April 22-25, 2015
Apr 22 07:49 Rep. Thissen, classless jerk Apr 22 12:35 Transportation: needs vs. wish list Apr 23 03:54 Chisholm should be disbarred Apr 23 07:27 The Clintons of Tammany Hall Apr 23 08:26 The Clinton 'favors' Apr 23 14:08 Bakk's confusing strategy Apr 24 05:53 The Democrats' Hillary predicament Apr 24 13:41 SCSU's silence says everything Apr 25 07:08 St. Cloud's newest park
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Rep. Thissen, classless jerk
Paul Thissen, the House DFL Leader, is a classless jerk. This article offers proof of that:
In the House debate Tuesday, lawmakers exchanged words over an amendment offered by DFL leader Paul Thissen, DFL-Minneapolis, to name a part of U.S. 12 the "Tim Miller Goat Trail" after a freshman Republican lawmaker from Prinsburg who has sparred with Thissen. House GOP leader Joyce Peppin, R-Rogers, responded by saying it was the latest in a series of examples where Thissen had behaved inappropriately.
I won't demand that Thissen apologize. If he mouthed the words to an apology, it wouldn't mean anything. It wouldn't be sincere. Thissen is who Thissen is.
What Rep. Thissen is isn't a picture of statesmanship. He's been a picture in classless partisanship. In that respect, it looks like Rep. Thissen studied under the tutelage of Tony Sertich although, to be fair, Sertich wasn't classless like Thissen is.
What type of classless partisan offers an amendment that gives a road a name that insults a colleague? The DFL isn't the party of Hubert Humphrey anymore. It's the party that looks for opportunities to humiliate their political opponents.
I hope Republicans remind voters who the DFL really is. I hope Republicans remind voters that the DFL is the political party that puts a higher priority on playing partisan games than they put on doing the right thing.
Posted Wednesday, April 22, 2015 7:49 AM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 22-Apr-15 11:08 AM
Thissen is the epitome of a smug, pompous, limousine liberal ass who cares nothing for the "little people" he continually says he's fighting for. Calling him a classless jerk gives classless jerks a bad name..
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 22-Apr-15 11:09 AM
I'd argue that it gives the dictionary a face to put with the words but that's just my opinion.
Transportation: needs vs. wish list
Last night, the House passed the Road and Bridge Act of 2015 by a 73-59 vote. Speaker Kurt Daudt put things succinctly in this statement :
'Minnesota families rely on our road and bridge infrastructure to get their kids to school and themselves to work. The House Republican majority has listened to Minnesotans and worked toward a solution that provides immediate repair to roads in their communities. Furthermore, with the passage of the Road and Bridge Act of 2015, we have delivered a real, long-term solution without increasing the tax burden on middle-class Minnesotans,' said Speaker Kurt Daudt (R-Crown).
Republicans won the majority in the House thanks to the promises they made of focusing on outstate Minnesota. Contrary to Ellen Anderson's inside-the-Twin-Cities perspective, outstate Minnesota doesn't care about transit. In February, Anderson participated in an Almanac Roundtable discussion. During that debate, Anderson said that Republicans better jump on board with transit funding because "outstate Minnesotans love their transit, too."
Anderson is either lying through her teeth or she's dumber than a sack of hair. At this point, that's a close call. But I digress.
Seriously, when it comes to transportation, outstate Minnesota doesn't give a rip about transit. The Republican plan focuses on Minnesota's transportation needs. The DFL's plan focuses on the transportation lobbyists' wish list. If Republicans want to keep control of the House and take back control of the Senate, they should stick with their transportation plan.
House Transportation Committee Chair Tim Kelly hit the nail on the head with this statement:
"With this bill, House Republicans are offering a workable, common sense solution to our transportation funding debate," said House Transportation Committee Chair Tim Kelly (R-Red Wing), chairman of the Minnesota House Transportation Finance Committee. "We were able to prioritize roads and bridges in the fiscally responsible manner that Minnesotans wanted and expected."
Rep. Kelly is right. There isn't a great groundswell of support for transit. There's less support for a gas tax increase than there is support for transit funding.
