October 18-19, 2011
Oct 18 05:53 St. Cloud businesses: Less gov't intrusion key to jobs Oct 18 11:01 Reid to push gov't bailout first Oct 18 13:09 Sen. Ingebritsen criticizes Gov. Dayton, militant environmentalists Oct 18 16:27 Gov. Dayton caving to unions again? Oct 18 16:52 Occupy Cleveland: Alleged rape, kidnapping Oct 19 09:43 Newt wins debate, Perry has his best debate, Mitt has a difficult night Oct 19 11:50 Chip Cravaack on Choo-Choos: It's the priorities, Stupid Oct 19 21:31 BREAKING NEWS: SRR School Board violates Minnesota's Open Meeting laws
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
St. Cloud businesses: Less gov't intrusion key to jobs
The St. Cloud Times ran some interesting editorials on why businesses aren't hiring. Here's something from the summary editorial :
This board spent four hours Tuesday talking with two groups of local business owners. Summaries of those discussions appear on the facing page. Ultimately, though, while the views and visions of these 14 individuals varied on many details, they spoke with one voice about how government at all levels can help create jobs: Set the rules and then stay out of the way.
Please understand these folks, who own and operate blue- and white-collar companies in six area cities, fully realize government has a role, especially in safety and infrastructure. However, when it comes to creating jobs, their experiences point to government being part of, perhaps even the whole, problem, not the solution.
How so? Remember that we convened this discussion because President Barack Obama was proposing a new jobs package. Well, none of the 14 plan to tap it. Their reasons included because it's too much paperwork, it's only a short-term fix and its costs outweigh the benefits. Equally telling is that few, if any, said the first stimulus program yielded jobs for them.
In fact, the 14 expressed a universal desire for government to focus on long-term impacts instead of short-term bandages.
That 14 job creators of varying political beliefs would unanimously agree that government is overbearing is stunning. That they unanimously think government's 'solutions' are really short-term annoyances is stunning, too.
President Obama is on the campaign trail saying that Republicans have to come to North Carolina, Virginia and elsewhere to explain why they aren't passing his jobs government bailout legislation. That's easy to do. In return, it's time President Obama answered why he's ignoring America's job creators.
These 14 job creators said with unanimity that they didn't benefit from President Obama's first stimulus. They're saying that they won't attempt to use Son of Stimulus' provisions.
That should tell President Obama something. Instead, he's ignoring Main Street while pushing his failed ideological agenda.
It isn't surprising that he's the worst jobs president ever.
Posted Tuesday, October 18, 2011 5:53 AM
No comments.
Reid to push gov't bailout first
FNC is reporting that Harry Reid's first priority in reconstructing President Obama's Son of Stimulus legislation is to put another bailout up for the first vote:
Senate Democrats will try to move a component of President Obama's $447 billion bill, $35 billion in aid to state and local governments to rehire or retain teachers and first responders, as early as this week, disappointing Republicans who say another piece of the apple would've had a better chance for success.
"Our economy cannot afford to lose any more jobs," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Monday, vowing to hold a vote "as soon as possible," and promising one provision per week when Congress is in session.
"The bill we are introducing today continues that focus by creating or saving approximately 400,000 jobs for teachers, cops and first responders," the Democratic leader promised.
When did it become the federal government's responsibility to throw money at broken local systems? When did it become the federal government's responsibility to teach school districts that it's ok to not reform their pension and benefits programs?
When did it become the federal government's responsibility to pay for school districts that fire teachers, then give retroactive pay raises to administrators ?
Throwing money that we don't have at structural deficits and broken systems isn't doing anyone a favor. It's preventing solving a substantial problem.
The headlines look dramatic. The rest of the story, if told properly, is persuasive. After the headline shock wears off, it isn't difficult to tell people that what's needed is for a significant reduction in do-nothing administrators, overly generous pension systems and unjustified bonuses to overpaid administrators.
If a local school district wants to overpay their administrators, that's the school board's decision. When their decision costs kids in classrooms great educational outcomes, however, don't be surprised if parents stop at the local hardware store for a year's supply of tar and feathers.
Voting on another bailout hurts Democrats. It's admitting that the first stimulus failed to get the economy working. It's admitting that subsequent attempts by the Democrat Congress and this administration have failed.
