Late last week I heard that with the latest “add”, the cost of renovating the City Hall is now over a million dollars. Already at $800,000, there’s now a quarter million dollar addition from Johnson Controls.
This has been one of the strangest on-going stories, at least to me, in a year full of strange stories.
When Al Roder first arrived in town, he floated the idea of swapping the library for the city hall. Not only did I think that cutting up the grand second floor space into little offices would be an aesthetic crime, I couldn’t really visualize the library space working for city hall. Al’s next idea was putting the city hall in the old College City Beverage building. Not only did I question the location for our city hall, it seemed to me that a town short of industrial space shouldn’t be converting one of its finest sites into a public use.
Fortunately, after probably too much time and too many resources, both of those ideas were dropped. In its place was proposed the substantial renovation of the city hall. When Al was advocating for the library and then the CCB sites, he suggested that renovating the existing building would be cost prohibitive; a figure of two million dollars was bandied about in the informal discussions. As that concept rose to the top of the heap, the cost miraculously dropped to five or six hundred thousand. Now it’s back over a million.
Accordiing to Mr. Roder, the city hall project was all about increasing customer service.
I don’t know of a single citizen who thinks that spending a million dollars on the city hall is a good use of taxpayer money. Will a few more “adds” drive the price back to $2 million? Are the alleged gains in customer service worth $1 million or $2 million? Is it a better investment than a hockey rink, a performing arts center, or a new business park? With Al now in Norfolk, who is the champion for this project, pushing it steadily forward, and keeping it on the top of our list of priorities?
Somebody suggested that the thirty-day clock for a reverse referendum on this project is already ticking.
I am sorry, Patrick, because I know you are against the city hall renovation and I was not trying to group you with either position.
I was just trying to explain my view--that it is important to me to know something about the person giving the opinion--not to insinuate that you were supporting the changes--only that I take into consideration the circumstances of each opinion-giver--and in Sean’s case it was more important to me that he was not a property tax payer than that he is young or a student. (Although IMHO it is very nice that he is both.)
I was certain you did not need a civics lesson, although I am pretty sure that there is not a good understanding of the tax systems in place from others’ comments on this thread, and I wanted to explain my prespective fully.
Right on, Jerrold (post #97). That is why it is difficult to serve the public--and why it is so appreciated by the rest of us who only get to comment (and vote.)
Anne, you are correct in the disparity of property taxes on renters, although the Ventura reforms made it a bit less so. And I agree--the municipality has a responsibility to provide services that not everyone uses but that is our burden as taxpayers. However, I think that it is important for municipalities especially to be attuned to the burden they place on non-represented tax payers. I believe these tax payers should have their opinions considered when deciding to raise their taxes, and that it is inherently unfair to expect them to bear the burden of paying for something that they have NO VOTE in.
One of the driving forces behind the Ventura business property tax reforms was exactly that--local governments could raise taxes without any hue and cry from their residential (voting) tax payers because the burden fell disproportionately on the non-voting corporations and non-residential business owners.
Unfortunately the tax shift was exceptionally painful due to the lack of the other part of the Ventura tax reform--an increase in sales tax that failed. So Minnesotans have vainly tried to make up for a huge cut in property tax revenues by….raising local property taxes. So no real tax relief for individuals (who often blame businesses for getting a much-deserved tax cut--even though they are not the ones receiving the (majority of) services from the municipality--or blame schools as fiscally irresponsible when they had their budgets slashed due to decreased state funding.)
I believe it is important for the citizens to continually monitor their governors--like the city council, school board, county commissioners, state and national legislators--and let them know how they feel continually--not just periodically when an election comes up. These involved citizens should be encouraged and commended--not villified for making the effort to be involved.
Which brings us back to this thread--where a group of citizens attempted to be heard by their city. Will their city turn its back? Will the city council claim that it is only an annoying minority who do not deserve any attention if they couldn’t get enough votes for a reverse referendum, so let’s just push that expenditure through? Or will they discuss the issue with the knowledge that nearly 5 % of the voters, in about a 2 week time period, made a huge effort to make their voices heard on this matter.
It is a little like Horton and the Whos. (Which is not a rock band but should be.)
Posted to the Nfld News site yesterday afternoon: Bonding petition fails. (Thx to two readers for the alert.)
Also from the article:
“Little and Swanson contend in their memo that at least one of the pages, which listed Victor Summa’s name in the verification section, had no signatures on it, but had already been notarized.”
Victor, why would you have a page with no signatures notarized? Who was the notary?
Regarding the memo from Swanson and Little concerning the denial of the petition:
I have not seen this memo.