If Sen. Bakk wants to give the GOP a majority in the Senate in 2016, all he needs to do is keep pushing a major gas tax increase. According to the February KSTP-SurveyUSA poll, 75% of Minnesotans support the Republican plan. If Sen. Bakk wants to force his vulnerable members to vote for an unpopular tax increase that's supported by only 18% of Minnesotans, he'll hand the majority of the Minnesota Senate to Republicans on a silver platter.
It'll be interesting to see how transportation plays out. Gov. Dayton is pretty much forced to fight for transit funding. Sen. Bakk is pretty much forced into fighting against increased transit funding because forcing outstate DFL legislators to vote for a package of major transportation tax increases will sink his majority status.
Posted Wednesday, April 22, 2015 12:35 PM
No comments.
Chisholm should be disbarred
When I first read David French's article , my first reaction was that John T. Chisholm, the Milwaukee County District Attorney, should be disbarred, then tried and convicted, then thrown into prison for a very long time. Chisholm is a progressive political hack with a mission to destroy the conservative movement in Wisconsin:
Cindy Archer, one of the lead architects of Wisconsin's Act 10 - also called the 'Wisconsin Budget Repair Bill,' it limited public-employee benefits and altered collective-bargaining rules for public-employee unions - was jolted awake by yelling, loud pounding at the door, and her dogs' frantic barking. The entire house - the windows and walls - was shaking. She looked outside to see up to a dozen police officers, yelling to open the door. They were carrying a battering ram.
She wasn't dressed, but she started to run toward the door, her body in full view of the police. Some yelled at her to grab some clothes, others yelled for her to open the door. 'I was so afraid,' she says. 'I did not know what to do.' She grabbed some clothes, opened the door, and dressed right in front of the police. The dogs were still frantic. 'I begged and begged, 'Please don't shoot my dogs, please don't shoot my dogs, just don't shoot my dogs.' I couldn't get them to stop barking, and I couldn't get them outside quick enough. I saw a gun and barking dogs. I was scared and knew this was a bad mix.'
She got the dogs safely out of the house, just as multiple armed agents rushed inside. Some even barged into the bathroom, where her partner was in the shower. The officer or agent in charge demanded that Cindy sit on the couch, but she wanted to get up and get a cup of coffee. 'I told him this was my house and I could do what I wanted.' Wrong thing to say. 'This made the agent in charge furious. He towered over me with his finger in my face and yelled like a drill sergeant that I either do it his way or he would handcuff me.'
Last night, Megyn Kelly interviewed David French. Here's the video of the interview:
Here's the most chilling exchange of the interview:
MEGYN: Who was the judge that signed off on these subpoenas?
DAVID FRENCH: The judge's name is Barbara Kluka, I believe is how you pronounce her name. She signed off on hundreds of pages of subpoenas in literally one afternoon of work. It was a rubberstamp process. It was not true judicial oversight and the result has been catastrophic to citizens' rights.
French's statement might be the understatement of the year. The things that are alleged, if they're proven in a court of law, should be grounds for termination of the police officers and the disbarment of the judge and the district attorney.
The policeman (policemen?) who ordered Ms. Archer that she couldn't speak with a lawyer and that she couldn't speak about the police officers' actions violated Ms. Archer's constitutional right to an attorney. Saying that she couldn't speak about the raid essentially amounts to putting a gag order on Ms. Archer. I'm no lawyer but aren't gag orders meant to preserve the right to a fair trial?
In this instance, the purpose of the gag order was to protect these thugs' secrecy. The only people that benefited were the thugs with badges.
This isn't just about prosecutorial or judicial misconduct. It's about how the Democratic Party weaponized the district attorney's office and the Milwaukee police force to intimidate conservatives from speaking about the issues that matter most to them. That's the heart of the First Amendment's protections.
Finally, this is the face of pure evil. These Democrats should be destroyed politically. They should all spend years in prison doing hard time. Silencing people who just wanted to support a political issue is despicable.
Posted Thursday, April 23, 2015 3:54 AM
No comments.
The Clintons of Tammany Hall
Ron Fournier's article for National Journal draws on his extensive historical knowledge of the Clintons. Here's a great example of that information:
April 22, 2015 Gennifer Flowers. Cattle futures. The White House travel office. Rose Law Firm files. The Lincoln Bedroom. Monica Lewinsky. And now, the Clinton Foundation. What ties these stories together is the predictable, paint-by-numbers response from the Bill and Hillary Clinton political operation.
