- There’s a special Northfield City Council meeting tonight at 5pm to interview the interim city administrator candidates.
- There’s another special Northfield City Council meeting at 7pm to A) approve an outdoor dining permit; B) approve board/commission appointments; and C) consider proposal for Al Roder’s separation agreement
- A Council Work Session follows to discuss: A) Commuter service; B) Energy Task Force; and C) Nonmotorized Transportation Task Force
And see the Northfield city calendar for other public meetings that are scheduled this week.
Update 7/30, 10:30 PM: Here’s the audio of Monday night’s Council meeting, courtesy of KYMN 1080.
Click play to listen or download the MP3. 2 hours, 20 minutes.
I saw the last 10 min of the Council mtg. Roder offered to settle for $0 if Lansing apologized? No city attorney was present? And Dave DeLong sprang to the podium in frustration?
I think that’s about right, Griff.
The Council work session that was to follow the Council special meeting was postponed. Given the contentiousness and length of last night’s meeting, those of us on the energy and nonmotorized transportation task forces agreed with Joel Walinski that it would be better to talk to the Council at a future date.
The first of the two special meetings was at 5PM, and was the interviews for the interim city administrator. Three people were interviewed, two outside candidates, and an “internal” candidate, Joel Walinski. After the interviews, there was a short discussion about naming an “interim interim” ( not a typo). Joel Walinski was named for that position.
Griff; You are correct to be amazed that there was no attorney present at the second special meeting at 7 PM, which dealt with approving the outdoor dining permits, once again with board and commission appointments, and with the separation agreement for the city administrator.
Outdoor dining permits were approved, board and commission appointments were a repeat of the now familiar “fight”, and the lengthy (1 1/2 hour) separation agreement discussion was in dire need of an attorney’s presence and advice… not just for content, but for parliamentary procedure.
Dave deLong “sprang to the podium in frustration” when a councilor, other than the meeting chair (Mayor) called for a vote. Mr de Long rightly protested a “Point of Order”. The inappropriate vote call is just that, about as inappropriately out of procedural rules as you can get; It essentially ignores the “privilege” of the Chair.
There is no way to adequately explain/describe this meeting. One “side”or another would accuse the other of bias, regardless of what was reported. I was observing for the LWV, and will probably have to write a special note rather than try to summarize the content of the meeting, it was so fraught with innuendo, accusation, etc. (I expect even that comment will draw extreme criticism).
I would suggest that any citizen who wants to be informed about last night’s 7PM special council meeting, request a CD of the meeting from City Hall. To borrow a copy is free; or one is available for purchase.
So what’s that about an apology?
Bill and Kiffi, thanks for the update. KYMN’s Dusty Budd generously gave me the audio file of the meeting. I’ll try to get that posted tonight.
NTV normally broadcasts the Council meeting at 7 pm on the Tuesday after a meeting but I don’t see it on today’s schedule.
Yes I sprang from my chair. Frustration not so much, because I had made up my mind to let them work it out. I had given my comments at an earlier meeting. I spoke to raise a point of order, a parliamentary inquiry after Councilperson Scott Davis took it upon himself to conduct a vote.
I pointed out that this was not proper procedure. Ok I pointed it out in no uncertain terms but while it was and is evident that some members of the council have disdain for Lee Lansing the individual they need to show respect for the office of Mayor and council procedure as outlined in City Ordinance.
I sat there and listened to an hour and a half of “discussion”. If they were trying to persuade the Mayor, they should have tried more honey and less vinegar. If they were trying to lay blame on the Mayor, I say mission accomplished. Talk about being set up for failure. What language would Mr. Roder find acceptable if any? Why not have Mr. Roder write the letter and direct the Mayor to sign it? Why didn’t the Council draft the letter in resolution form? Even if the Mayor voted against it he would still have to sign it.
Is it because they want to be able to blame the Mayor for this mess or or any money their “forced” to pay out because they might get sued? News flash every one has a part in this, no matter how much you try to blame someone else.
So much drama, so much theater, so many games, so much B.S.
What kind of apology is Mr. Roder seeking?
