May 1-3, 2018
May 01 05:05 Is Michael Freer above the law? May 01 21:21 STrib: The Met Council is fantastic May 01 23:46 Whatever happened to the DFL's historic investment in education? May 02 06:16 Senate passes bill to kill new sulfide/rice standard May 02 16:54 Mueller's 'investigation' is a sham May 03 08:44 Tim Walz's sanctuary state play May 03 11:29 ABM criticizes Pawlenty's "divisiveness" May 03 16:38 Bruce Hentges' public bullying backfired
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Is Michael Freer above the law?
Who's Responsible?
by Silence Dogood
Last Thursday, Michael Freer, the Chief Human Resources Director for St. Cloud State, sent out an email to the campus community indicating the vice presidents and president recommended not allowing alternate summer schedules for staff. This decision certainly has generated a lot of talk on campus and perhaps deflected some of the focus away from the enormous shortfall in the FY'19 budget and the solutions that will be necessary to solve the deficit.
A friend performed a Goggle search, which yielded several articles about Saint Cloud State University's Chief Human Resources Director. This article , written by Mary Divine for the St. Paul Pioneer Press on March 7, 2018 states that "Forest Lake City Council Member Michael Freer had 'resigned his post months after being accused of not living in the city.' The reason he was no longer living in Forest Lake is apparently because he accepted the position as Chief Human Resources Officer for Saint Cloud State University and had moved to Maple Grove last June. In fact, it is reported that the Minnesota State system apparently facilitated the move by providing $10,000 in moving expenses."
Mary Divine states in the article that the Forest Lake City Council deadlocked on a motion 2-2 to remove him from office last October (Freer abstained). Since November of 2016, Freer has been the Chief Human Resources Officer for Saint Cloud State University. Divine also stated in the article that Freer's attorney said at the time that "he was seeking housing in Forest Lake." Apparently, this wasn't true!
In this article on the KSTP website, "a Forest Lake City resident presented evidence last September to the city council that Mike Freer did not live at the address listed on election documents as both city code and state law requires":
Minnesota State Statute 200.031 says candidates have to live in the precinct while in office and specifically that "the individual's residence is located in the precinct where the individual's family lives."
Apparently, while living in Maple Grove since at least June 2017, and working at SCSU since November of 2016, Freer served on the Forest Lake City Council until his resignation in March of this year.
I may have been born at night, but it wasn't last night. This appears to me to be a clear ethical, if not legal, discrepancy. The real questions are:
- Who at St. Cloud State University hired Michael Freer?
- When did they find out about his issues with potentially violating city codes and state law?
- Are they at all concerned about the appearance a significant ethical lapse in judgement?
- What did they do after they found out?
Considering that Interim President Vaidya has been a lame duck since accepting the Presidency at Northern Kentucky University on November 9th, 2017, don't expect any answers. More likely, Interim President Vaidya will be treading water and using his vacation days prior to officially starting his new job on July 1st, 2018.
That is, of course, unless it's all 'fake news.'
Posted Tuesday, May 1, 2018 8:38 AM
No comments.
STrib: The Met Council is fantastic
According to this Strib editorial , the Met Council is just terrific. Apparently, they don't think the same about Jason Lewis. The editorial's opening paragraph states "Second District Republican U.S. Rep. Jason Lewis is attempting to apply the heavy thumb of the federal government to tip the scales in a long-running debate over the composition of the Metropolitan Council. We think Lewis and the feds should keep their hands off. This is a matter Minnesotans can and should decide for themselves."
Actually, it isn't just a local matter. That's because many bodies like the Met Council exist across the nation. Further, since the Met Council has taxation authority and the authority to usurp local jurisdictions, it's insane to think that they shouldn't be accountable to the people.
The editorial also says this:
We've also been skeptical about creating a "council of governments." Its members would be politically beholden to the local constituencies that elected them, rather than the region as a whole. Instead, we favor instituting staggered terms for council members and employing a panel of local officials as a screening committee to recommend council candidates to the governor.
What's so virtuous about a panel that's accountable only to the governor? I don't see anything worthwhile about that. Let's further ask the question at the heart of this argument: why do these bureaucrats, plus the Star Tribune, fear the people? Governments are supposed to be of, by and for the people. This nation was started in part by the belief that there should be no taxation without representation. Who does the Met Council represent? The Governor?
That doesn't sound like a governing body that governs with the consent of the people. That sounds like a dictatorial body.