If the economy was hitting on all eight cylinders, bailouts wouldn't be required. The state's economies would pay their own bills like they have for most of this nation's history. The attitude in the states, especially in states like California, is that they don't have to be responsible. They can continue spending like idiots and get this administration to foot the bill for California's stupidity.
The nation's patience is wearing thin for the Democrat Senate and this administration. They've coddled union allies. They haven't provided real solutions, though, which is why President Obama is in trouble and why there will be a GOP majority in the Senate in January, 2013.
Posted Tuesday, October 18, 2011 11:01 AM
No comments.
Sen. Ingebritsen criticizes Gov. Dayton, militant environmentalists
When Gov. Dayton, SecState Mark Ritchie and the Executive council postponed mining job creation in northern Minnesota, they stirred up a hornets nest of difficulties. Sen. Bill Ingebritsen is criticizing the decision, saying that militant environmentalist organizations are trying to stop mining in northern Minnesota :
Sen. Bill Ingebrigtsen, R-Alexandria, blames environmentalists for a delay in the state allowing mining companies to explore under some northeastern Minnesota lands.
'The environmentalists, I think, are behind this because they want to slow down any type of mining up there,' said Ingebrigtsen, Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee chairman.
There's little doubt but that militant environmentalist organizations want to destroy the mining industry. The question is whether the DFL legislators will take a stand against these militant organizations. There's no evidence that they will:
Ingebrigtsen said he was surprised that Lt. Gov. Yvonne Prettner Solon, from Duluth, did not fight the rest of the council to support mining as economic development for her northeastern Minnesota neighbors. 'I would think Prettner Solon would be a little more aggressive.'
There's no justifying Lt. Gov. Prettner-Solon's wimping out on this decision. She should've fought for the Range. That she didn't says everything about who's bought her.
Republicans should reject this legislative attempt:
Property owners told the Executive Council they will ask legislators to pass laws next year to give them more rights to refuse mining company access to their land , as well as laws that could allow them to purchase mineral rights.
Selling mineral rights to dozens of people essentially ties up a project indefinitely, which is the environmentalists' goal. The militant environmentalist organizations that enthusiastically support the DFL don't want mining developments.
Any Republican signing onto this legislation as a co-sponsor should expect a primary challenge. Signing onto this potential legislation is supporting radical environmentalists.
That said, it's fish or cut bait time for the DFL. They can either be slaves to these militant environmentalist organizations or they can work to improve the lives of their constituents. They can't do both because their purposes are cross-purposes.
Finally, the Executive Council's decision is indicative or the DFL's Twins Cities-centric nature. The DFL's inability to win consistently outside the Metro has produced an Executive Council that doesn't have a clue about mining, property rights or putting the Iron Range to work.
The DFL isn't the party that used to care about the Second Amendment and creating high-paying jobs in rural and northern Minnesota. They're a wholly-owned subsidiary of the special interests.
Posted Tuesday, October 18, 2011 1:10 PM
No comments.
Gov. Dayton caving to unions again?
Is Gov. Dayton caving into the wishes of the unions that paid for his election victory? It'd be surprising if he didn't cave, considering his lifelong spinelessness. That's why I can't be surprised by this article :
Though Dayton has previously stated that he has ruled out a unilateral executive order authorizing the statewide child care union, he is openly mulling ordering a vote. Minnesota Public Radio (MPR) reported on October 5 that Dayton would choose a course of action 'next week or the week after,' though a message from his office this week stated that a decision is not imminent. The governor returned last week from a Trade Mission in Korea and the Democratic Governor's Association meetings in North Carolina.
Many lawmakers and Capitol observers expect a decision in the coming days. Jennifer Parrish, a Rochester child care provider and member of Coalition of Child Care Providers, noted that AFSCME has restarted a door-to-door campaign asking providers to sign 'pledge cards,' likely in anticipation of a statewide vote.
SEIU and AFSCME contributed tons of money to get Gov. Dayton elected. It's just a matter of time until they get the vote they want. What's interesting is that it isn't likely that they'll win that organizing vote.
From a messaging standpoint, the DFL really loses on this. They're left to defend hardball union politics vs. child care providers. AFSCME and SEIU can't say that they're doing this for the children because the child care providers' employers are the children's parents.