- Deny: Salient questions are dodged, and evidence goes missing. The stone wall is built.
- Deflect: Blame is shifted, usually to Republicans and the media.
- Demean: People who question or criticize the Clintons get tarred as right-wing extremists, hacks, nuts, or sluts.
One thing that's left out of Fournier's article is that the Clintons will fiercely insist that they're innocent of any criminal wrong-doing. That isn't meaningful because politicians write ethics laws that protect politicians. One political consultant once said that the thing that's infuriating isn't what is a crime in Washington, DC. It's all the stuff that isn't a crime in Washington, DC. Here's a list of questions Fournier wants answered:
What did donors expect from the Clintons? Did they receive favors in return? Why did the Clintons do business with countries that finance terrorism and suppress the rights of women? Did family and friends benefit from their ties to the foundation? And, in a broader sense, what do the operations of the foundation say about Hillary Clinton's management ability and ethical grounding?
Already, John Podesta, one of the sleaziest political operators in US history, is insisting that Peter Schweizer's book Clinton Cash is total political hackery:
Here's Podesta's opinion about Schweizer's book:
JOHN PODESTA: It's a book that's written by a former Bush operative who's a reporter for that august news organization Breitbart.com. He's cherrypicked information from information that's been disclosed and woven in a bunch of conspiracy theories about it. The facts -- there's nothing new about it -- the conspiracy theories, I guess, we'll find out when we get to read the book.
It's particularly noteworthy that the first accusation out of Podesta's mouth was that Schweizer is "a former Bush operative." It's noteworthy because it's setting the table for discrediting Mr. Schweizer. The inference is that anyone who worked for the Bush administration isn't trustworthy. Here's what Schweizer did as "a Bush operative":
Schweizer Worked For The Bush White House As A Speechwriting Consultant From 2008-2009.
WOW! Being a presidential speechwriter is one hell of an accusation. But I digress. What's interesting about Podesta's statement is that they're made without him knowing what's in the book. He admits that he doesn't what's in it when he said "we'll find out when we get to read the book."
Podesta's statements are non sequiturs at best. Let's suppose that Schweizer was a speechwriter during the last 2 years of the Bush administration. So what? The only thing that that's proof of is that Schweizer was a speechwriter for the Bush administration. As for being a reporter for Breitbart, that information is worthy of another so what? Finally, considering the fact that Podesta admitted that he doesn't know what's in the book, how can he say with total certitude that Schweizer's book is filled with conspiracy theories?
The reality is that Podesta won't let Hillary answer the questions that Mr. Fournier wants answers to. That's because he knows that there's lots of corruption wherever the Clintons of Tammany Hall spot an opportunity.
Posted Thursday, April 23, 2015 7:27 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 23-Apr-15 12:17 PM
Gary:
Lets not forget two things that just shows how dumb this defense is.
One, Hillary who has tried to protray herself as the champion of the average person has rigged campaign events where only hard core democrat supporters of Hillary shows up. so if the people behind the report are biased than obviously she can't be a champion of the average person.
Two, these are only facts that might be on the record somewhere. I think what the Clinton camp doesn't like is that somebody took the time to gather all of the facts together and then made the connections which a real media would've done to a Republican.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
The Clinton 'favors'
This NY Times article isn't what the Clinton Machine needs right now:
Beyond mines in Kazakhstan that are among the most lucrative in the world, the sale gave the Russians control of one-fifth of all uranium production capacity in the United States. Since uranium is considered a strategic asset, with implications for national security, the deal had to be approved by a committee composed of representatives from a number of United States government agencies. Among the agencies that eventually signed off was the State Department, then headed by Mr. Clinton's wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton.
As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One's chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.
And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.
Will Podesta accuse the NY Times of cherrypicking the information? Will he accuse them of being a Bush operative who "wove in a bunch of conspiracy theories about" the Clintons in their attempt to vilify the Clintons' good name?
I'll be blunt. I don't believe in coincidences. When the words coincidence and the Clintons are used in the same sentence, I'm more cynical than Charles Krauthammer, which takes some doing.
Jazz Shaw put this into his post :
That's why it seems to me that the speech payment to Bill (who shares family resources with Hillary) is the more startling story than the other donations.