The Met Council is filled with special interests. For instance, Jennifer Munt 'represents' District 3, "which includes the Hennepin County cities of Chanhassen, Deephaven, Eden Prairie, Excelsior, Greenwood, Long Lake, Minnetonka, Minnetonka Beach, Mound, Orono, Shorewood, Spring Park, Tonka Bay, Wayzata, and Woodland. Munt is the Public Affairs Director for AFSCME Council 5, where she leads marketing, communications and media relations."
This isn't about representing the people. It's about representing the special interests :
Previously [Munt] was the Communications Director for the Hiawatha LRT project (2000-2005) and an Outreach Coordinator for the Metropolitan Council (1999-2002).
Munt hasn't represented people in the past. She's represented governments and special interests.
[Video no longer available]
Here's Jason Lewis's statement on what his amendment actually does:
"Currently, and in contrast to federal law, all 17 members of the Met Council are appointed by the Governor of the State of Minnesota. MPOs nationwide are created with the intent to improve infrastructure planning and, especially, transit investments on behalf of constituencies across a given region. In 2012, Congress rightly determined that locally elected officials are best suited to represent those same groups. In our region, the failure of the Met Council to include locally elected officials as part of their governing board has undermined this key aspect of accountability to the people they represent."
Background:
MAP-21 required that federally recognized MPOs that participate in transit improvement program planning, long-range capital plans, coordination of transit services, and that carry out other state activities, all of which rely on federal funding and grants, meet certain requirements. These requirements include a board makeup of locally elected officials, public transportation officials, and appropriate state officials.
The Metropolitan Council (Met Council) currently has a Transportation Advisory Board (TAB) that consists of local elected officials, but in August of 2015, the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration ruled that the TAB lacked any voting authority and therefore the Met Council did not meet the threshold of MPO compliance.
Unfortunately, the Obama administration used a separate clause in federal law to "grandfather" the Met Council into compliance.
Our amendment does not seek to change the operations or scope of the Met Council. It does not attempt to change the activities of the board. It simply requires that for a board to be in compliance they need to have locally elected official representation consistent with every other MPO in the country.
In other words, the Strib appears to be running interference for the Met Council. Rep. Lewis's amendment doesn't change the Met Council's responsibilities. It simply requires the Met Council into compliance with existing federal law. That isn't "tipping the scales" in one direction or another, as the Strib implies. It simply forces the Met Council to comply with existing federal law.
Posted Tuesday, May 1, 2018 9:21 PM
Comment 1 by Crimson Trace at 02-May-18 08:38 AM
The Met Council is a corrupt, self serving board beholden only to the governor.
Whatever happened to the DFL's historic investment in education?
In April, 2013, then-Speaker Paul Thissen issued this statement bragging about their "historic investment in education." Back then, Thissen wrote "We're making 2013 the 'education session' because we know that a world-class education system is the gateway to a world-class economy. The House DFL budget keeps our promise to Minnesotans by paying back the $850 million owed to our schools while investing in our future and putting our kids on the path to the world's best workforce."
That's when the DFL was strutting, telling whoever would listen that they'd finally straightened out Minnesota's budget, which they blamed on Minnesota Republicans. A year after that, I wrote this post about the St. Cloud School Board and the Princeton School Board raising property taxes. In Thissen's statement in 2013, he predicted that the DFL's "education budget' would 'reduce property taxes.'"
Apparently, math wasn't Thissen's specialty:
St. Cloud school district has imposed its largest tax levy increase in six years for 2015. The district's property-tax levy will increase by $3.3 million, or 14.75 percent, to nearly $26 million. The school board voted unanimously Thursday night to approve the 2015 levy. District officials say the increase is needed to pay for a spate of improvements to facilities.
That property tax increase was preceded by Princeton's property tax increase:
The Princeton School Board, in a split vote on Dec. 16, increased the school district tax levy by 25.16 percent for taxes payable 2015 to fund the 2015-16 school year. This was a departure from the board's originally proposed 33.87 percent hike. The total levy will be a little more than $6.091 million, a $300,000 increase over this year's levy. The original proposal would have increased the levy $724,000.
You're likely wondering where I'm going with this. Here's where I'm heading with this:
Gov. Mark Dayton is calling for $138 million in emergency funding for Minnesota schools as districts across the state grapple with budget shortfalls. Dayton unveiled his request to lawmakers Tuesday as the Legislature heads toward a mandatory May 22 adjournment. The Democratic governor's proposal would increase the state's per-pupil funding formula by 2 percent.