Jaci Smith conducted a phone interview with me.
Having not seen the memo, I asked her to read to me the itemized rationale for the findings. We spoke for maybe 45 minutes. Ms. Smith read to me (summarized in some cases) the basics of each rationale. As she read I took brief notes on “her” comments. I responded and we had a joint discussion wherein we compared mutual confusion in some of the Swanson/Little memo.
My responses were to the best of my knowledge open and accurate. Our discussion (Smith/Summa) included much more than was understandably quoted in the News’ report … any part of which as to my comments, I’m sure I will stand behind as to motive and action … or correct if there is a need.
In today’s web report, Smith writes and Benson ask me about:
THIS IS NOT TRUE. This is either an error or a misunderstanding … if it is as stated in the Swanson/Little memo … and/or in the Smith web report.
SPECIAL NOTE: I do not believe Smith read a quote of that nature to me from the S/L memo. Had she, I would have refuted it. In any event, it is inaccurate if it appears anywhere!
Smith and I exchanged agreement on the seeming sloppyness of the City Staff’s process and their obvious lack of procedural knowledge in this kind of petition … making my effort all the more difficult. This is referenced in the S/L memo … and reported in the Smith article
As to C Benson’s question:
The conclusion reported in the News Web Article is inaccurate. It may be the News’ error or it may be an error in the S/L memo (remember, I’ve not seen the memo)
Facts are:
I withdrew five pages that were improperly handled in the signatory line AND by the notary. NONE of these involved my signature … and to the best of my knowledge, my signature appeared only on properly notarized pages. NOTE: I signed all of my pages in front of Deb Little.
Clearly I had no desire to deliver any pages that might fail. My goal was: good signatures, sufficient in number. Thank you, Curt, for the question allowing the damning error to be responded to.
Will you now ask the News and City Staff to explain … each, from their POV?
Another fact:
Shortly after submitting the packets, I received a phone call from Ms. Little.
Obviously Ms. Little had made a quick review of the pages and discovered a page with citizen signatures … but missing the required notarized signature affirming the authenticity of the page.
Every page required this step.
Her call was to alert me to the flaw on this single page, providing me the opportunity to attempt to validate that page. The page in question was in a packet that had been collected and properly notarized by another citizen. Validation would have required my withdrawing the page, securing the proper signature and notary and returning the page by closing time.
WHAT HAPPENED: Pages 2 through 5 of that packet were TOTALLY blank. Before turning in any of the packets, I used a pristine page 2 of this packet and obtained 6 more signatures. As this was more or less buried behind the properly notarized first page, it was overlooked when Ms. Little notarized my other needed signatures,. Hence the call from Little allowing this error to be corrected.
Evidently at that point, it was okay with City Staff to allow an adjustment to the pages … or was it?
This raises and supports the question: what is staff procedural accumen in handling these matters … and, secondly, should they assist the citizen in its effort?
One might think these services fall under the phrase: “Striving for excellence, committed to service”, used by the City in every communication and displayed boldly in the City Council chambers.
Other than this explanation and not having read the S/L memo, this is my only possible understanding of the reference in the News story alluding to the “blank notarized page”.
Finally, I want to address a phrase in the S/L memo, that I “DEMANDED” to see the pages.
In fact … I asked to REVIEW them. Ms. Little provided them. I explained that I needed to withdraw a packet. She did not want me to do so, but then relented, requiring me to write a note stating that I had withdrawn that packet, and then allowed me to have the packet in question.
Her schedule was tight, she was not too willing to accommodate me, I persisted and she provided the means for me to withdraw the packet in question.
In closing, at this juncture it is not my intention to be drawn into an extrapolated LG dialogue with well meaning citizens … and some not-so- well-meaning, asking more convoluted questions. I’ve seen where these threads go. I am not ducking anyone … I merely must use my time efficiently. I would be happy to discuss this in an open session with “live” give and take … perhaps on the radio show.
I would like the readers to consider these two e-mails to Victor, from city staff, in evaluating the city’s explanatory memo, as reported by the NFNews :
1. from Kathleen McBride, Aug.14, subject: petition …”Deb’s working with the attorneys (Maren and our bond counsel) to get the reverse referendum petition form format clarified. Mac” (signature) (this is the entire text)
2. from Deb Little, AUG. 18, subject: Victor, … (this e-mail has various answers to questions) the second to last paragraph states: ” I asked about the Commissioner suggesting language for the question. The Commissioner of Revenue would revue the question. Although these election questions on the issuance of bonds are pretty straight forward.”
