems like it would be fair to report it, as I’m a public official who’s broken the law.
And if any of those ‘habits’ lead to behaviors that show up in my job as a public official, it would also seem fair to report it. For example, if I made a racist or sexist remark at a public meeting. Or if I displayed some of porn collection in my office at city hall.
I’ve not completely thought all this through so I’m interested in feedback from you and others.
Gossip is not always negative as many people think. It can reflect genuine concern and shared compassion about someone you know.
Julie
There’s a AP wire story on the Strib: Flowers, Jones offer Web details of alleged encounters with former President Clinton.
I’m not even going to link to it, as I think it’s a shitty thing for the AP and the Strib to post. True gossip, IMHO, and I don’t have much respect for Clinton anyway.
Griff: That Mayor Lansing left the meeting is the news, and fairly insignificant at that. Why he left is the gossip (idle talk). I consider gossip to be talk without value, and most often, without sufficient factual support.
The three of you can do so much better. Why waste your time on this kind of trash?
I don’t think this is gossip, Gennifer Flowers and Paula Jones were there. Gossip would be if you, Griff were offering details about what happened. The Strib is just saying what Gennifer and Paula are doing, that is not gossip, I think it’s more like free advertisement of porn.
So, David, if you show up in court and the judge is noticeably impaired (regardless of how/why/with what), would you mention the fact?
As I said in an earlier comment, there’s no way we can win this one. I think mentioning the aberrant behavior of an elected official at a public meeting, especially when it had already generated a lot of talk and questions in public before we mentioned it here, was not only acceptable but necessary if we want to continue to maintain an open forum of opinion and discussion. Granted that some of the ensuing discussion was speculative and pointless. I simply don’t think LoGro was wrong to bring up the topic.
We love to hear gossip about people we dislike and dislike gossip about people we love.
I think what’s happening here is that Lee Lansing was and is a beloved person by many in this area because of his long term help and friendship towards the people. Lee might have been given the benefit of the doubt and maybe a little more time might be allowed to pass to allow the facts to come to light
before the issue was raised. A little compassion goes a long way.
Hi crobin,
We do have a requirement that real first and last names be used.
I tried to email you but the address you used bounced.
Please contact me at:
http://locallygrownnorthfield.org/contact/
Tracy: I didn’t say that LoGro was wrong to bring up the topic; you can publish what you wish. Personally, I think that it is one step below vigilante blogging. Do you three really want LoGro to be an open forum for local gossip?
Great minds talk about ideas; small minds talk about people -- Ann Landers.
David,
“Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people,” Eleanor Roosevelt.
But then, she didn’t live in Northfield.
I’ve temporarily removed crobin’s recent post, as I’ve not heard back from them re: first name and real email address.
I posted this version of my comment #73 above to Nfld News managing editor Jaci Smith at the bottom of her page, inviting her reaction here or there.
Reporting what you think you saw or what you think someone else saw is gossip.
Reporting what you saw is fact. The mayor left the meeting early. His father is very ill and subsequently died. That is fact. Speculating on whether someone’s behavior is normal or weird or indicates a medical, social or personal problem is NOT NICE.
If you see a woman on the street in what appears to you to be a maternity blouse and she appears to have a beer-belly you neither ask her when she is due or report in a blog or newspaper that you think she is pregnant--because YOU DON’T KNOW.
Asking a couple of people who YOU respect what they think is not getting an expert opinion, it is group speculation. LoGroNo was wrong to speculate on what happened at the council meeting or after. Period. There is no way to make it right now, just promise to do better in the future.
Griff, you asked about taking advantage of people under stress, which I commented on in #75. The problem is, you don’t know which people maybe in tough circumstances in their life--if it is the fat woman on the street you think is pregnant, the diabetic-mayor whose father is ill and dying, or the city council man whose child/wife/ other family member is having problems. You definitely took advantage of Mayor Lansing in a most unattractive way, and you have now been whipped with the wet noodle by the majority of the commentors herein, and the News even got a few licks in. Citizen journalism, community journalism, whatever you want to call it, everyone needs to abide by a few guidelines and, shall I say, RULES that help limit the extent we allow our personal prejudices to color our reporting. To pretend that you were follow guidelines and then abandon them because the story is really juicy is wrong.
On the other hand--are you engaging in journalism or when you blog are you just putting your opinion in there--like “Because of what some of the eyewitness’ said, and because the local marijauna hydo-ponic greenhouse was burning and the prevailing winds forced the smoke into the council chambers, I think that the entire city council was stoned when they voted on that resolution.” (Note that this is just an example and I have never witnessed nor been told of such an occurrence, although sometimes you gotta wonder.)
Anyway, as far as I can tell this string is about what makes something bad (gossip) or good for blogging.