How is this possible? The DFL told us that they'd made an historic investment in education. Less than a year later, people were getting hit with gigantic property tax hits. Question: how historic could the investment be if it disappeared less than a year later?
Gov. Mark Dayton is calling for an emergency $138 million one-time funding package for every MN school district. It amounts to $126 per student. He says it's a response to 59 school districts facing budget shortfalls and possible teacher layoffs. pic.twitter.com/unkQbpmBtn
- Tom Hauser (@thauserkstp) May 1, 2018
Let's be blunt. The DFL's 'investment' did nothing except encourage school districts to spend like drunken sailors. The lesson to be learned from this is that raising taxes and spending only leads to increased taxes and increased reckless spending.
Posted Tuesday, May 1, 2018 11:46 PM
Comment 1 by JerryE9 at 02-May-18 08:11 AM
You know, I almost don't mind paying these outrageous amounts to fund the schools, but I would like some RESULTS. This article says I am only getting, at best, HALF of what I am paying for.
https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/65-public-school-8th-graders-not-proficient-reading-67-not-proficient#
Comment 2 by Chad Q at 03-May-18 05:17 PM
I do mind pay ever increasing amounts to fund schools because A) we haven't seen positive results from dumping billions of money into public education
and
B) there will never ever be enough money spent on public education in a progressives eyes so they will never ever stop asking for more.
Cut them off now!
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 03-May-18 06:58 PM
There's a saying that I first saw in 2008 that fits this perfectly: the gap between more & enough never closes.
Senate passes bill to kill new sulfide/rice standard
When the Minnesota Senate passed SF2983 , it did the right thing. Sen. John Marty is upset with the bill's passage but it's the right thing to do.
After the bill passed, Sen. Marty said "Declaring the science something you don't like does not mean it is bad science. We're basically saying as a Legislature that we don't like the results you came up with so we're going to declare it bad science." Actually, Justin Eichorn's bill is rock-solid on multiple fronts. Most importantly, a U of M study, which I wrote about in this post , said that "rice growth was stunted except when there was a high concentration of iron in the water. The study found that iron mitigated the damage sulfur caused to the rice."
Therefore, Sen. Eichorn voted for the bill that's been verified by multiple scientific studies:
In 2013 the state hired the University of Minnesota to do a scientific study of the effects of sulfates on wild rice and to determine what the standard should be. Also the Minnesota chamber hired an independent laboratory to do the same. Both studies agree that sulfate is not toxic to wild rice. The studies also found that if sulfates turn to sulfides it does slow the growth of wild rice. However if there is iron present in the water, iron combines with the sulfides and doesn't allow the sulfides to affect the wild rice .
Sen. Marty is the politician who is fighting verified scientific findings.
Sen. Justin Eichorn, R-Grand Rapids, said he's willing to work with the agency on a compromise but finds its current route untenable. Bill supporters argue that tougher discharge standards could prove costly for local communities, which could be forced to upgrade wastewater treatment facilities with expensive technology. They also say it would stifle industry, particularly mining companies.
"This bill will put a stop to what's going on now, take a pause and go back to the drawing board," Eichorn said, "and make sure if we are going to do something that everybody is on board and everybody gets a seat at the table, including industry, including municipalities, including environmental groups and government."
Posted Wednesday, May 2, 2018 6:16 AM
No comments.
Mueller's 'investigation' is a sham
Robert Mueller's 'investigation' is a sham that should be shut down. The truth is that the investigation violates 28 CFR 600.1 , which says "The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted and -
(a) That investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorney's Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances; and
(b) That under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter."
I'm not a lawyer but it seems to me that Mueller's investigation wasn't started to investigate a crime. I'll stipulate that it's in search of a crime but that doesn't meet the criteria for appointing a special counsel. Mark Penn, one of Bill Clinton's pollsters, did some thinking in this op-ed . In fact, he's got a list of questions he'd like to ask Robert Mueller:
When you interviewed for FBI director with President Trump, had you had any conversations with Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, FBI Director James Comey or any other current or former officials of the U.S. government about serving as a special counsel? Didn't you consider going forward with the interview or being rejected as FBI director to create the appearance of conflict?
When you picked your team, what was going through your mind when you picked zero donors to the Trump campaign and hired many Democratic donors, supporters of the defiant actions of Sally Yates, who at the time was deputy attorney general, and prosecutors who had been overturned for misconduct? What were you thinking in building a team with documented biases?
When you were shown the text messages of FBI officials Lisa Page and Peter Strzok, why did you reassign them and not fire them for compromising the investigation with obvious animus and multiple violations of procedure and policy? Why did you conceal from Congress the reasons for their firing for five months and did you discard any of their work as required by the "fruits of a poisonous tree" doctrine?