Patrick, perhaps the following might help. These paragraphs are from a redacted public document made available to the public at the meeting. It is a letter from Jim Pokorney to the Mayor dated July 19 2008. I believe this might partially answer your question as to what Mr. Roder is looking for in an apology.
As you requested, I am following up our phone conversation yesterday by informing you in writing as to a proposal Kris and I are working on to get resolution with Al Roder regarding his separation agreement.”
“As an alternative, offer, Mr. Roder has proposed that he will sign the release and drop all payment demands if you agree to write an apology letter with regard to your behavior and actions regarding your relationship with Mr. Roder. You and Mr. Roder would need to work out the parameters of such an apology and the final draft would need to be acceptable to him. The letter would be a public document.”
Mr. Roder did mention twice during the “discussion” that he had three criteria for the apology but they were not stated in any public document and Mr. Roder did not say what they might be during the “discussion”.
The Mayor had read from a prepared letter of reconciliation during his remarks in the “discussion”. You will have to get the text some where else but there was no response from Mr. Roder. When pressed by Council if this letter of reconciliation was the apology letter that would be required by the motion, the Mayor did not say yes or no, he said words to the effect that- it is what it is and the council should vote on the motion was before them.
What does Mr. Roder want? No one knows. What will he find acceptable? No one knows. In a nutshell no one knows.
The cards have been dealt, now we wait to see how it plays out. Any bets?
The Mayor has been given a deadline of -close of business on Friday, to comply with the council’s motion. That is to come up with a letter acceptable to Mr. Roder. Given the circumstances does the Council really think this will happen? Mr. Roder’s last day is Wednesday but it’s my guess he will be effecting the City for much past that.
Thank you; that was quite helpful.
It will be interesting to see what Mr. Lansing’s response is, and whether he would write such a letter of apology. As you said: any bets?
Nfld News posted this story this morning: Council approves separation agreement.
David D. I would point out that you were out of order. The Mayor could have asked that the sergeant-at-arms remove you from the chambers.
Kiffi: We shouldn’t be using an attorney for parlimentary procedure. Robert’s Rules of Order are designed so that a political body can regulate itself.
Perhaps the best approach would be for the City Council to offer an apology on the Mayor’s behalf. If Roder is requesting a personal apology, that is outside the scope of the Council’s authority. Apologizing for the Mayor is not. An apology to drop the severance request – that is a no-brainer for the Council.
Well, David L., you’re right that we shouldn’t have to use an attorney for Parliamentary procedure; you maybe were reading too fast but you’ll note I said ” for presence and advice … not just for content, but also parliamentary procedure”. The Council had a lot of times when they said they didn’t know what the legality would be.
When you have a situation where a council person calls a vote, which is about the most disrespectful thing to do to the chair, i.e. strip the chair of its privilege as chair, you need someone who might be at least perceived by that unruly councilperson, as having some ” weight”.
In my opinion, although I would prefer to never see the gavel used at a council meeting, the Mayor would have been thoroughly justified in the heavy use of it. Every time he tried to draw some behavior “boundaries” he was either ignored, questioned, or smirked at. It doesn’t do much good to have the Mayor try to keep order if the procedural rules are repeatedly ignored.
If you have parliamentary procedure skills, in depth, maybe you should offer a training workshop for the council… they might as well drop a few bucks with a local “consultant”, don’t you think?
As far as having a citizen removed by a sergeant-of-arms for calling Point of Order, we had a Police Chief-at-arms in the chamber at the time, and he didn’t seem to be ruffled.
The question was called and it was seconded. The mayor refused to call a vote. Who’s out of order?
Has the City Council ever appointed a Parliamentarian? If not, any reason that our city attorney, sitting at council meetings anyway, cannot also wear that hat? Which leaves open the question: would she be pro-active and intervene [at least on such procedural matters], rather than wait to be explicitly asked for her professional opinion – her apparent stance on legal issues.
Is the audio of last night’s meeting available on the web somewhere?
“Every time he tried to draw some behavior “boundaries” he was either ignored, questioned, or smirked at. It doesn’t do much good to have the Mayor try to keep order if the procedural rules are repeatedly ignored.”