These are examples of two of a series of e-mails and conversations about the structure, and governing rules, re: this petition. They do not indicate to me that Ms. Little or Ms.Swanson did not strive to ascertain what was needed. Ms. McBride even said that the “bond counsel” had been consulted.
Who is being asked to “fall on their sword” here?(in the city memo)
The contention in the city memo that says (as reported in the NFNews) that Victor turned in a notarized, but empty page, is to my knowledge a bold- faced lie.
The implication, by that statement in the memo, that Victor removed that packet to save HIS “error”, is outright defamation.
The packet which Victor was allowed to withdraw, in exchange for the “note” Deb Little requested, was from a site at which Victor did NOT gather signatures, and the Notarized blank page in that packet was either a stupid mistake by the notary, or some other kind of error by the notary. Victor returned the faulty packet to the person who collected it, and had nothing further to do with it.
Victor said REPEATEDLY, that he would rather the entire petition failed, than have one possibly innocent mistake by a notary cost that notary his job, or license. So … crucify the man (Victor) for being TOO honest!
Anyone who thinks the effects of this last 15 months, and the Council/Administrator/ Mayor conflicts can be cured by Robert’s Rules of Order, reading the NFNews reports, or putting everyone in “plays well together” report card T-shirts … hasn’t got a clue!
Goodness, so much confusion over something so simple. Once again this city seems to be reinventing the wheel instead of just heading to the tire store.
Since the renovations have been discussed for months and it was clear someone would seek a referendum, it seems the orderly thing to do would have been to have the acceptable wording for a petition ready, along with instructions, when the work was approved. That would have given the public the full 30 days to do their work without the fear that a petition would be rejected. The alternative would have been for those who knew for months that they wanted a referendum to go to the Taxpayers League or the League of Cities or the state and get the wording and instructions to be ready to go.
Nothing can be done with the current situation, but it seems imperative that the the council and staff make it a policy that the referendum paperwork is available at the meeting when a project is approved.
So…it seems that city staff delayed the beginning of the petition gathering for the reverse referandum by continually requesting that Victor Summa revise the wording of the petition.
That went on until another citizen told Summa he should stop falling for the city’s delaying tactics and get going on signatures--the wording was good enough.
From Summa’s statements, he thought the city was trying to help him get it right. From an outside perspective, it looks like city staff was trying to delay the petition to prevent its’ success.
Then, when Summa saw that a petition gatherer--NOT Summa--had made a mistake on his packet, Summa was concerned for the employment of the notary, and thought he should get the signatures re-notorized.
City staff claimed that Summa “demanded” the petition packet back, while Summa claims he was given the packet as long as he signed a statement that he was voluntarily withdrawing that packet.
Now certainly Summa was acting on his own judgement, and all of the petioner signers would not necessarily have agreed that he should withdrawn a packet that may have made the difference in the passage of the petition--but Summa was more concerned for the one notary.
And, if it was illegal for Summa to take the packet, the city employee should not have given it to him, or suggested that he sign a statement and then he could take it.
So now the city is after Summa and accusing him of all kinds of wrong doing.
So, if a citizen in Northfield wants their opinion heard and speaks during the open mic part of the meeting on a regular basis, disagreeing with decisions of the city council, AND trys to follow the onerous rules for a reverse referandum petition while being “helped” by city staff that by their own admission do not know the rules, and then trys to do what he thinks is the right thing for an unnamed notary public who obviously does not deserve that designation, he will be hounded by the city, who will use this to distract from the fact that many citizens obviously disagree with their “plan” to remodel city hall at a cost estimated to exceed $1 MILLION.
Anne: Why should the City have paperwork available to undo the decision they just made?
David, it just seems that if the city is responsible for how elections are run and what is on the ballot, then the city should have available the wording to meet the election requirements. It doesn’t mean the council wants a reverse referendum, it is just acknowledging the legal recourse of the citizens. For crying out loud, it’s just not that big a deal. Once again, Northfield is squandering time and money reinventing the wheel instead of just running down to the tire store.
Sorry, I liked that last line so much I repeated it. And I guess that’s the point…this city just seems to repeat the same pointless confrontations and confusion on matters that really don’t matter. What a waste.
Cities aren’t responsible to help with the substance of citizen petitions, particularly its wording, and because of the narrow responsibilities of government, it would be inappropriate for them to do so. It would be fine for the city staff to direct a citizen to a resource, but the city is not a resource itself. I haven’t checked, but I’d hope that our library has such a resource.
Apart from substance, city staff should be helpful with the process of citizen petitions.
Citizens should employ (including pro bono) a lawyer for legal questions. They should not ask city staff about legal questions, and if asked, city staff should never answer. Some of the “Northfield News” article seemed to me that city staff was asked questions of a legal nature.