I'd like to add just one question to the list:
When you were appointed to be the special counsel, what crime were you assigned to investigate?
What has it taken so long for anyone to question Mr. Mueller? Democrats have, for the most part, been silent on the justification for the special counsel. The list of questions that Mueller supposedly wants to ask President Trump certainly don't hint that he's investigating a crime.
[Video no longer available]
This question from Penn is particularly hard-hitting:
Do you consider firing the FBI director, thinking about pardons, considering firing you, and any conversations questioning your methods, bias or the foundation of your investigation to be matters you believe you can investigate, even though they are within the clear constitutional and First Amendment rights of the president? If you think you can question the president on these matters, then why should you not be subject to the same questions about your thought process, conflicts, possible bias and conduct in office?
Frankly, it isn't difficult to make a case that Mr. Mueller is an out-of-control prosecutor who is politically and ethically challenged. Some of the questions he intends to ask are none of his business. Other questions pertain to things he has the constitutional authority to do.
If Mueller wants to push things, don't be surprised if Trump's legal team takes him to court to limit the scope of Mueller's questions. That's certainly within the realm of possibility. Imagine what'd happen if the judge ruled in Trump's favor. It'd all but officially stop Mueller's investigation in its tracks.
Posted Wednesday, May 2, 2018 4:54 PM
No comments.
Tim Walz's sanctuary state play
Please, please, please, please, please let Tim Walz be the DFL candidate for governor. This afternoon, Tim Pawlenty sent out an email stating that Tim Walz answered a questionnaire from Our Revolution Minnesota. Reading through Our Revolution Minnesota's news & headlines page , it's pretty clear that this isn't a moderate, center-left organization. One post is titled Our Revolution MN Endorsements: Ellison, Kulp, Phifer . The next post is titled Our Revolution MN Endorses Jeff Erdmann .
It's obvious that they're far left radicals.
The Pawlenty email states "Walz answered a question as part of the 'Our Revolution Minnesota' candidate questionnaire by stating that he would 'make Minnesota a Sanctuary State.'" That Rep. Walz wants to turn Minnesota into a cold California is frightening. In California, which is now known as the 'Crime & Homelessness State' (compared to the Golden State of yesteryear), crime is rampant and pictures of massive tent cities of homeless people are routine parts of newscasts. If Tim Walz gets his way, this is what's in Minnesota's future:
[Video no longer available]
This is Tim Pawlenty's response to Tim Walz:
[Video no longer available]
In the ad, Pawlenty said this:
Really? I mean that's just nutty. And it's not safe. It'll take away tools from police officers who are trying to get criminals off the streets. When you turn on the news and you see things like a 90-year old farmer from Carver County who was robbed and beaten to death in his home by two illegal immigrants, Tim Walz's plan makes even less sense. In fact, it's dangerous. There's a better way forward. I'll bring common sense and accountability back to government.
It isn't a stretch to say that Tim Walz sold his soul to run for governor. He used to have a great rating with the NRA. Now he's trashing them because being on good speaking terms with the NRA isn't allowed if you're a DFL candidate for governor. Walz crafted an image of being sensible while in Congress. (He wasn't sensible but that's the image he crafted.) Running as the 'Sanctuary State Candidate' won't help Walz's carefully-crafted image.
This isn't something Walz can dodge, either. I'm told that there's visual proof of Walz's sanctuary state statement. That puts Walz in an impossible position. If he denies making the statement, the visual proof is produced, which destroys Walz's credibility. If Walz proudly states that he supports Minnesota as a sanctuary state, he turns off people in rural Minnesota, who expect laws to be enforced. Couple Walz's sanctuary state policy with the refugee resettlement crisis and you've got the potential for lots of hostility directed at Rep. Walz. That's a can't-win situation.
Posted Thursday, May 3, 2018 8:44 AM
No comments.
ABM criticizes Pawlenty's "divisiveness"
Just when you thought the DFL couldn't get any nuttier, their messaging center, aka ABM, sent out this fundraising appeal:
Hasn't the DFL paid attention lately? This fundraising letter says that "Undocumented Minnesotans are our friends and our neighbors." Go to Willmar, St. Cloud, Little Falls or any town with a meat-packing plant and ask them if they see illegal aliens (they aren't "undocumented Minnesotans") as their neighbors.