He’s a joke. He has broken not only the public trust, he has broken the trust of sound citizens who serve on the council. He has done NOTHING to earn back any level of respect or trust.
In today’s Strib: Backed by council, Northfield administrator wants written apology from mayor.
I always thought Roder probably decided to leave when local mayoral candidate David Hvistendahl made the keystone of his platform firing Roder.
The councilors negotiating with Mr. Roder should have drafted a letter of apology for the mayor, which he could edit within reason. They also should have drafted a letter of apology from the council on behalf of the city, which would have included the needed condemnation of the mayor’s behavior.
The council then would have had two options Monday: the mayor either agrees to sign his letter or the councilors approve and sign theirs. The meeting could have been over in 15 minutes.
There was no reason for discussion. We are all well past the point of a long discussion on this issue. The mayor should not be forced to sign a letter he doesn’t mean for money, and the councilors should not be kept from signing a letter they do support.
Sure it would be great to save $35,000, and there was a way to do that without again humiliating the mayor. We must set an example for the city and our children that you don’t sell out your beliefs for money. Everyone knows I’m not a supporter of the mayor, but it’s clear that in his mind he doesn’t believe he did anything wrong. That’s really the source of all the conflict, because you can’t negotiate with someone when the two sides can’t agree on the same set of facts. You can argue about whether the sun is purple or yellow, but you can’t negotiate the color. You see what you see. Sadly, the mayor’s decision to run again is stunning proof that he either doesn’t understand or can’t accept what has happened over the last two years.
All the council can do is listen respectfully to the mayor, then work within Robert’s rules to keep moving forward until January.
The Nfld News has a new version of its story: Separation agreement calls for apology.
The sidebar on that page has several links to pdfs:
Lansing’s goodwill letter to Roder
Letter from Lansing dated July 18, Page 1
Letter from Lansing dated July 18, Page 2
Letter from Lansing dated July 21
Letter from Lansing dated July 24
Letter from Pokorney
I’ve added the audio of Monday’s Council mtg to the blog post.
Hey Griff –
Not to add more work to your unpaid job, but last time you posted the audio of a Council Meeting you had kind of a “table of contents” with the times of various participants’ comments.
Any chance you could do it again for us over-scheduled and/or under-motivated but interested citizens?
Not this week, Ross… but if others here listen to it and would be willing to make notes of the segment/minutes, we’d appreciate it, wouldn’t we?
I think we should all focus on what the issue is here, and try to look at it in a logical way without jumping to emotional conclusions.
1. Mr. Roder is demanding either severance pay or an apology for the Mayor.
Two questions therefore follow; the first one to be analyzed is: Why would Mr. Roder be entitled to severance?
What does his contract say about severance pay? He’s entitled to it if he is fired. He wasn’t fired. He resigned. He’s got a new job. Does he still have a claim? If so, what are his damages?
Until the first question is resolved, there is no need to determine the second; if the Mayor owes Mr. Roder an apology. So any argument about that is really moot at this point.
What would Mr. Roder’s legal cause of action be under his employment contract? Is it actually viable, or would he get kicked at summary judgment?
This city has lost uncountable capital reserves, is bleeding money for attorney’s fees, for unenforceable city code revisions, for independent investigations. Why are we afraid of defending against a lawsuit for which there may be no legal basis?
Would the League of MN Cities cover the city? Has the city even filed a liability claim with the League? Have any of the council members even looked at their coverage by the League? Maybe the League doesn’t cover employment contract claims, I don’t know. But we should at least ask.
According to the League’s website:
“It’s very much an over-simplification, but, in general, for the city to be liable for someone else’s damages, three conditions must be met:
1. The city must have been negligent. That is, the city must have done something it shouldn’t have done, or failed to do something it should have done.
2. The damages must have been caused by the city’s negligence.
3. It must not be one of the areas in which the city is immune from liability.”
Everyone needs to take a step back from their emotional reactions and look at this as casual observers. Why would we rush to settle a potential lawsuit until we determine if the suit is even viable? IT MAKES NO SENSE.
