Shame on any elected official who feels it is appropriate to call a citizen a liar before the facts/intentions/presumptions/motives/perceptions are known!

Wow, it does continue to get worse and oh so much more embarrassing for Northfield.

Wouldn’t it be more beneficial for the Northfield city government to find solutions/explanations… to concerns of citizens rather than to impute bad motives to them?
Julie

YES … I made a mistake with reference to what I thought I heard.

NO … I most certainly did not do it intentionally.

Because of the “tone” of your post #55, I find it futile to take the time to explain how I made the mistake re: proposed use of the Crossing site.

“Most of this tension is about the EDA ’s single nomination, the process by which that nomination came forward (by two members of the recently created nominating committee, and with no input, and no vote of the complete EDA board),”

That is a simply a lie. You tried to cover it up in #45 when you say:

“Jon: Here are the disconnects:
1. I said the FIRST time( not the 5.8.meeting) that the EDA suggested the single applicant named it was not by a full nominating committee and was not passed by the entire EDA board.”

Similar to the Mayor, you speak in generalities and circles, with no facts to back up your comments. You don’t refer to the specific meeting that the alleged issues occurred you just say when they DID NOT occur. You reference the agenda which is printed BEFORE the meeting, but not the actual minutes where the report turned into a discussion and a motion, in which your own husband attended, commented and voted on.

There is no way to spin your comments and get the real truth out of them regarding the above. Sure small parts of the truth are there… just not in the correct order and just the parts that seem to serve your goals.

As the co-captain the the small, but oh so vocal,

Mayor Good, and Anybody Who Disagrees is Wrong Club,

your mighty efforts to overrule the pesky facts and common sense is wearing thin… at least for me and the majority of the community.

Right after C. Pokorney asked Steve deLong to speak, Jon Denison commented that sites other than the Crossing also had problems and he would like to hear more about the Crossing. Then C. Vohs commented; then C. Nelson commented re: condos, our responsibilities to residents, another lawsuit.Mr. Roder then commented that office or retail was the original plan for that corner of the Crossing.You (Scott) then said that direction for staff was needed, and Mike Berg (Donnelley consultant), and re: the Q block, you were surprised they were not interested. Mike Berg then commented on making sure all properties met the council’s criteria. You (Scott) then asked Mr. Roder for comment, which he did. Mayor then asked Mike Berg if people were still submitting properties. Mr. Berg then said no one further, except the Crossing. Mr. Berg said they(Crossing ) didn’t call us; we were made aware of it, and talked with the property owner. C. Denison then made a comment on it being difficult to get the parties on the Qblock together; then commented about needing to resolve the issues with the Crossing, MNDOT, and the Safety Center.

Since that entire conversation centered on the liquor store being possibly sited on the Crossing property, are you saying that the Safety Center comment was just thrown in there as a total off topic non-sequiter? C. Denison is usually very focussed in his comments.

I will watch the tape to review the conversation; in the meantime it is certainly possible that we ALL make mistakes.

However, Scott, I am surprised that you would suggest that I totally fabricated a conversation. You can see from the above that my notes are quite thorough. If I made a mistake , it was certainly not with the intention of manufacturing a conversation.

Kris Vohs spoke of our continued conversations with MnDOT regarding the Crossings site and regarding the MnDOT property at Hwy 3 and Woodley, which is our preferred site for the Safety Center.

The entire council as aware that the Crossings is not zoned for the safety center use and have NEVER discussed this location as a possible safety center site.

I did hear the consultant say that Mendota Homes had indicated they’d be willing to sell one of their two parcels (currently planned for restaurants) to the city for the liquor store.

Last night a councilor stated that although he liked the idea of the liquor store at the Crossing, and the problems might not be insurmountable, it wasn’t a good choice because: The council has identified that site as their preferred choice for the Safety Center ! (didn’t put that in quotes because it may have a slight word variation)

Awaken! o ye residents of the Crossing! because you surely will be awakened regularly, and constantly, if the Safety Center were located there.

Personally I must believe that this was a GROSS overstatement by this councilperson, as I have never heard it publicly discussed, and it seems most improbable considering MNDOT’s concerns about the traffic issues at that site, right-in and right-out only turns, traffic stacking capacity on the second street bridge, etc.

The citizenry is so numbed by the fireworks that it takes the falling of a star to cause even a slight shift in the axis of NF’s world.

I watched the council meeting on dvd when the Mayor recommended Steve Engler be appointed to the EDA. It seems odd to me that the council took so much time to question the Mayor on how much time he took interviewing each applicant. It seemed (IMHO) that the council didn’t want to vote yes to the Mayor’s selection because they wanted someone else. So it seemed that there was no thought into the qualifications that this applicant has.
I thought it very sad and embarrassing that one councilor expressed direct insult to the applicant.
How could our city council get to this point? The council doesn’t like the Mayor and that is very evident. Even with all the animosity, the council should still show the Mayor respect as an elected official just as they are and deserve in return. It seems to be a struggle of power with the goal being to win. It is clearly a two sided council with all the councilors against the Mayor Can anything be accomplished with this kind of atmosphere? How sad for Northfield. There is hope for the future with the elections because how could anything be worse than what we have now?
Julie

But, all it would take is a cooperative mayor and council that want to move things forward in the best interests of the city as a whole. An important question to ask any and all candidates for office (mayoral and council) is what they would do to make the board and commission nomination procedure more respectful to the applicants, more transparent for the citizens, and more productive for the boards and commissions.