The DFL hasn't figured it out that the average blue collar worker is disgusted with the DFL's open border policies. BTW, this includes the rising tensions caused by the refugee resettlement program. If the DFL wants to write off rural Minnesota's voters, they're advocating for the right policies to accomplish that.
Earlier today, I read this article about how Gabby Giffords' group is running ads against Republicans who've accepted money from the NRA:
As President Donald Trump addresses the National Rifle Association this week, a leading gun-safety group is looking to make an example out of suburban Republicans. Giffords, the organization co-founded by shooting victim and former Rep. Gabby Giffords, D-Ariz., will announce Thursday that it is adding five GOP lawmakers to its list of midterm targets and launching digital ads in 10 competitive House and Senate races, NBC News has learned exclusively.
If that's the Democrats' strategy, Republicans should counter by highlighting the Democrats' open border policies.
People have noticed that immigration-related crime is rising. That's why President Trump keeps pounding the subject. He knows that people don't think of illegal immigration the way Jeb Bush saw it:
[Video no longer available]
President Trump stripped away the propaganda and exposed the reality of illegal immigration, especially the gangs like MS-13 and the human trafficking that people in California are seeing. The Jeb Bush 'act of love' image of illegal immigration doesn't play anymore.
Thanks to ABM's and the DFL's tone deafness, they're still convinced that illegal immigration is a winning issue for them. Rest assured that it's a winning issue ... for Republicans.
Posted Thursday, May 3, 2018 11:29 AM
Comment 1 by Rexnewman at 03-May-18 07:39 PM
DFL, ABM: Best way to get non-DFL votes is to tell the truth about Pawlenty, i.e. his many flip-flops. No need for fear and lies.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 03-May-18 11:37 PM
I can't deny Pawlenty's flip-flops. They're self-evident. It's that I don't think that's close to enough. Pawlenty can point to the fact that he didn't have one disaster after another like Dayton's had. I'm betting that people want someone who's competent. They aren't happy with MNLARS or MNsure. After Walz's announcement that he's pro-sanctuary state, stick a fork in him. He just pissed off virtually everyone in rural Minnesota & a fair percentage of people in the burbs.
Bruce Hentges' public bullying backfired
It's safe to say that Bruce Hentges' attempt to bully John Palmer backfired. In the interest of full disclosure, Dr. Palmer has been a friend of mine for quite some time, meaning I'm quite biased. Nonetheless, I'm confident that I can make a compelling case proving my opening statement.
This got started when Mr. Hentges sent this email to Dr. Palmer, Willie Jett, Al Dahlgren and Stephanie Dickrell. Jett is the superintendent of schools in ISD 742. Mr. Dahlgren is the chairman of the ISD 742 School Board. Ms. Dickrell is a reporter for the St. Cloud Times. Ms. Dickrell covers the education beat in St. Cloud.
(Click to enlarge.)
The final paragraph is where Mr. Hentges gets himself in trouble. That's where he said "If you ever decide to focus on the necessity of providing adequate funding to educate ALL children, I'll be with you. Until then, I must say that I am diametrically opposed to your message and request that you not mention my name again in any way, at any-time, in relation to your 'cause'."
Here's how Dr. Palmer responded:
The key paragraph in Dr. Palmer's email comes when he said "I am glad you believe we should educate 'All of God's Children who reside in the district. Does that mean you support vouchers and charter schools? These children who attend charter and private schools also reside in the district and family wealth should not restrict school access to the best education for each individual student. Children have diverse needs and need diverse options."
Of course, Mr. Hentges doesn't support giving parents additional options. He's long believed that the money should go to the school, not the student. Finally, Dr. Palmer said "Finally, after your and the full school boards silencing me last Thursday night, it is simply outrageous that you are trying to restrict my First Amendment rights. I will continue to do the right things for the right reasons and use my research and scholarship talents to shed light on important topics in a fair and unbiased basis."
It isn't coincidence that Hentges cc'ed the Times education beat reporter on this email. The School Board hasn't tried to be accountable in recent years. The Times called them out for not holding enough listening sessions after the initial bonding referendum was defeated.
The incident Dr. Palmer is talking about happened when he tried to speak at the last School Board meeting. He was invited to the meeting to talk about the Minnesota Department of Human Rights, aka MDHR.. At the actual meeting, though, they didn't invite Dr. Palmer to speak.
The School Board and the City Council have become deaf to anyone who isn't part of their clique. They represent the people. They represent the special interests. Thankfully, Dr. Palmer is highlighting their excesses.
Posted Thursday, May 3, 2018 4:38 PM
No comments.