The council supports an apology, so the council should write one on behalf of the city. The mayor simply doesn’t believe that he’s done anything wrong, so anything he would write would be worthless.
It’s just time to end this. The two sides will never agree. Roder is leaving and the voters will decide whether Lansing does as well.
Sadly, it seems this will become another version of the Target debacle, adding to the herd of dead horses piling up on Bridge Square.
What a sad place this is.
Britt, I think the answer to your question “Why would we rush to settle a potential lawsuit unit we determine if the suit is even viable?” is that an apology would be free. It would be the expedient thing to do. I think Councilor Pokorney called it a “business decision” on the tape of the meeting.
That said, I don’t think the apology letter it is the right thing to do. The premise of Mr. Roder getting a letter to help clear his name to help him with further employment is preposterous. What is he going to say to potential employers when presenting them with the letter? “Here’s the letter of apology I coerced out of my former mayor by threatening his city with potential lawsuits if he didn’t write it.”
Griff, thanks for posting the audio of the meeting. Kiffi, you are right in your post #3. There is no way to describe this meeting. It was one of the most bizarre things I’ve ever heard.
Could events play out something like this?
1. Roder promises, in writing, that he won’t sue if the council and the mayor apologize.
2. The mayor and the council offer a formal apology.
3. Roder sues, using the apology as evidence that the city did something wrong.
Does this sound plausible? I’m not sure, but I don’t think the promise in Step 1 would count for much. For example, don’t doctors sometimes get sued despite the waivers their patients have signed?
Britt’s right, as always (#23). Scott’s suspicion (#26) is one I’ve had, as well, and I don’t think it’s a far-fetched scenario at all.
I’ll second Britt’s comments by echoing, if Roder is contractually not due a severance, then an apology is unnecessary. But also adding, if it can be determined – in the fine print of his contract – that he somehow is owed a severance, then he will get it, and the apology is again unnecessary.
There’s certainly plenty of blame to go around, but forcing an insincere apology is meaningless in more ways than one. If the Mayor has done things for which he should apologize to Roder, than he should do that because it’s the mature and right thing to do, not this way.
I get the suspicion that the issue is severance pay is being dangled as the price of quieting Roder’s desire for other legal remedies or compensation. Feels like extortion to me.
It reminds me so well why I’m running for Mayor in the manner I am. In the face of absurdity, put on an absurd face.
In Roder’s defense, there haven’t been many people willing to acknowledge just how difficult we (the citizens of Northfield) made his job, and how professionally he handled himself through this sordid affair. We need to do a lot better if we don’t want to get black-balled in the small world of city administrators.
Britt- You’re a lawyer. Aren’t there protections in place in Minnesota employment laws guarding against harrasment in the workplace? If Roder’s allegations of the mayor’s behavior are correct and verified by the Goodhue Report, does this give him legal grounds to pursue damages along this line? I’m just wondering. If your answer costs me money, though, then forget I ever asked it. I’ll join Brendon’s camp, instead.
David L., I agree with you too (#28). I don’t believe Roder’s been treated well, by many. Likely some of the criticism has been warranted, and some has been baseless, politically motivated and hurtful.
I don’t know enough about all the minute details of how he has been treated, but I’m still siding with Britt’s logic on the severance issue.
On the issue of being harassed that John G. raises, and that Scott O. and I alluded to, that seems like another matter quite apart from severance pay, which is why I feel like the severance package is being used by Roder as sort of a gambit.
Maybe that’s to be expected in this type of situation, but it still feels somewhat childish to me.
David L. –
Whether it’s you, or me, or Kiffi Summa, or Britt Ackerman, or any of the other people who have participated in this or other discussions on line or in the streets, I think we have made it very clear, to anyone even halfway paying attention, that Northfield has more sophisticated intelligence and expressed opinions per capita than any other community in Minnesota and probably right up there with any community in the country. Personally, I’m damn proud of that fact.