Another statement from the NY Times article that's utterly laughable:
In a statement, Brian Fallon, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton's presidential campaign, said no one 'has ever produced a shred of evidence supporting the theory that Hillary Clinton ever took action as secretary of state to support the interests of donors to the Clinton Foundation.'
Considering the fact that Hillary's lawyer testified that Hillary had deleted all 'personal' emails from their private server, I wouldn't doubt Mr. Fallon's statement. In fact, if I was a cynical man, I'd probably think that Mr. Fallon had just come close to admitting that the proof was destroyed.
That's fair because I think the Clintons' credibility was destroyed long ago.
Posted Thursday, April 23, 2015 8:26 AM
No comments.
Bakk's confusing strategy
I'm more than a bit surprised after reading this post about Sen. Bakk's latest transportation plan. Check this out:
In January, Gov. Mark Dayton and DFL lawmakers rolled out comprehensive transportation plans and talked about how urgent it was to do something this year. Republicans held up their hands and said there was no rush .
Times have changed. On Wednesday, it was Senate DFL leader Tom Bakk raising the specter of delaying a transportation bill for another year. 'Transportation probably doesn't have to happen,' Bakk said Wednesday.
While the Legislature has to pass a finance bill to keep the Department of Transportation operating, lawmakers are under no obligation to approve billions of dollars in new spending as both Democrats and Republicans want to do.
Both chambers have rolled out comprehensive transportation packages spending billions of dollars over the next decade on roads, bridges and mass transit. The threat to just go home and not pass a comprehensive transportation bill could be aimed at increasing the Senate's leverage in final negotiations with the House - potentially forcing Republicans to make more concessions than they want to in order to get a deal.
Republicans passed a bill that fixes Minnesota's roads and bridges, which is Minnesotans' highest priority. Because they did their job, Republicans just have to insist that the DFL leadership pass a sensible transportation plan. Then Republicans can remind voters that they listened to the voters before crafting a bill that put Minnesotans' highest priorities first.
Then the GOP can remind voters that Sen. Bakk and the DFL acted like spoiled brats throwing a temper tantrum. Anyone thinking that that attitude will play well in outstate Minnesota isn't too bright. The old cliche that you can't beat something with nothing certainly applies in this instance.
If Sen. Bakk and the DFL insist on pushing an unpopular tax increase down Minnesotans' throats, they'll hand the Senate majority to Republicans on a silver platter. First, doing nothing isn't an option. Next, doing something unpopular isn't an option, either. Finally, throwing a temper tantrum while doing nothing is a short path from the majority to minority party status.
Posted Thursday, April 23, 2015 2:08 PM
No comments.
The Democrats' Hillary predicament
For years, Democrats have hitched their wagon to Hillary's star. In 2002, Democrats tried talking Hillary into running against George W. Bush. She declined, supposedly to run for the open seat rather than run against a well-financed incumbent. Now, Democrats have a problem on their hands.
Josh Kraushaar's article highlights the difficult situation Democrats are facing:
Democrats didn't fully appreciate the size of the gamble they're taking on Hillary Clinton by assuming she's their strongest 2016 candidate, but they're sure finding out now.
Forget the email server. The latest revelation - that a Canadian mining company with close ties to the Clinton Foundation sold its uranium business to the Russians with approval from Clinton's State Department - is more damaging than any of the previous controversies that have buffeted the campaign.
The story goes to the heart of several serious, growing vulnerabilities that Clinton will be facing, sooner or later. First, the perception of foreign entities paying the Clinton Foundation and later getting favorable treatment from the State Department raises the spectre of foreign governments buying access at the highest levels of the U.S. government - a politically potent allegation should any connection be proven. The fact that Clinton reportedly concealed the company's donations to the foundation from the Obama administration only raises the reason for suspicion.
Hillary's apologists have insisted that she didn't break the law since this story broke. That remains to be seen but it's irrelevant. It isn't that committing a crime is insignificant. It's that selling US foreign policy to the highest bidder is disgusting.
There's nothing coincidental about Bill Clinton getting oversized speaking fees and $145,000,000 in contributions came into the Clinton Foundation while Russia was tried buying uranium from the United States through a proxy in Kazakhstan.