AFSCME's and SEIU's argument would have to be that they're protecting child care providers from the children's parents. From a messaging standpoint, that isn't a bridge to far. That's a galaxy too far.
Gov. Dayton really doesn't have an option in this. Still, he's gotta be hating this situation. Regardless of how the organizing vote turns out, he'll lose.
Posted Tuesday, October 18, 2011 4:27 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 20-Oct-11 07:03 AM
Is the GOP going to kill the stadium proposal?
Reporting suggests it will be so. If they do, good for the GOP. If Zygi wants a super-venue, Zygi has money to buy one. Why Gary, should you and I subsidize an uber-wealthy guy from New Jersey when neither of us are wealthy or from New Jersey?
Without a referendum, a cramdown of that stadium is offensive. Dayton should know better.
Does this go back to the three-way election contest for Governor? Any thoughts about that?
Occupy Cleveland: Alleged rape, kidnapping
The more people learn about the Occupy Wall Street movement, the more they're likely to be repulsed by the protesters. According to this article , a 19-year-old girl was allegedly kidnapped and raped this weekend:
An 'Occupy Cleveland' protester tells police she was raped in her tent over the weekend.
Cleveland police are investigating an alleged sexual assault incident Saturday at the 'Occupy Cleveland' rally involving a 19-year-old female student from Parma.
According to police reports, the 19-year-old student was instructed by 'Occupy Cleveland' personnel to 'share a tent with the suspect due to a shortage of tents.' The suspect identified himself as 'Leland' to the woman. The woman told police that after she had thought the suspect went to sleep in his own bed, she slept in a sleeping bag provided to her by the rally.
The student went to school Monday and told a teacher about her sexual assault incident in Public Square, which is being classified as 'kidnapping/rape', prompting the teacher to immediately contact the authorities.
We don't know what actually happened so it isn't right to accuse Occupy Wall Street protesters of being rapists or kidnappers. Still, if it's proven in a court of law, OWS has a huge problem to deal with.
Expect Democrats to distance themselves from the movement thanks to this article. Whether proven or alleged, Democrats can't take the chance of being publicly associated with OWS. Expect the AFL-CIO funding to dry up immediately, too.
Finally, this should end any comparisons between OWS and the TEA Party. TV pundits often recite the obligatory 'there's nuts in every legitimate movement' statement. TV pundits aren't in the habit of saying that 'there's always a few rapists and kidnappers in every legitimate movement.'
Posted Tuesday, October 18, 2011 4:52 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 20-Oct-11 06:58 AM
One of those Tea Party infiltrators must have been the perpetrator.
Comment 2 by edthurston at 11-Nov-11 12:02 AM
If violence and things like this go on, the Occupy movement should stop. There is no use with continuing this movement if a lot of people are getting hurt already. I've seen a lot of recorded violence with posts in http://Arrestables.com.
Newt wins debate, Perry has his best debate, Mitt has a difficult night
From the candidates' introductions, Newt Gingrich owned Tuesday night's debate. Here's what Speaker Gingrich said in his introduction:
FORMER REP. NEWT GINGRICH (R-GA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I'm Newt Gingrich. And unlike President Obama, I'm glad to be in Las Vegas. I think it's a great place to have a convention.
(APPLAUSE)
And, and when I am president, we're going to replace class warfare with cooperation so all Americans can get off food stamps and onto paychecks.
Everyone on stage and in the auditorium got a hearty laugh from Newt's calling Vegas "a great place to have a convention." It's a stark contrast with President Obama's ill-advised statements about people blowing their paychecks in Vegas.
That was hardly the only winning line for Speaker Gingrich.
Mitt suffered his first difficult night last night. He got rattled when Gov. Perry went after him on his hiring a lawn maintenance company that employed an illegal immigrant:
PERRY: You stood here in front of the American people and did not tell the truth that you had illegals working on your property. And the newspaper came to you and brought it to your attention, and you still, a year later, had those individuals working for you.
The idea that you can sit here and talk about any of us having an immigration issue is beyond me. I've got a strong policy. I've always been against amnesty. You, on the other hand, were for amnesty.
COOPER: I've got 30 seconds, then we've got move on to another immigration question.
ROMNEY: OK.
You wrote an op-ed in the newspaper saying you were open to amnesty. That's number one.