Furthermore, we haven’t tricked, and certainly haven’t forced, any of these people to come to our community and take their six-figure salaries out of our citizens’ wallets. If they can’t take the heat, they shouldn’t be trying to cook up their schemes, projects, or hot-dishes in our kitchen. You, me, Kiffi and Britt, as well as the others, have gotten singed on more than one occasion, by the citizens, the media, and even our friends, in this community, and I don’t think any of us are bringing home as much bacon as the city administrators.
In addition, my previous career gave me experience working with a number of cities throughout Minnesota as well as a number of communities around the country. I think the idea that city administrators and city staff members, much less elected officials, work in a Garden of Eden before Adam and Eve took that first bite of knowledge is a myth, perhaps intentionally manufactured.
I think that you have inadvertently made a powerful point. Maybe the pool of professional bureaucrats is too small. Maybe Northfield should try something different. I sat in a group of local citizens recently who wanted John Stull, former mayor and retired top manager at Malt-o-Meal, to be the interim City Administrator. With eyes un-blindered by same old, small pool, approach, perhaps he’d bring some private-sector experience and wisdom to the perhaps too-closed environment.
Finally David, some of your recent comments have made me wonder if you are, in fact, a member of the Republican Party. Now that Bill Cooper is back in the Land of 10,000 Taxes, perhaps he can run an ideological purity test on you. I understand it’s quite definitive.
I certainly hope somebody down there is writing a book or a screenplay…I think the FIrst Chapter or Opening Scene should include excerpts from the Hoyt Adminstration…all the way to Broadway, baby!
I’m giving it serious thought, Howard.
At what cost to the author? There’s the rub.
Wait a minute Brendon, am I detecting an implied threat here…
…elect me Mayor or, with time on my hands, I’ll write a screenplay?
If that’s the nature of the threat, then I think the City’s screwed either way the election falls.
If I don’t win, I’ll have more time for a play or screenplay; if I do, then I’ll have access to material and resources and stories that might have eluded me otherwise. It’ll just be that much more robust a piece, and written four years from now.
How’s that for a plank: Elect me to delay the inevitable by four years!
People have been elected on less.
Truth is I have no set plans for writing a play – screen or stage – about Northfield’s compelling political machinations of the past few years, but the idea does keep knocking on the front door of my cerebrum.
Again, the cost to the writer could be quite dear, far outstripping the benefits.
No plans, eh Brendon?
Well, now that I’ve got some time on my hands…
…when is the next Very Short Play Festival…
…and do I have to fit twelve months into three minutes?
The Very Short Play Festival IV:
Deadline for submissions is March 1, 2009.
Performance in late April, 2009 at the NAG Theater.
But, here’s the good part, you have ten minutes of stage time if you want it!
You could fit the last five years into that!
Six or seven with really good actors.
…pardon my interruption, but who IS running for mayor and what are the chances…
One hour to go on the deadline for Lansing to apologize. Anyone have news?
Roder had a severance issue when he resigned from Becker Cty in 2002. A commenter named ‘hadenough’ posted this on this Nfld News thread:
On page 4 of that PDF:
Howard – In answer to your question, I’ll redirect you to this discussion on the mayoral race. Hope you’ll jump in (to the discussion, not the race…)
Griff- This link is the latest post on the NN website. Apparently, no appology, no communication. And you thought the circus had left town?
The News quotes Roder as saying:
Does this reek of “Now, I’m going to sue” to anyone else?
Are we allowed to spank our city leaders?
mental note: add spanking plank, probably oak, to my mayoral platform
Brendon- I thought you were running for mayor, not chairman of the board! Or are you trying to represent a splinter group? Or, is this just going against your grain?
No, John G., just bored with all this lumbering about, but also barking mad and pining for real leadership.
Sorry to be a birch about it, but I’d love to see a few people kicked in the ash.
I expect that’s a poplar sentiment right now.
Better leave while I’m behind.
Brendon- Thought you could stump me, huh? My pun roots go really deep. I can tap into years of experience. Perhaps I should write a pome. I’m sure it would be a plum! Are you druping yet? This is just the fruit of my labors. Some folks think I’m nuts, though. Acorny joke here and there, I guess.
Ross: What is the end result of the fact that “… Northfield has more sophisticated intelligence and expressed opinions per capita than any other community in Minnesota …” ?