Finally, I tend to agree with David, that if a citizen wants a petition contrary to the city’s decision, it seems peculiar to me for the city to spend its time helping, and it seems even more peculiar for the citizen to seek that help. Already in this thread there’s an accusation that city staff intentionally interfered with the petition by starting the clock but delaying Victor’s beginning. What if city staff actually helped with the petition and the help was in good faith but wrong? Then what sorts of accusations would fly?
Jerold and David, you make good points. I didn’t think this kind of thing would be a big deal, and still don’t, but you raise some reasonable concerns. Perhaps the city should just have a sheet (available on the website) outlining the petition process, the applicable state and local regulations and any available resources for more information.
Jaci Smith has a posted a link to the bonding petition memos with her story on the Northfield News site:
http://northfieldnews.com/news.php?viewStory=45973
Jerold: The city is not required to help. But then their response should be to direct the citizen to where they could obtain help.
IMHO the city should help the citizen, because if they can obtain the requisite signatures, the citizens have spoken and should be allowed to be heard, and the city is stonger from obtaining citizen involvement. (The result of a reverse referendum could go to support the bonding for the city hall renovations--the citizens might say they want to spend more than $1,000,000 on improving city hall.)
I agree that, in fact, in appears that the help given by city staff to Summa may have been in good faith, but that the city staff by their own admission did not have all of the necessary information.
I don’t think that citizens should have to go to the library to get the information they need to challenge a city decision. It appears to encourage the city council to limit their discussions and the “transparency” of government, and rush decisions in order to circumvent the citizen participation allowed by statute.
So, are you advocating that the city should refuse to assist citizens in order to “cover their own butts” or do you think city staff should find out the law and assist citizens in a city council decision challenge? I would thnk refusing to assist citizens would cause the city staff to be put in a position of taking sides appear antagonistic towards citizens. Maybe that is the right answer in order to lower the cost of citizen requests. In the past, the city administrator has served as a source of information when citizens have wanted to understand their rights and what procedures were necessary for exercising them.
(Note that from Summa’s statements, he believes that the city staff was helping him in drafting the petition and through the petition process.)
I think it gets back to doing what is required or doing what is right. You can miinmize the work of the city staff, but you are unfairly antagonizing the citizens at the expense of the citizens’ relationship with city staff and city council.
In this particular situation, citizens tried to be heard at city council meetings, and felt that the city council was dismissive of their concerns. When those citizens attempted to complete a citizen challenge in the form of a reverse referandum they were delayed by the assistance of the city staff--which staff probably did not intend that their assistance would cause such difficulty, but taken with everything that has happened--appears suspect.
The city council decision occurred at an odd time when many people were gone and on vacation--making it seem that the city council purposely did it to prevent citizen input or involvement.
The petition was delayed by staff requesting repeated rewordings. Making it seem that city staff may have played a role in delaying getting a petition going.
Still, the citizens were able to obtain almost all of the required signatures within a 2 week period that included Labor Day. Which would make it appear that there were enough petitioners IF the city had received more public comment on this project and if they had made their decision at a time when fewer citizens were on vacation.
So then the city and city staff claim that the main petitioner, Summa was engaged in some kind of nefarious activity and attack his character.
I would say the whole thing is a mess, and makes the Northfield city council and staff look like they are trying to minimize citizen involvement through harassment. They will not have their decisions questioned--or else.
It is not what we are required to do that defines our character. It is what we decide to do in difficult circumstances.
Deb Little is a good person. I recall being very happy with the work that she did when I served on the Council.
Since “staff” have a real conflict of interest in terms of the benefit they will receive from new office space, I think they would have been well-served to go beyond what is expected of them in terms of helping a citizen.
There is a lot of he-said / she-said in the posts above. And the rest of us can only speculate as to the actual exchanges (outside of emails and memos). But, if the city staff had pursued a higher standard and worked with Victor to ensure that his petition was properly worded and properly submitted, even if that is not their job, it would have eliminated ANY speculation about conflicts and might even have built good will towards the proposed expenditure.
In any work, there is the job that is required and the job that should be done. Going the extra mile in this case would not have harmed anyone…
David, did you read the memo on the Northfield News site?
Regarding “he said, she said”, the memo indicates that five pages of notarized documents were removed “against the will” of the City Clerk, and returned. The space where Victor’s name was previously written, was blacked out and someone else’s name was added. This should be easy to verify--and goes beyond “he said, she said”.
Bonnie O, how about posting the memo and Victor’s letter here, and posting the allegedly tampered documents?