Number two, we hired a lawn company to mow our lawn, and they had illegal immigrants that were working there. And when that was pointed out to us, we let them go. And we went to them and said -
PERRY: A year later?
ROMNEY: You have a problem with allowing someone to finish speaking. And I suggest that if you want to become president of the United States, you have got to let both people speak. So first, let me speak.
(APPLAUSE)
ROMNEY: So we went to the company and we said, look, you can't have any illegals working on our property. I'm running for office, for Pete's sake, I can't have illegals. It turns out that once question, they hired someone who had falsified their documents, had documents, and therefore we fired them. And let me tell you, it is hard in this country as an individual homeowner to know if people who are contractors working at your home, if they have hired people that are illegal. If I'm president, we'll put in an E-Verify system, which you have opposed -
"I'm running for office, for Pete's sake, I can't have illegals"? That's a totally pathetic response. Like it'd be ok to have illegal immigrants working for him if Mitt wasn't running for president? That's what it came off like.
BTW, that isn't the only difficulty Mitt has with illegal immigration :
' There were six sanctuary cities, he did nothing about them ,' Giuliani said. 'There was even a sanctuary mansion. At his own home, illegal immigrants were being employed, not being turned in to anybody or by anyone, and then when he deputized the police, he did it two weeks before he was going to leave office, and they never seemed to even catch the illegal immigrants who were working at his mansion. So I would say he had sanctuary mansion, not just sanctuary city.'
It's one thing to have an illegal immigrant on the lawn maintenance crew. It's quite another to know about sanctuary cities while you're governor, then doing nothing to fix the problem.
It's worth noting that Mitt looked petty while arguing about immigration.
The other time Mitt looked vulnerable was when Sen. Santorum caught him on health care:
ROMNEY: And - look - look, we'll let everybody take a look at the fact checks. I was interviewed by Dan Balz. I was in interviews in this debate stage with you four years ago. I was asked about the Massachusetts plan, was it something I'd impose on the nation? And the answer is absolutely not.
It was something crafted for a state. And I've said time and again, Obamacare is bad news. It's unconstitutional. It costs way too much money, a trillion dollars. And if I'm president of the United States, I will repeal it for the American people.
(APPLAUSE)
COOPER: All right. Senator Santorum?
SANTORUM: Mitt, the governor of Massachusetts just is coming forward saying we have to pick up the job left undone by Romneycare, which is doing something about cutting health care costs.
What you did is exactly what Barack Obama did: focused on the wrong problem . Herman always says you've got to find the right problem. Well, the right problem is health care costs. What you did with a top-down, government-run program was focus on the problem of health care access. You expanded the pool of insurance without controlling costs. You've blown a hole in the budget up there. And you authored in Obamacare, which is going to blow a hole in the budget of this country.
COOPER: Governor Romney, I'm going to give you 30 seconds.
ROMNEY: I'm - I'm sorry, Rick, that you find so much to dislike in my plan, but I'll tell you, the people in Massachusetts like it by about a 3-1 margin.
And we dealt with a challenge that we had, a lot of people that were expecting government to pay their way. And we said, you know what? If people have the capacity to care for themselves and pay their own way, they should.
Now, I can tell you this, it's absolutely right that there's a lot that needs to be done. And I didn't get the job done in Massachusetts in getting the health care costs down in this country. It's something I think we have got to do at the national level. I intend to do that .
Again, that last sentence will kill Mitt. I'm betting that most people in the United States want nothing to do with a national health care plan. They hate the one that's already in place. Apparently Mitt thinks people would prefer his national health care disaster over President Obama's national health care disaster.
The other part of that exchange that'll sting is where Sen. Santorum said Romneycare increased access but didn't affect rising health care costs. I'm betting that the overwhelming majority of Americans want affordable health care more than they're worried about access to health insurance.
Speaker Gingrich's criticism of the Supercommittee got the biggest applause of the night:
GINGRICH: I mean, if you want to understand how totally broken Washington is, look at this entire model of the super committee, which has now got a magic number to achieve. And if it doesn't achieve the magic number, then we'll all have to shoot ourselves in the head so that when they come back with a really dumb idea to merely cut off our right leg, we'll all be grateful that they're only semi-stupid instead of being totally stupid.