Just my two cents.

Anyone know what it would take to adopt it here?

We start commissioner recruitment in November. Recruitment continues through December and January. Recruitment is done through a public marketing campaign and a couple of Open Houses where citizens can come in and chat with existing commission members and staff liaisons in order to learn about the particular commission missions, meeting times, work plans, etc.

Citizens can apply to be considered by the Council for appointment to a commission by completing an online (or paper) application form. The form asks them for a brief resume and to complete a couple of questions about what they interested in and why they are interested in being on a commission.

In early February there is a deadline for citizens to apply to serve on a commission. After that deadline, all applications are copied (or pdf’ed), bundled and then distributed to Council Members in order to prepare Council Members for the commissioner applicant interviews. All five Members of the Council participate in all commissioner interviews.

The interviews occur in early March. We do it over two nights of, roughly 6-9pm. The Council agrees to use a set of standard questions. They interview all applicants for a commission in advance. For example, this year we had two openings on our Conservation Commission. We interviewed four applicants simultaneously for those two openings.

At the end of the interview, the Council deliberated about the strengths of the sitting Conservation Commission members and the strengths of the applicants. Then the Mayor proposed which two candidates he would nominate. The Council talked about it and agreed to accept the Mayor’s nominations, which were formally approved by the Council, in about five minutes, in late March, along with appointments to our other eight sitting commissions.

Our system works well. Information is shared with all Council Members equally throughout the process. The process rewards merit among the applicant pool because the best candidates are rising to the top in a public process. And, the Council makes its judgment free of the insularity risk that David Koenig rightly raises as a potential concern.

For what it’s worth…

Those are specific; this is a general criticism of the process: Since one of the persons that the EDA “did not have time to interview” submitted their application on the 28th 0f December , 2007 … it looks like the EDA was , in the terminology you used, “fishing”, rather than interviewing all the candidates with equal time, which is what C. Pokorney criticized/questioned the Mayor about.

This is another general criticism: from the by-laws of the NF EDA, Sect2- Membership. The Board shall consist of … and two commissioners who are members of the NF City Council appointed by the Mayor on an ANNUAL basis. (emphasis mine)

And that is a BIG disconnect!

When the single name was first submitted, that recommendation, one name only, was not passed by the entire EDA board by the nominating committee.

The EDA minutes reflect:

A motion was made by Van Wylen and seconded by Davis that based on the Executive Committee’s knowledge and reasons given for applying, they recommend that the Mayor consider Fred Rogers as the EDA’s first choice; however, because they did not have the time to speak to the other candidates, if the Mayor wishes them to take the this time, they would submit a second choice. Yes votes:Benson, Davis, Van Wylen, Pokorney, and Estenson. No vote by Summa. Motion carried.

Where’s the disconnect?

Why anyone would design a ‘weak anyone’ decision-making structure is beyond me. That is exactly what the Charter Commission did a few years ago and its time that they take responsibility and sort out this nonsense once and for all.

The meeting minutes that you quote so extensively are after the initial go-round, I believe, and reflect a later discussion. The minutes accurately reflect that the committee did not interview all the candidates. Presumably they were all “interested on being on the EDA” or they would not have applied. Isn’t it, therefor, rather foolish to validate a choice by that simply expressed interest? (I fully understand that the qualifications of the single candidate submitted by the EDA are not limited to simple “interest”; I am speaking to your point).

I am “interested” in having a 1955 white Morgan with a leather strap on the hood, and spoke wheels; It’s not necessarily going to happen.

When the single name was first submitted, that recommendation, one name only, was not passed by the entire EDA board by the nominating committee.

Is it not true that one of the four applicants you speak of (May 8 mtg.) was not interviewed at all, because no one “knew” him? Time could have been made to interview them all. The Mayor was criticized last Monday for not giving them all exactly EQUAL time, by another councilperson. (See tape/disc of July 7, 2008 Council meeting) who also made a very denigrating statement about the applicant.

This “fight” has been what I would call a “cause celebre” of yours for 6-9 months. It has exacerbated conflict and wasted much time, in my opinion. There is a process for the selection of the members of the Boards and Commissions, i.e., the second sentence of Section 3.2 of the Charter.
Rather than saying there is NO process, if you insist on a different process, why not suggest it to the Charter Commission? You have tried to establish a process for which there is no basis, but the council’s will.

You do not like it when you think the Mayor acts unilaterally; why is it then
acceptable for any council member to do so? The Mayor asked you, on Monday, if he had done the three or four additional steps you had requested of him, and you said “Yes” to each. What he did not do was bring the candidate you, and the EDA, wanted.