Hey Victor, I just heard a scurrilous rumor that now the county attorney’s office is thinking about filing charges against you.
Given the county attorney’s office’s less than stellar record of competence, I predict that they will indeed press charges, but I also predict that you will represent yourself in the proceedings, and the charges will be dismissed.
I love this town.
Tracy, the tone of post #113 above seems like something that would better be in a private email to Victor. There is now, though, an updated story on the NNews site with a similar theme.
Curt, I haven’t read the memo yet, but my reference to he-said / she-said is mainly regarding Victor’s assertion that “he asked to REVIEW them” (his words in post 104) while the NNews said that Victor removed the documents against Deb Little’s will.
I would like to ask this question: How would anyone remove documents against the clerk’s will, unless the documents were present in the “scene”?
Do you think the “remover” would leap the counter, run to the clerk’s cubicle, rummage around ’til he/she found the docs, and then run out past everyone, down the street, etc.etc.?
Or maybe the 76 year old “remover” would leap the counter, wrestle the clerk to the floor, step on her arm and wrench the papers out of her hands?
If they were not to be removed , why were the papers “present”, in her hands?
And why was there the EXCHANGE of a “receipt” for the removed pages, if the clerk did not want to allow them to leave the premises, under any circumstances.
I would have said, “no ‘remover’ is going to take these papers, cause I don’t think they should, so I’m putting them back in my office … and if the ‘remover’ doesn’t leave , I will tell him I am going to call the gendarmes!”
I certainly would NOT have let him take them in EXCHANGE for HIS hand written receipt. IF I wanted to EXCHANGE them for a receipt, I would have written a statement of my objection to the papers being removed, and my fear of bodily harm if I didn’t comply, and asked the “remover” to sign it.
This is a personal, political ploy , folks. It is meant to keep an honest person from running for office… a person SO honest that he didn’t want a notary to lose is job, or seal, for what might have been an innocent mistake. A person so honest that he would rather have the whole petition go down than have a person who made a mistake, innocent or otherwise, possibly lose their job.
Whoever filed this complaint … SHAME on you.
Updated Nfld News story includes:
David K,
My comment may have been ill-advised; I know I can be flippant. I just can’t believe how stupid this is.
Jane:
The simplest reason for city staff not to be involved in a petition’s wording is because working with the substance of a citizen petition can be a very involved task. As a taxpayer, I’d want the city staff to work on city and taxpayer business, not citizen petitions. While this petition happens to be directed at saving taxpayers about $1 million, I don’t think that we can say that’s what petitions generally do. If city staff is expected to help with petitions, then they can’t be selective about it, and it will be taxpayer money spent on sometimes frivolous or doomed-to-fail petitions.
To re-state what I said in other posts, I think that city staff should be sharp on the process. Asking the city clerk, “How do I file a petition?” should be answered, either by her own knowledge or by directing the citizen to resources, including specific material in the library. (I wouldn’t want the clerk to say, “Go to the library,” but “Look for this, and this, and this in our library.”)
I agree that our city staff should have an attitude of customer service.
Next is where things get dangerous. The wording of a petition has legal ramifications, and if it’s poorly worded, the petition can fail outright. A petition to prevent people with wheelchairs from being seated at sidewalk tables is doomed for legal reasons. It cannot be the responsibility of city staff to give legal advice.
In the dramatic example above, what if a petition was drafted to prevent all disabled people from using sidewalk tables, and city staff gave advice to make it only wheelchairs? The citizen adopted the changes. The petition passes in an ant-disabled town. Then the Wheelchair Alliance sues the city for giving advice on making such a law. Unfortunately we live in a litigious nation, and laws prohibit non-lawyers from giving legal advice.
Ideally, a citizen will have a pro bono lawyer help with wording, and it might be possible to get the city attorney to participate. If I was an attorney, I would not get the city attorney involved, for conflict-of-interest reasons. But I can imagine some instances where the city attorney should be involved.
Ultimately, yes the city staff should be overflowing with information on the process, and the city staff should be excellent in customer service skills, but the city staff should never advise on the wording of a petition.
Two other items:
1. I meant “anti-disabled”, not “ant-disabled”.
2. More importantly than #1, what if a citizen’s petition is well written, and city staff innocently (or intentionally!) advises poor wording… then the petition fails for lack of signatures or unlawful terms? Litigation comes to mind. As I continue to think of this, I continue to find reasons why city staff should stay clear of the substance of citizen petitions.
Tracy, I agree that this appears ridiculous. I guess we just don’t know what actually happened, what words were said or how it was interpreted by Deb and others in the officer versus how it was intended by Victor.