(APPLAUSE)
GINGRICH: Now, the idea that you have a bunch of historically illiterate politicians who have no sophistication about national security trying to make a numerical decision about the size of the defense budget tells you everything you need to know about the bankruptcy of the current elite in this country in both parties. The fact is, we ought to first figure out what threaten us, we ought to figure out what strategies will respond to that. We should figure out what structures we need for those strategies. We should then cost them.
I helped found the Military Reform Caucus. I'm a hawk, but I'm a cheap hawk. But the fact is, to say I'm going to put the security of the United States up against some arbitrary budget number is suicidally stupid.
The supercommittee is disastrous policy. The minute Republicans take control of the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives, they should void the debt ceiling deal. Then they should get serious about cutting discretionary spending while reforming entitlements.
If Newt's the president, there's no doubt but that he'll balance the budget, get the economy roaring again, cut spending and reform entitlements. That's a series of major tasks. Still, it's what Newt's done his entire political career.
To me, the winner of last night's debate was Newt, followed by Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, with Mitt having a disastrous night.
UPDATE: Ed's analysis of how Mitt responded to the immigration issue is spot on:
Romney got rattled on stage, and everyone knew it. He lost his temper, raised his voice, and looked decidedly uncool in his efforts to push back on immigration, a topic which Romney used in earlier debates as a club against Perry.
He later said this:
This is the first debate Romney unquestionably lost. Perry won to an extent by exceeding expectations and staying in the fight the entire debate, but was it a breakout performance? Doubtful, although it might be enough to get a few of his supporters back in the fold and regain a little momentum. But the real winner might be Newt Gingrich, who despite having one bad moment with Romney on the health-care mandate once again came out looking positive, well-informed, and fit for battle.
I heartily agree with Ed's observations.
Posted Wednesday, October 19, 2011 9:43 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 20-Oct-11 06:57 AM
You keep watching these things. I watched one. Ron Paul is the only one in the bunch I would even ever think to vote for. That's how I felt going in to watching the one debate. That's how I felt after. Why watch more? One was more than enough to confirm a belief.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 20-Oct-11 07:20 AM
Newt is an expert at getting government doing what government is supposed to do & nothing more. Herman Cain will make a great Treasury Secretary. Michele Bachmann will be great as HUD Secretary. Mitt will suck as a private entrepreneur who invested too much money in carbon credit exchanges & not enough in the real energy sector, aka fossil fuels & nuclear power. (See we both agree that Mitt sucks. ***BIPARTISAN MOMENT***
If it gets to that point, Newt would mop the floor with Barack's backside. Newt's the guy with a history of getting positive things accomplished, including reforming welfare as we know it, creating 11,000,000 jobs in 4 years & balancing the budget 4 straight years. Barack...hasn't come close to doing anything as positive as that.
Comment 2 by David at 20-Oct-11 12:36 PM
You have to be kidding me. Romney was dragged down for sure, but he still won the debate. Again. It is easy for an inconsequential candidate like Newt to pull off laugh lines. He isn't being attacked. Though Romney did school him with Newt's support of an individual mandate. That was funny watching Newt go from indignant to compliant under Romney's questioning. One has to wonder how well Romney will kill Obama with that technique.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 20-Oct-11 01:51 PM
Mitt got his ass kicked. He lost his cool. He didn't "look presidential." He looked like a spoiled rich brat that acted up because they mussed his hair a bit.
More importantly, he got exposed on Romneycare. Romneycare, like O'care, doesn't do a thing to reduce costs. That's what 55-60% of Americans reject. That'll benefite Mitt? The reality is that Mitt's plan blows a hole in Massachusetts' budget to increase coverage from 93% to 98%. Mitt's plan doesn't change health care costs. It's a flipping disaster.
Most importantly, Mitt's economic plan is timid & his commitment to cutting government isn't fitting with what he did as governor. He isn't a limited government conservative. PERIOD. He isn't a free market capitalist, either. If he was, he would've vetoed Romneycare the instant it landed on his desk.
As for Newt, he's easily the smartest man in the debates. He's got a lengthy history of setting high goals, then achieving them. Kinda like the opposite of Mitt in that respect. He's balanced a federal budget 4 consecutive years while creating 11,000,000 jobs in those years. That dwarfs anything Mitt's done in government.