I would settle for common sense over sophisicated intelligence, and practicality over expressed opinions. If common sense and practicality is a litimus test for a party affliation, then count me in. I don’t intend to join the NIMPU (Northfield Is My Personal Utopia) party.
Roder has had to deal with a lot of issues, not of his doing, which don’t come up in towns without a NIMPU party – prayers ladies, rental ordinances, anti-annexation, staff turnover, and secret allegations. It is a wonder the staff got done as much as they did. For the sake of the next administration, some of the political power of the NIMPU party needs to be tempered.
David, thanks for the most original contribution of the week.
The NIMPU party — just genius!
“Northfield Is My Personal Utopia”…
I like that. I’ve lived in a lot of cities, and this one is the best I’ve found. Of course, I disagree with just about every plank in the purported NIMPU platform, but at least people here care enough to argue about prayers ladies, rental ordinances, and annexation.
Back to the original point, though. I too feel that Al Roder has been treated horribly, and I am concerned that he might have a leg to stand on in suing the city. Still, given that Lee is unwilling to apologize, apparently we aren’t going to get any indemnity against legal action that way.
So I guess the options are: 1) just cut Mr. Roder loose, and see where the chips fall, 2) have the Council apologize for the Mayor’s actions, and see where the chips fall, or 3) pay him off.
I’d be happy with 1 or 2. 3 only seems a good idea if the city is receiving legal advice that Al has a strong case against us.
Sign me up for NIMPU! I have loved Northfield since my freshman year at St. Olaf in 1964. After an extended absence, I am back as of 2004. So, where shall we hold the first organizational meeting?
Susan- How about meeting in Faribault, or possibly Webster, at the Ranchero?
John–what? and leave Utopia? Ha! By the way, NIMPU might be confused with NIMBY, a philosophy that often reigns in towns, even in Utopias such as Northfield. Perhaps a better acronym can be found.
I’ve been thinking along the same lines as David L. when it comes to staff accomplishments: I think they’ve done some very good things despite the turmoil on the Council. For example, the new transportation plan and comprehensive plan to me seem quite promising. And citizens, esp. those on commissions and other bodies, have played an equal or greater role in those accomplishments.
Tracy…thanks and I will meander over to the Mayoral Discussion and likely offer a thiought or two.
Bill…keep on bikin’ and yes staff has done and will continue to do good work, but the citizens need to push…staff and elected officials!
David L. –
Common sense can be the direct cutting through of over complexity, the simplistic dismissal of sophisticated analysis, or a thinly-veiled slam of the two colleges…not that I’m accusing you of any of these actions. And if you can’t handle the heat of expressed opinions, you’re clearly in the wrong kitchen.
“Not of his doing”??? The “Prayer Ladies” seemed entirely of his doing. As City Administrator, I would think that he’d have had some involvement with the “Rental Ordinance”; in fact, the one we eventually developed had an eerie similarity to the one they developed in Denison, Iowa during his stay. “Anti-annexation”???, this from the guy who summarized the Public Hearing on the topic as a dead heat…and what about the series (EDA, Planning Commission and City Council) of majority votes for annexation? The “staff turnover” that seemed the most disruptive to me, the departures of Deanna Kuennan, Howard Merriam, and Heidi Hamilton, occurred shortly after Mr. Roder took over. My understanding from a City Councilor at the Special Meeting last November is that the law requires that the “secret allegations” remain confidential until the Goodhue County Investigation is completed.
It is unfortunate if some of Mr. Roder’s time in Northfield was unpleasant for him. Perhaps some of it can be blamed on Mr. Lansing. However, I think that Mr. Roder should take some responsibility for it himself. I do not think that we should blame the citizens of Northfield for it, regardless of their political affiliation. I think that citizens have the right to speak their minds and hold their leaders, hired or elected, accountable for their actions.
David, as an attorney in Northfield, you may be insulated to some extent, however, there is an economic slowdown in this country, and in this town. Mr. Roder was paid a six-figure salary, with exceptional benefits, and was given protection and support throughout his tenure that would make most workers quite envious. Please understand if I can’t join you in the “Poor Al” chorus.