I hope that this “episode” is not just an opportunity being taken to lash out at Victor who has probably rubbed enough staff the wrong way, enough times.
Victor, I’ve known you since just about the day we arrived in Northfield, when you were campaigning in the street by the Christmas tree farm. You’ve got a good heart and I hope that all of this can be settled with apologies for any misunderstandings and forgiveness, if needed, by all parties.
Again, Tracy, I agree with you. With everything that has happened in town this past year-plus, a “felony” charge seems over the top. I look forward to hearing all of the facts and all perspectives. In the meantime, I hope that this goes away.
This is a citizen petition allowed for in the charter. I don’t see how the the police chief or county attorney would have legal standing to investigate a petition. Neither the chief or CA are mentioned in the charter process. Paid staff only have the option under the charter to deem the petition sufficient or insufficient. If they are deeming the petition a failure because Victor gave the city the document and then took pages back then returning them -- assuming thoise are valid grounds then that’s the end of it -- it’s a failure. The chief and the CA should stop immediately and apologize to Victor for stepping into the charter process as this amounts to intimidation of the citizen’s right to petition.
I would think the chief and CA are creating a potential liability from a citizen lawsuit, as even dipping their toes into these waters seems extraordinary and damaging to Victor’s and all citizens rights to petition.
David, I don’t think this is damaging the citizen’s right to petition. I thinking it’s damaging the right of citizens to bully staffers, take the city’s documents without permission and return notarized documents after altering them.
Does the right to bully staffers, take documents without permission and to alter notarized documents apply to all citizens, or just your favored cronies?
Did any of you read the memo on the Northfield News website?
Curt -- In writing “city documents” or “public documents” you (and the News) belie a prejudice by not just calling them what they are ‘part of a citizen petition filed by Victor.’ I can’t speak to Victor’s behavior but the News does not cite his “bullying” behavior as a legal issue only his taking the petition documents he filed (I think he signed a release). The remedy for this is simple reject the documents. That keeps everything within the charter defined process. Involving the Police and CA clearly will have a chilling effect of future individuals with Victor’s level of commitment in pursuing petitions.
BTW: My response would be the exact same if you or anyone else were in the same situation. If Victor doesn’t object you can call him my Crony -- but I hardly think that’s a fair description.
Curt: Do you read anything BUT the NFNews website?
Read this, please:
Victor did not remove anything that he was not allowed to remove.
The removed papers were returned to the person who gathered those signatures and were never again handled by Victor.
Victor did not alter any papers that were returned to City Hall.
Victor did not return any papers to City Hall.
Victor did not do anything except try to see that an improperly notarized packet did not cause the notary to lose his job/notary seal.
David H: From what I’ve read, the investigation relates to Victor allegedly taking city property. If I’m right, then there’s no liability for the city to investigate a theft, and there’s no discouragement for citizens to petition.
Back to the issue of who pays the taxes:
Clearly renters pay property taxes indirectly, in that those taxes are part of the costs for the property owner; the property owner pays the costs of the property out of the income stream from the renters. Renters thus have an interest in keeping taxes as low as possible, and their voices should also be heard and considered by city govt. (as of course they are when they vote).
The responsibilities of property owners are of course different in that they have to pay the taxes whether there are renters in their properties or not. They also bear the risk of potentially losing renters when the rent is raised or when economic conditions change.
I say this as a Northfield property owner and as someone who was a renter for most of his life.
Right Jerold I guess in fact it was not just “property” but in fact this was “6 future historical artifacts.” However that “property” is in fact a “citizen petition.” I don’t think any court but a “Monkey” court would see this as anything but “Monkeying” around with the democratic process -- honestly if the issue is not backed off I’ll bet the ACLU will get involved. What the issue is not -- is good publicity for Northfield or Rice County.
Kiffi wrote:” Curt: Do you read anything BUT the NFNews website?”
Yes, Kiffi, I read things other than the NFNews website. For example, I recently read a memo to the City Councilors from City Clerk Deb Little and City Attorney Maren Swanson. Among other things that contradict your stories, it says “Victor held onto the section made of pages 18 through 23 and would not return them to Deb in spite of her repeatedly telling him he could not remove a public document from her office.”
Oh, and in case I haven’t mentioned it, the updated story in the News with a link to the memos, and many interesting comments from readers (nice job, Anne) can be found here:
http://northfieldnews.com/news.php?viewStory=45973
David H: I certainly wasn’t a witness, and I have no way of knowing who was the rightful owner of the documents from what I’ve read. I have read that the investigation is centered on an unlawful taking of city property. If you are correct about who owns what, I hope that the investigation agrees with you and this controversy disintegrates.