Finally, Mitt's line about being in the private sector isn't working anymore. He's been in the private sector because he's only 1 election his entire life. Big whoop. It's time to kick Mitt's beautiful hair off the stage & let only serious candidates debate.
Comment 3 by FLA Hawk at 20-Oct-11 02:18 PM
FINALLY! Why was I the only one seeing Newt as the only adult in the room. And he's right, CNN/Cooper's loose and idiotic debate rules, or lack thereof, was fertile ground for bickering. Exactly what the left wants.
I'm on board Newt. The last debate got me leaning your way, this one put me squarely behind you.
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 20-Oct-11 02:43 PM
Thanks Hawk. Newt's list of federal government accomplishments, coupled with his vision, national security expertise & common sense, makes him the most qualified person to be the 45th president of the United States.
Which of Newt's answers have you disagreed with? I can't think of anything he's said on policy recommendations that I'd disagree with.
Chip Cravaack on Choo-Choos: It's the priorities, Stupid
Chip Cravaack has taken a little heat about not advocating for the Northern Lights Express, aka the NLX. One criticism came from DFL newcomer Daniel Fanning . Chip penned this op-ed to explain why spending money on the NLX is a foolish decision, especially right now:
The wisest course of action for us is to not spend money on a venture that can't pay for itself. Instead, we must first attend to the crumbling roads, the bridges in urgent need of repair and the incomplete highway projects that we have throughout the state.
Recently, the Minnesota Department of Transportation reported that 1,154 bridges are "structurally deficient" in Minnesota. That's 8.4 percent of the state's bridges in need of attention.
Yet, some people are clamoring for additional spending projects.
Why is our transportation system in this condition? Because prior Congresses not only raided the Social Security Trust Fund to pay for an increasing number of government programs, they also diverted funds from the federal gas tax away from maintenance of our roads and bridges.
Gas-tax funds that should have been set aside for transportation purposes were spent elsewhere, on things like bike path bridges, flower plantings and historical preservation.
Building new things might provide Sen. Klobuchar another date for a photo op but they don't fix the Minnesota's highest priority needs. Then again, Sen. Klobuchar doesn't have a history of fixing Minnesota's highest priority needs, either.
It's about the priorities
In November 2010, it was announced that the planned extension of the North Star commuter-rail line from downtown Minneapolis to St. Cloud had been indefinitely delayed because projected ridership was not sufficient to qualify for federal funding.
So, here we have a situation in which an existing rail system (that was nearly 20 percent over projected costs when it was completed) now does not qualify for federal funding because of low ridership.
It's foolish to spend money we don't have on things we definitely don't need. It's time that Minnesota rejects Jim Oberstar's Porkapalooza spending habits.
The solution
Instead of pursuing a new rail line, let's first spend our time, efforts and limited resources fixing what we have. Let's complete the pending projects that have been identified as high priorities.
It's refreshing to hear a congressman admit that the United States has "limited resources." You certainly won't hear that from Chip's challengers and you certainly won't hear it from Photo Op Amy.
That's why Chip's challengers are fighting an uphill fight against him. They'll have to argue against Chip's common sense ideas and his getting things done.
Posted Wednesday, October 19, 2011 11:50 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 20-Oct-11 06:53 AM
If it is federal dollars, the federal government can set priorities. In fact, it has that duty. CC can disagree, but that's different from having authority to reset already cast federal priorities.
I think it would waste money because Duluth passenger traffic with the Twin Cities would not justify the cost, many would still drive. But subjective opinions about wisdom are separate from who sets the priorities.
Local control over federal dollars has always struck me as tainted by the fact that shabby politics seem to work out more at the local levels than even in lobbyist infested DC. The boss-elites want to call the shots, but want the entire nation's governmental wealth to pick up the tab.
In Ramsey where I live, their rail stop on the Northstar has been allocated four million in state money. Is that right?
And priorities, how about the Viking Stadium thing?
Do you suppose this is Dayton pushed by construction trades union labor wanting the investment in construction? What about roads instead for that. Enlarge more of Highway 10 to be limited access freeway, for example. Is that a better priority?