You, and other councilors by falling in step, have sought to establish a public discussion of applicants’ qualifications, and why they were or were NOT chosen. This is totally inappropriate , and can only be deeply embarrassing to those who have volunteered and then found themselves caught in a political struggle. Vote them up or down; that is your right, but do not impose rules of your own making.

I owe you no apology that I can see at this point, and am sincerely disturbed by the situation the council has created for willing volunteers; and for that I apologize, for NF’s elected representatives, to those who have been injured by this unseemly lack of following the established protocol.

“Most of this tension is about the EDA ’s single nomination, the process by which that nomination came forward (by two members of the recently created nominating committee, and with no input, and no vote of the complete EDA board).

I was at the meeting with Rick Estenson and Marty Benson when we reviewed the (4) four applications in the file. How could you claim that there were only two when there were three and neither of you were at the meeting?

Next part of the accusation refers to the claim that the full EDA did not even get a chance to provide input or vote on the selection.

I’ll refer you to the minutes of the May 8th meeting where the EDA reviewed the recommendation, discussed it and voted on it. Please note the numerous references to your comments Victor:

EDA Vacancy
Walinski noted that the Executive Committee met regarding the filling of the EDA Vacancy. They reviewed the current applications of record.
Estenson noted that there were four applications: Jerry Anderson, Larry Werner, Fred Rogers, Ollie Byrum. The Executive Committee recommended Fred Rogers based on their knowledge of him and on his desire to serve the EDA. The other three candidates were not known as well by the members of the Executive Board but the applications indicated they could offer value to the EDA position. They could not recommend another person unless they had the opportunity to interview them if the Mayor wishes them to do so.
Summa questioned the value of having a Vice President of one of the colleges on the Board. He was concerned that the position should be given to someone who has a broader interest in the entire City and not just for the College or a specific project. He also questioned why there was not a second person selected to be recommended. He felt the Executive Committee should have selected two candidates based on their written applications.
Davis noted that the reason they looked at Rogers was that one of the goals of the EDA is to look at the college connections in order to bring businesses to the City and retain the students from the Colleges.
Estenson noted that Rogers indicated in his application that he was interested in the EDA and Estenson did not believe it was because of his connection to Carleton College.
Northfield Economic Development Authority APPROVED: 05/22/08
Meeting Minutes – May 8, 2008
City Hall Council Chambers
Page 2 of 5
S:\Community Development\ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIVISION\Minutes -- EDA\2008\5-08-08EDA.DOC
Benson noted that Anderson has lived in Northfield all his life and has knowledge of development that could benefit the EDA as well.
Summa did not feel the EDA should be taking on this role of recommending members to the EDA to the Mayor.
A motion was made by Van Wylen and seconded by Davis that based on the Executive Committee’s knowledge and reasons given for applying, they recommend that the Mayor consider Fred Rogers as the EDA’s first choice; however, because they did not have the time to speak to the other candidates, if the Mayor wishes them to take the this time, they would submit a second choice. Yes votes:Benson, Davis, Van Wylen, Pokorney, and Estenson. No vote by Summa. Motion carried.

Victor, I would ask that you apologize to the council and to the public for your erroneous statements.

The mayor nominated him (and named him) extolled his qualities and asked for the Council’s approval. The Council rejected him because…well, maybe because of the (all together now) process but probably because he was the Mayor’s nominee…but not before the Member for Ward One said that the former senators qualifications “don’t look strong for the EDA”, questioned the relevance of a farming background and if the EDA has any agricultural needs and that he was “looking for economic development experience not government liaison”. Dreadful.

Most of this tension is about the EDA ‘s single nomination, the process by which that nomination came forward (by two members of the recently created nominating committee, and with no input, and no vote of the complete EDA board), the fact that the two council members who are on the EDA are very adamant about using a process other than specified, and the fact that they are not considering a major conflict of interest in who they (EDA) is suggesting.

There’s nothing the matter with the council having an up or down vote; the problem is with the underlying dynamics . A 6-1 vote can be either close to complete agreement, or a power play … I think you had some experience with that, David.

These problems have not existed, with previous councils demanding public explanations … My Gosh! this is a town where people often don’t want to speak publicly; how would they react to being spoken ABOUT publicly … this is a further exacerbation of “get the Mayor”, and the amount of disruption, and waste of time, it is causing is inexcusable.

In #32 above you say “the kind of orderly process most cities use, where the board in question gathers nominations, does interviews and presents three names to the mayor, who chooses one and makes a nomination to the council”.

I actually think that is bad governance.

The Mayor is supposed to be getting advice from these committees and should be the one choosing new nominees. S/he may ask for input from the other committee members on what talents they need in a new appointee, but the advisory boards should not be suggesting to the Mayor the name of the person to appoint. That process has the potential to generate insularity.

Members of the committee might suggest names to the Mayor, but that in no way should imply that the Mayor has to choose from their list.

It is particularly important in cases like the Hospital Board where the City, as owner, should independently be appointing Board members without any say from the CEO of the Hospital. Again, members of the Hospital Board might suggest possible nominees, but they should not expect to have a say in who the Mayor selects and the Hospital CEO should have no say.

You are correct that the Council should have a vote of approval, or perhaps even better, a super-majority veto right, about nominees.