Third, it raises the question of what other actions she took as secretary of State that would have the consequence of enriching her family through the Clinton Foundation. Former President Bill Clinton made a half-million speaking to a Russian investment bank promoting the mining company's stock shortly after the corporate takeover. That badly threatens to undermine her positioning as a populist fighter for the "everyday" American - an image her campaign has been assiduously pushing with her low-key launch.
Last weekend, John Podesta was confronted by Hillary supporters at a fundraiser. Specifically, they bombarded him with questions about her biggest scandals. When your chief fundraisers are questioning you, you've got problems.
Q: How do you give a chameleon a nervous breakdown? A: put him against a plaid background.
Hillary's nervous breakdown moment will hit when Republicans and moderators ask how she'll solve the international crises she's created. Will she admit that her decisions contributed mightily to the ISIS crisis? Will she admit that her giving the Russian foreign minister emboldened Putin? Will she admit that the Arab Spring was a total disaster?
I can't see that happening.
Meanwhile, the Republican candidate can simply say that his foreign policy won't make the mistake of capitulating to Iran or Russia. The GOP candidate will just have to lay out a comprehensive strategy rather than jumping from one hotspot to the next without a real strategy.
Hillary isn't a great candidate. If her last name was Stein instead of Clinton, Democrats would have run her off.
Posted Friday, April 24, 2015 5:53 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 24-Apr-15 09:03 AM
I like your conclusion. I have long been recommending that Republicans lay off criticizing Hillary until AFTER she gets the nomination. Otherwise you will force Democrats to find a new "empty suit" to promise "hope and change," and who might have a chance to get elected. We can't afford that again.
SCSU's silence says everything
Slick, Slick, Slick!
by Silence Dogood
The SCSU PR machine is good! SCSU got a very favorable article announcing a land swap between the City of St. Cloud and SCSU into the SCTimes on April 17, 2015. Fridays are always slow news days. In the news media, Fridays are often referred to as "take out the trash day." On Monday, April 20, 2015, the St. Cloud City Council met and unanimously approved the swap. Based on my own review of the two properties, it is easy to see why the vote by the city council was quick and unanimous. On Tuesday, the MnSCU board of Trustees voted to approve the swap. Getting something approved in such short order without discussion or objection is about as rare as an appearance of Hailey's Comet! It also doesn't pass the "Smell Test."
Someone has stated that the land swap was initially instigated by President Roy Saigo, who left SCSU in the summer of 2007. As a result, it has been argued that the land swap can hardly be described as something that was 'rushed.' I beg to differ. Since you can't prove a negative, simply provide documentation showing that it was discussed publically any time within the last five years. Personally, I don't believe such documentation exists but I am willing to be convinced. However, I'm going to adopt the Missouri model - "Show Me."
In my opinion, this land swap continues the administration's practice of what can only be charitably called 'back room' dealing. The contract between SCSU and the City of St. Cloud for the hiring of three City of St. Cloud police officers back in July 2013 comes to mind. Essentially, SCSU is paying the City of St. Cloud $240,000 per year for the City of St. Cloud to assign three police officers to patrol the vicinity of the SCSU campus. In many ways it almost seems as if SCSU is paying for protection. Unfortunately, the worst part is that the deal was announced AFTER the contract had already been signed. Once again, if it was such an important and worthwhile endeavor, why was it done in secret? Again, if someone can provide documentation where the police officer contract was discussed in a public forum or at Meet and Confer, it would help dispel the transparency question. Private conversations between President Earl Potter and Mayor Dave Kleis don't really count as public discussion - despite the fact that they may have taken place in public!
Another example of decisions being made behind the scenes and then an announcement informing people of an accomplishment happened during the summer of 2013. The administration signed a contract with the Great Place to Work Institute (GPTWI) to perform a "Trust Survey" of the faculty and staff at SCSU and never consulted outside of the inner circle of Potter confidants. Whether or not the GPTWI was the best choice to perform the survey or whether or not the survey should be conducted at all was never presented to the faculty for consideration. The administration simply announced that a contract had been signed.
The GPTWI Survey questions were to be answered in terms of both the employee's "Workgroup" and "Organization."
Workgroup: "refers to all people in your immediate unit or department. Management of your work group refers to your immediate supervisor. (Note: if you are the supervisor of your workgroup, then Management refers to yourself.)"