Do you suppose that this is Dayton's payback to Horner and Zigy for the two, Dayton and Horner, last election ganging up against Emmer? Of those three it was Horner who was the big booster for a stadium, and his PR firm had the football business interests as clients. Then somewhere along the way Dayton said, "Me too." Or that's how I understand things. Any reader with more or better info is asked to correct it if it is a misunderstanding.
How about financing a stadium, for Zygi, for the uber-rich, by taxing the rich? Does that ring anyone's bell?
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 20-Oct-11 07:29 AM
Federal shmederal. The $$$ are coming from our wallets or from China's banks. The federal government has the responsibility to maintain the interstate highway system & nothing else. This administration has a fixation with the choo-choos. They're junk except in heavily populated areas & then only if they're going to a specific spot.
After building the thing, will people use it so the state doesn't have to subsidize its operation? I'm betting they won't. At a time when we're running deficits, why build another thing that state gov't will have to subsidize?
Wouldn't it be wise to actually repair the roads & bridges we're already using? Shiny new things look good for re-election mailers but they infrequently improve life for Minnesotans.
Comment 2 by Bob J. at 20-Oct-11 09:34 AM
"Do you suppose this is Dayton pushed by construction trades union labor wanting the investment in construction?"
Eric, that's exactly what it is. Dayton can't blow his nose without union permission.
I have no problem with Zygi Wilf creating all kinds of union jobs, by paying for his playground himself. That's called a 'cost of doing business'.
Comment 3 by Maxine Erickson at 20-Oct-11 10:41 PM
Thanks Chip ( Rep. Cravaack)for standing against these things we cannot afford...times have changed last 2 years. The money is gone. Those projects - pork - have to be left behind. We must get our National check book balanced.
Remember the Gov't can't create jobs, only steal our money. It is the people out here that create jobs.
People must check out these things they hear and not just believe it because their party is saying this is the way. Will it or won't it have a good result for us.
Or will it pave the way for a take over of our lives, and you think this is rough. Have a good day..checking.
Comment 4 by Maxine Erickson at 20-Oct-11 10:49 PM
Thanks Chip ( Rep. Cravaack)for standing against these things we cannot afford: times have changed. The money is gone. Those projects - pork - have to be left behind. We must get our National check book balanced.
Remember the Gov't can't create jobs. It is the people out here that create jobs.
People must check out these things they hear and not just believe it because their party is saying this is the way. Will it or won't it have a good result for us.
Or will it pave the way for a take over of our lives, and you think this is rough. Have a good day..checking.
BREAKING NEWS: SRR School Board violates Minnesota's Open Meeting laws
Earlier today, I got a report from John and AJ Kern, K-12 activists in the greater St. Cloud area. This evening, John sent this email outlining what happened at the Sauk Rapids-Rice School Board meeting Tuesday night:
There was a quorum of the board present. Business of the district was transacted (i.e. disseminaton of information about the proposed levy). It is my understanding that, because this was a meeting of the board, the open meeting laws require the district to conduct the meeting in such a way as to "prohibit actions being taken at a secret meeting where it is impossible for the interested public to become fully informed concerning board decisions or to detect improper influences".
In this instance, where the superintendent and the district stand to benefit from passage of the levy, the potential for "improper influences" is great.
I have received verification from a school official that 5 board-members were indeed present, representing a quorum of the 7 member board. Clearly, business of the district was being transacted. This triggers proper open meeting laws to be followed.
Following are the events I witnessed:
Mr. Bittman presented a canned powerpoint presentation describing school finance at SRR according to the district's world view. The presentation was less than forthcoming with a couple of items that are important to deciding the need for the levy request.
Most egregious was the mischaracterization of State funding levels. Mr. Bittman claimed that students open enrolling to other districts carried with them $5,200 in State funding when in fact the average per-pupil funding level from the State in the SRR district is $7,401.
This is important because our district is leaking students to surrounding districts (most notably Royalton and Holdingford) who send busses into our district neighborhoods poaching our students and the assocaited funding with them. We are losing approximately $2.5 million to this problem. The district is not saying a word about it.
An opportunity for public input was necessary to correct this and other factual items in the presentation.
At the conclusion of Mr. Bittman's presentation, it would have been natural to open the meeting up to questions and answers. Mr. Bittman indicated that we would be "dismissed" and could interact with School Staff and School Board members at four tables set up in two separate rooms. Two within the main meeting room and two outside the meeting room in the hall way.