I think that we can all agree that things between Mr. Roder and Northfield just didn’t work out. Hopefully Mr. Roder has made a decision that will work out better for him in the future. Let’s also hope Northfield will make a decision that will work out better for us in the future.
As member of the Planning Commission, you have had much more experience w/staff, including Mr. Roder, than the rest of us on this blog. Your analysis here makes a lot of sense to me. Thank you so much. Sorry to hear you will not continue on the Planning Commission.
Ross: Much of what passes for sophisicated intelligence in Northfield is really common nonsense (e.g. don’t annex all of the land because “we” don’t need it). Expressed opinions are often just impractical (e.g. let’s make all of Northfield look like Old Northfield).
With regard to Al Roder, I was pointing out that many of the “issues” were distractions that most other towns with less sophisicated intelligence and less expressed opinions would have dismissed as lacking common sense or as being impractical.
Here is how I think other towns would have reacted:
Prayer ladies – Who cares?
Annexation – No brainer.
Secret allegations – Sour grapes!
Rental ordinance – Not the City’s problem.
See how much time is freed up so that the real work of the City can be done?
David L. –
Perhaps you can explain the difference between:
“Prayer ladies – Who cares?
Annexation – No brainer.
Secret allegations – Sour grapes!
Rental ordinance – Not the City’s problem.”
“lacking common sense or as being impractical”.
Ross- Just a reminder on the prayer ladies. This was touted as an infringement on the separation clause of the Constitution. In reality, the reaction was an affront to the equal access laws, and an infringement on these peoples’ civil rights. The result of all this uproar was a distraction to what was going on behind the scenes with the liquor store property. I know you won’t agree with this, but someone has to say it. There are more than just David L. who question how this last year was handled.
I also have a lot of problems with how a lot of things were handled in the past year or so in City Hall, by players on all sides of the various controversies.
However, I have to take exception to your representation of reaction to the “prayer ladies” issue as “an affront to the equal access laws, and an infringement on these peoples’ civil rights.” Seriously, now. Do you think Mr. Roder would have granted unsupervised after-hours access to his office to a group of Wiccans, Satanists, neo-Nazis, atheists, Islamic fundamentalists, free love advocates, nudists or latter-day Trotskyites who wanted to incantate/meditate/pray/advocate for wise decision-making by the council?
David L.: Perhaps you are right in your assessment (comment #57) of how many other towns would have reacted to your list of pet peeves from the last year. I would not care to live in such a town. I love living in Northfield, and as maddening and disheartening as many of the controversies of the past year have been for everyone in the community, I hardly think the solution is to just throw up your hands and say “whatever,” or to not pay attention to what is going on in town and engage when you feel morally obligated to do so, which is what you seem to be suggesting. Democracy is sometimes messy. Messy can be good.
In looking over David L.’s list again, there are only two points on it that, to my knowledge, actually consumed any council time- annexation and rental ordinance. I don’t agree with his assessment of the rental ordinace, either, so perhaps the council was actually using more common sense than they have been given credit for.
Bruce- If he had refused their request, would it have gone unchallenged? I think not, on the same grounds I cited, especially in this city. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Your insinuation is that there was favoritism demonstrated here. That may be your opinion, and you have every right to it, in the absence of hard evidence about the relationships involved. I’ll stand by my opinion.
Take a look at the URL I posted on the Obama/McCain thread. I think there is some correlation in politics in general in David Brooks’ column.
David H, I’ve moderated your comment in which you made a sarcastic comment about David L. Plus, you didn’t address him in the first person tense.
Want to try again?
Griff – David L seems tough so I thought he might think it was funny. But I maybe should have just made the general point that arguments appealing to “common sense” (Thomas Paine aside) are often really appealing to an individuals personal deeply held beliefs – as opposed to widely shared beliefs (as the term implies).
Thanks, David H… yes, David L is tough but it’s the thousands of others who visit our blog and don’t comment here that it’s important to consider. We want to keep the civility apparent so that more of them are more likely to chime in, too.
You must log in to post a comment.