Organization: "refers to the University as a whole. Management of the organization refers to the senior level members of the administration, including the President, Provost, and vice presidents."
The results of the survey listed below refer to the management of the organization, which means the President, Provost, and vice presidents. The results are grouped into several areas with SCSU results in blue and bench marks in red.
Communication shows up as an issue for SCSU. A score of 31 compares to a GPTW value of 83 for "Management keeps me informed." What's even more telling is the question about management shares information openly and transparently because this is one of the key phrases from President Potter's administration that they are "open and transparent." A score of 20 indicates that there is a big difference between saying that you are open and transparent and actually being open and transparent.
Scoring just better than one-third of the GPTW value of 90, with a 32 on "Management is competent" is not a ringing endorsement of the current leadership. Less than one-third believe the "Management has a clear view (a value of 25 compared to the GPTW value of 85).
Even the consultant from the GPTWI in their report highlighted: "The absence of a strong relationship with leadership, limited communication and challenging financial times all contribute to employees questioning leadership's effectiveness."
The consultant from the GPTWI in their report highlighted: "Employees request even greater opportunity to be heard, with specific mentions around Participatory Decision Making." The average scores under 30 in this category clearly indicate that people feel unable to influence the course of the university.
The last category on listening shows that there is a significant disconnect between the people rowing the boat and the captain of the ship. Clearly, President Potter, despite his efforts, since the release of the results of the survey, to attend "listening sessions" apparently still believes that it is not important to actually listen and in the case of the land swap not to even consider asking for input from the campus community.
In the fourteen months since the release of the results from the GPTWI survey, has anything changed regarding the campus culture to encourage people at all levels to give input into decisions? Apparently not! It simply seems as if the input from faculty and staff remains a very low priority and this is directly evident when decisions are made and the results announced. Given the current climate at SCSU, does anyone really think President Potter's administration is going to get it right when in comes to slashing over $12,000,000 from the budget for FY16? Stop laughing - the administration did get a score of 32 on the question of being competent, one of SCSU administration's highest scores, but that did not compare favorably to the average score employees working at the actual great places to work (GPTW value of 90) gave their bosses. Come to think of it, it is better to laugh than to cry.
Posted Friday, April 24, 2015 1:41 PM
Comment 1 by Yeager at 26-Apr-15 10:35 AM
Aug 21 2014:
http://wjon.com/behind-the-scenes-taking-a-stroll-through-george-friedrich-park-video/
St. Cloud's newest park
Karie Petrie's article about St. Cloud's newest park contains a statement that made me laugh:
Mike and Theresa Erickson live next door to Albers and share her concerns about parking. They also wonder how the city will patrol the park. Kleis says officers will patrol the park as they do other city parks.
That's disappointing. Considering the fleecing that St. Cloud State got in past deals, President Potter should've agreed to pay for the officers who will patrol the park he just gave away. Seriously, President Potter is paying $240,000/year for 3 police officers who don't patrol the SCSU campus.
The least he should do is pay for the police who will patrol the park he just traded away.
Let's review. Monday night, the St. Cloud City Council voted to approve the land swap where the City of St. Cloud gave St. Cloud State several parcels of land that can't be developed and that are pretty much useless in exchange for 50 acres of wooded property that once was home to a granite mining operation. Both properties need significant cleanup.
The difference is that the wooded property will be quite usable once it's cleaned up whereas the empty parking lot and the old railroad right-of-way will still be pretty worthless. What essentially happened is that St. Cloud State traded a 50-acre beautifully wooded lot for a parking lot.
Considering the fact that SCSU a) mothballed 2 dorms in the last 2 years and b) built a parking ramp on campus right before the enrollment collapse, St. Cloud State doesn't need another parking lot, especially one that's way to the south of campus.
It's possible that the thing that's preventing President Potter from paying for the police patrols for the park is that SCSU's running multi-million dollar deficits.
I don't blame the City Council approving the deal. From St. Cloud's standpoint, why wouldn't they make this swap in a New York minute? The people I've criticized are President Potter, the MnSCU Board of Trustees and Dr. Rosenstone.
Apparently, the Trustees, Dr. Rosenstone and President Potter don't care whether they're getting fleeced, most likely because it isn't their money that they're flushing down the proverbial toilet.
Posted Saturday, April 25, 2015 7:08 AM
No comments.