At that point, seeing that public discourse was not going to be permitted, and also knowing that a quorum of the board was present, making the event a board meeting, I interjected. I said "Those present had a right to ask their questions publicly and that the board had a responsibility to answer the questions publicly, so that all present could be fully informed about the issues raised by the public participants and the answers provided by the district".
This meeting structure made it impossible to monitor the actions of the board to be fully informed of their actions as a board. The meeting structure made it impossible to monitor for improper influences when the board members acted in their official capacity as a quorum at a meeting where official business of the district was transacted.
Secretive question and answer sessions conducted separately among two rooms precluded the interested public from monitoring and being fully informed of the information conveyed to and from the board and other school officials.
Recall, members of the district may not make efforts to persuade voters, but rather are restricted to conveying factual information to the public in a non-prejudicial fashion. Any efforts to persuade would be considered "improper influence" and could not be detected under the secretive circumstances orchestrated by the design of the meeting.
Board members violating this statute (Minn. Stat. 13D.06) are personally liable with a $300 fine for each violation. This is a civil penalty not covered by district Errors and Omissions insurance policies.
Attorneys fees are awarded to winning parties, and may be paid by the district. By filing such a claim one is open to lengthy and expensive arguments with taxpayer funded attorneys, so enforcement of these statutes by the interested public is unusual.
According to John's account and according to Minnesota's Open Meeting laws, the SRR school board violated Minnesota's Open Meeting laws. More important, Superintendent Bittman violated a sacred trust. As the superintendent of the Sauk Rapids-Rice school system, Mr. Bittman is, in the truest sense of the word, a public servant.
Furthermore, the school board has an affirmative responsibility to serve their constituents. Mr. Bittman and the SRR school board didn't serve their constituents nor did they obey Minnesota's Open Meeting laws.
Mr. Bittman's and the SRR school board's actions were capricious, arrogant and possibly illegal. The SRR school board has violated the public's trust. They've operated in secrecy. They've misled the public.
Mr. Bittman needs to resign. The school board should resign ASAP. If they won't resign, then it's up to SRR voters to fire them the next time they're up for re-election.
Posted Wednesday, October 19, 2011 9:31 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 20-Oct-11 06:39 AM
Gary, the guy never states, or you edited out, what basis he has for claiming the open meeting law was violated. He does not like the way things happened. He recites how things happened. Doesn't that suggest he has an obligation to say why he thinks there was a breach of law? The bitching is there. Articulation for a basis for asserting the open meeting law was breached is absent.
If he was there, or someone else from the public was there to observe the meeting and tell the email author about it, Gary, where's the beef?
Comment 2 by eric z at 20-Oct-11 06:42 AM
Gary, there's no law saying this dude has the right to tell a school board how its meetings must proceed. He wanted to be a loud nuisance is the appearance of things. What law says a loudmouth can impede a public meeting?
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 20-Oct-11 08:54 AM
You obviously don't know John & AJ so I'll forgive your ignorance. They aren't loudmouths. PERIOD. John & AJ are sticklers for transparency & accountability but they're respectful people. They have, however, uncovered more than a few instances where the SRR school board hasn't been forthcoming with pertinent information.
When public officials are being secretive about public business, citizens have an affirmative responsibility to speak out against public officials. Minnesota's public officials have an affirmative responsibility to actually be public servants.
Comment 3 by Eric Austin at 20-Oct-11 06:11 PM
I don't see anything in this account that violates open meeting rules. In fact, the person complaining was in attendance at this supposed meeting and the public was given near one on one access with the board to give testimony and ask questions. So, which rules were violated?
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:0Oczq5NO7ngJ:www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/openmtg.pdf+Minnesota+Open+Meeting+Law&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESirV7UPaxUvbUnUJ3pI6PuNgn1Rx6rJjg6jvPRjVQdSxQH0kjyYvOlPpa5GSGNeJli2knUdSTWu7pj00iQXe7Ou6bpU2vZwiT0HUjn19_lX4h1iXG8ArGKZzH5Gyi16gHzVHmle&sig=AHIEtbTkeR-sPyq5KM3KV2NWWq4cmi6OZg&pli=1
Given that the primary requirement is that the meeting be open to the public, it is pretty clear that they covered that.