The allegations are serious. Ignoring who is involved, everyone should be alarmed if a private person takes city property, particularly public documents. I won’t lose any sleep if petty things are taken, but public documents are not petty.
As a legal assistant, I have read some pretty outrageous and self-contradictory police reports. I don’t assume that someone under investigation is guilty. Nor do I give much weight to speculation passed off as truths. Until more facts come to the surface, I remain decidedly neutral.
If the facts come out in Victor’s favor, the ACLU or the NLG might take interest. The ACLU does not have a monopoly on civil rights.
Jerold -- Maybe Britt or someone can address “Criminal Intent.” But stopping by and picking up 6 pages of a citizen petition papers dropped off the day before in order to correct and return them clearly does not involve criminal intent.
The Police Chief and County Attorney knowing this issue involves a citizen petition should not have touched it with a ten foot pole. In fact given that the petition involves city hall renovations they should not have touched it with a 20 foot pole.
David H., a contractor who submits a bid can’t take it back and ‘correct it’ after the envelopes are open. A candidate who arrives a minute after the deadline doesn’t get on the ballot. This is not personal, it’s just the only way to do business. Why have a deadline when people can take paperwork in and out of the building at will?
Once the petition packet was dropped off, it no longer belonged to Mr. Summa. It belonged to the city and Mr. Summa had no more right to take the original document home than I would.
David Henson, I agree. Hounding Victor Summa looks like sour grapes on the part of the city. It does get down to he said/she said though--did Victor take the documents and did Ms. Little tell him that it was a criminal act to remove papers? Or did Victor ask for the documents and tell her he wanted to withdraw them, and she told him she wouldn’t let them go unless he signed a statement saying he was taking them?
Regardless, Summa’s intent was not to harm the city or to take away public documents, but to protect some notary public who obviously does not deserve to be protected--it was the notary’s bad.
The city’s, first ruling that the petition failed and then filing charges against Victor appears to be the worst of politics--make sure we all learn a lesson for taking a position that is not in lockstep with the city council.
Curt, I think you are too harsh when you take a memo as the only source of information though it is contradicted by one of the people present. Kiffi makes a good point--saying it was taken against Deb Little’s will seems to be wording intent on shoring up the legal charges.
Now Maren jumps in and gives some advice--to charge Summa--when she should think about what this looks like to the citizens--that the city is punitive and seeking revenge against a citizen that dares to involve himself in the local city procedings.
The whole mess is disgusting.
Jerrold (122)--I agree with what you are saying about city staff, and said so in my post 114--that there may need to be a policy that the staff cannot be spending a lot of time away from their regular work to assist in a citizen petition--but I also think then the administrator should be making the decisions and assisting citizens with where to find information.
You answered regarding all petitions, and I stick to my guns on this particular petition.
It appears that the city council decided to vote on the bonding when it would be least likely for public opinion or for a reverse referandum petition to get off the ground. Staff confusion over the required wording delayed the petition almost 2 weeks, and though there were almost enough signatures, the petition failed--and now the city is going after the petition organizer. Yuch.
Bill Ostrem (131) right on about renters. Unfortunately, it is often difficult to get renters involved with taxation concerns--they only pay the property tax indirectly--you might be able to get more attention from renters if you sent them an itemization of what portion of their rent relates to taxes--and that when the tax goes up, so will their rent.
Maybe write the lease agreement for whatever period of time for the set rental amount subject to adjustment when taxes go up--then renters perk up just like the businesses who are paying triple net.
***1. I’d just like to say, for maybe the tenth time, after Victor picked up the papers that he was allowed to remove in exchange for his receipt:
He had nothing further to do with that set of papers.
He gave them back to the original gatherer.
He did not alter them in any way.
He did not “correct” them.
He did not return them to city hall.
and ***2. if you look back at my comment #105, you’ll see that the “city” chose to bear some responsibility as to the structure of the petition. Now they say they were not aware of the parameters.
Getting back to the point… I was one of those who would have signed this petition had there been more time. Are there any others in this boat? I’m thinking of attending the next council meeting (Monday, Oct 6, 7pm, City Hall) to voice my opinion about the renovations at open mic, since the issue has not come back onto the agenda. It would be great if others with opinions of either type also showed up to talk then. Or if you can’t come, send a letter to the city staff (info@ci.northfield.mn.us) to be read by the clerk.
My goal is simply to cut way back on the renovations; if that can be done even without the referendum, then I think the spirit of those signatures would be met. Of course, if the petition is valid, it should go to a vote regardless.