Jane M. said it so well that I hesitate to get in the fray about this. I do know however that things are not always as they seem. A couple of years ago my brother was picked up by the state police because he was somewhere he shouldn’t have been in his car (stopped somewhere, not a moving violation). They first thought he was under the influence of alcohol or illegal drugs. They soon changed their minds and took him to the mental health unit of a hospital. It turned out he had a psychotic reaction to a pain medication given to him after surgery. He may have taken more than he should have, not becasue he was “abusing” his medication but because, it was later discovered, he had memory problems and confusion due to an undiagnosed brain disorder. Even some of the professional medical people had him diagnosed wrong at the hospital. We were told he had to be an alcoholic and his memory problems were due to Korsakoff’s syndrome, a amnesic-confabulatory disorder caused by a deficiency in thiamine in the brain, and often seen in alcoholics. We had not known him to be much of a drinker, so sought another opinion, and got a correct diagnosis.
I think LG went astray early in this thread, first in Griff’s post #2, when he indicated he spoke to “a media person who was there,” and Lee was “visibly intoxicated.” had Griff written “this [unnamed] media person stated that Lee was visibly intoxicated’ would have been an improvement. But would that unnamed media person have been qualified to distinguish between intoxication and an insulin reaction or some other impairment? In post #5, Bill Ostrem stated Lee’s behavior “gave him the impression that he was intoxicated.” Again somewhat better as he stated it was his impression, not a fact.
Griff’s post #6 said that “people who stood next to him said the smell of alcohol was clearly evident…I think it’s fair to say Lee was “visibly intoxicated.” Can you know from the smell of a person that a person is intoxicated? Could a person who is a diabetic have two drinks on an empty stomach, smell like alcohol, look intoxicated and not be? I don’t know whether he was or not, but this all seemed liked convicting Lee of public intoxication on hearsay.
I also think Griff’s post # 32 crossed the line. First of all, what difference does your CD background make if you weren’t even there? Adding the phrase “it’s apparently not the only time it’s happened recently,” with no documenting evidence, seems unfair. Stating that “Lee might very well be a diabetic but his behavior at the meeting had nothing to do with it” was not just speculation or implication, it was stated as a fact that Griff could not possibly know. Suggesting that Lee “abused his prescription medication” in a later post was also ungrounded. There could be reasons other than”abusing” medication, which implies a deliberate act, that could cause a person to take an extra dosage.
Making or passing on statements which may not be true and could be harmful seems to be a good definition for the word “gossip,” and some of these posts/comments appear to fit that definition.
[...] mostly discussed his criticism of my recent controversial blog posts and comment threads about the 6/2 Council meeting and the CVB’s performance, with an occasional tangent about citizen [...]
Nfld News Managing Editor Jaci Smith has responded to my criticism:
All I know about posting herein is that I usually try to indicate where I am coming from, if it’s antedotal, humorous ( at least in my humble opinion),
or from some online source. In other words, I do try to distinguish between
news reporting and merely musing about the issues du jour.
I’ve replied to Nfld News Managing editor Jaci Smith. I wrote:
Barb and Jane, I’ll get to your criticisms. But not today. Real Soon Now.
Jane and Barb, I generally stand by what I did on this story, though I think it would have been better to put my comments in the initial blog post rather than in the comment thread to make it clearer what was ‘reporting’ from a discussion.
Jane, I don’t agree with your definition of gossip. News reporters use eyewitnesses all the time in their stories. I had a very reliable citizen approach me with the initial eyewitness report and then I sought out another eyewitness with a phone call before I posted my comment about ‘visibly intoxicated.’ I didn’t attribute that wording to anyone because my sources used much informal language to describe the Mayor’s condition.
I then spent many hours talking to several other reliable eyewitnesses, none of whom would go on record for fear of a lawsuit. Everyone corroborated.
An expert opinion was not needed in this case, as I wasn’t attempting a diagnosis of someone’s problem, just a description of their public behavior.
Barb, I mentioned my chem dep background to give some additional credence to my handling of this. The vast majority of the time in my work, I dealt with people when they were sober so I had to rely on reports about their behavior from others. I don’t see why it was a problem to mention this.
I spoke with two eyewitnesses who said they’d been at a recent meeting with the mayor where this behavior had happened as well. I could have phrased it better the first time around.
Jane, yes, I’ve been whacked by folks here and the Nfld News but I’ve had plenty of other people support how I handled it.
Griff: The problem is still that you are SELECTIVE in whose opinion you choose to value.
These discussions are nothing but opinion, except from those who participated in the event, and then they MAY still be opinion.
It often looks to me, that if you do not agree with a statement, it does not even enter the system to be evaluated. You have an OPINION that someone is not “unbiased ” so their eyewitness of hours of the “event” are not substantial, or in any way viewed as accurate by you.
We are all “biased”; why can’t you just see that what you do here is GENERALLY of service to the community ( I certainly am “biased” in saying that ) and that it is enough to do it according to your own standards , as long as those are clear, or at least fair.
It’s when you get into claims of journalistic accuracy that you get into “trouble”…
When you explain away a “problem” with the fact that comments here are protected by the “Good Samaritan” ruling on electronic communications, as opposed to being held to the written standards of libelous statements, you have given yourself a way out of true journalistic responsibility.
No one expects you to be perfect; it would be good to not claim impartiality.