PS. Jerold -- want to have coffee sometime? felicity.enders@gmail.com
Jane: Selectively helping some petitions and not others invites trouble.
Otherwise, we agree that this series of events is a mess. What’s that expression, “Truth is stranger than fiction”?
I think that this whole persecution of Victor is more than a little ridiculous. That being said…Victor, you and Kiffi should probably stop speaking publicly about this issue as you risk incriminating Victor further. (Although frankly, looks like the cat’s out of the bag.)
David H., in #135, you’re asking me about criminal intent, the concept of mens rea. It’s a complicated issue…sometimes there is a legal requirement that a person intends to act in a criminal manner, and sometimes the legal requirement is only that a person intends to act, period. I don’t necessarily agree with Carol O’s analysis found in the comments to the NNews article. I hope that the powers that be let this go. Sheesh, if Victor gets charged criminally the charges themselves will turn him into a martyr and we’ll get even more negative attention. What a waste of time.
In case anybody making a charging decision actually reads this blog, I would ask you to kindly review Minnesota Statute 609.01 subd. 1. If you keep in mind the underlying purpose for our criminal code you’ll see that Victor’s alleged actions do not merit a criminal prosecution.
Thanks to those who see this as ridiculous, possibly ridiculously political…
Where the hell is Diogenes ,with his lamp, when you need him?
Victor has been advised to say no more publicly; I’m not sure if that applies to me, does it Britt?
However, nothing has been said that was not publicly said in the statement Victor wrote after receiving the packet from Deb; a statement in which he documented what happened, and gave copies of to Deb Little, Joel Walinski, and the Mayor. He explained a second time at the open mic at the 9.8 council meeting, after Mr. Cashman spoke at open mic, giving his comments about the event, and “candidate” Summa’s part in it, from his perspective.
(I’ve wondered about that, since he was not there at the time.)
I sense that comment #144 is actually Kiffi, not Victor, despite the attribution. You two need to work out your computer sharing protocol.
Rob: you are so correct … it was me, kiffi.
Griff had long ago asked us to split our shared account; I did so but it hasn’t been long enough that everyone has my separate address … so then I’m reading something for me on our old account, which is now just victor’s…and then I forget to change over to me if I want to comment on LG!
AND … it HAS been a very stressful week!
Every once in awhile I log onto Locally Grown to see what’s happening in a community I have always loved and one that I have been a part of for many of my 50 years of life.
I look to the website for news from my former community…hoping for good news but, instead I find fighting and backstabbing from individuals with whom I have grown to love and respect…people who are (literally) neighbors who have shared both joy and loss, good times and bad.
Why must you dwell on the negative and pick, pick, pick on people who are trying to do good things for the community??
Victor and Kiffi Summa would no sooner break the law than rob a bank.
In fact, they have held people (both city officials and community members)accountable for the past 13? (guessing) years.
Might I suggest this…focus on something positive for the community.
I just spent the weekend in Lanesboro, MN and attended a wonderful performance at the Commonweal Theatre, a place that would be an amazintg asset to Northfield, a community that already has a strong community theater program thanks to the Northfield Arts Guild and the devotion of so many of you.
Wouldn’t it be amazing to raise some money on the 50th Anniversary of the Guild and improve/renovate the current theatre to be an incredible space and one that draws people(and revenue) to the community?
I can’t wait to log on to Locally Grown to find people caring about each other and about the community, not challenging them, not inflicting harm, not destroying progress.
Really, create something positive and stop picking.
As I work in a variety of circles in the Twin Cities and mention Northfield, the response is “why all the trouble in such a lovely community?”
Jerold--I agree.
I think we better start the save Victor defense fund.
I’ll add to Britt’s comment about mens rea, that you need to look at each law to determine the “intent” requirement. Most crimes require a specific intent, meaning the person specifically intended to do the crime. Whatever Victor is being investigated for is probably a specific intent crime. Very few crimes are classified as strict liability, meaning your intentions are irrelevant. The easy example of a strict liability crime is statutory rape, where there may be no intention to rape but intentions don’t mean anything. A few crimes are in between.
There is a policy against people taking the law into their own hands, even when they have angelic intentions. Stealing food to feed one’s family is still a crime. It’s usually in the interest of justice to give a warning or a wrist slap to well-meaning people who break laws. If that’s what happened in this case, I hope the prosecutor considers the circumstances and does not file charges, or perhaps offers a plea bargain for community service.
There’s a revised version of the Nfld New story titled http://northfieldnews.com/news.php?viewStory=46003” rel=”nofollow”>Petition for bond referendum fails in today’s paper.