We received a series of e-mail exchanges. Because Arlene Fried CC a reporter on her correspondence we obtained the permission of Mr. Siggelkow to published this exchange.
A little background:
Ms. Fried became upset at some comments made by well known liberal blogger Tommy (two putt) Johnson during the open comment time at a July 15th MPRB meeting. Tommy’s comments can be read in another post on this blog as well as his blog Mn. Campaign report at http://www.mncampaignreport.com
Fried sent the following to Don Siggelkow as well as every sitting member on the board and at least one reporter:
“My written remarks which I read:
On July 15, 2009, a resident of Eden Prairie who is a supporter of the Crown Hydro project came to the MPRB's Open Time to discredit the presentation I had made on June 17.
He disputed the statements I made regarding FERC's license preempting local control of historic preservation issues and FERC's having the authority to let the Falls run dry in order to produce energy.
Because his attack on my credibility was televised and heard by those who were watching the meeting, I am writing this to point out that Tommy Johnson was mistaken. What Tommy Johnson did not know was that my source for the statements he challenged was a letter written on March 1, 2009, to Senator Higgins and Representative Campion by Rick Solum, a retired partner of the law firm of Dorsey and Whitney and a former Hennepin County District Judge; and, furthermore, Rick Solum's letter was based on an opinion by the city attorney. My sources are highly credible.
For the record, I am attaching a copy of the letter from Rick Solum on which my statements were based. Please place this letter in the minutes of this meeting.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Arlene Fried”
Don Siggelkow sent this in response to Fried’s request:
"Dear Arlene,
You requested at open time last night that the Board minutes from July 15th be amended. As you know, minutes are approved by the Board and any amendment to minutes that were already approved would require a Board action. I will be including your letter in the September 16th meeting agenda in petitions and communications and it will be part of the public record for that meeting.
As a side note, I think it is a major break through that you understand that making false statements during open time is blatantly wrong and discrediting individuals during open time that cannot respond to the false statements is inappropriate. I will suggest to our Standards and Conduct Chair that we consider amending the rules to prohibit the use of open time comments to discredit and disparage individuals and that information provided must be backed up by fact, not opinion. Some would view this restriction as impeding freedom of speech, but it sounds as though you and I agree that making false statements and damaging reputations are an abuse of the open time purpose. Now if we can just get the blogs to abide by those same guidelines, we would really be making progress in civility and respect in our community!
Thank you for your input!
Don Siggelkow
General Manager
Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board"
Fried responded:
From: Arlene Fried [mailto:friedarlene@hotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 8:41 PM
To: Siggelkow, Don
Subject: Beware of Amending the Rules Regarding Free Speech
Importance: High
"Dear Don,
In regard to your September 3 e-mail to me, it is apparent that you misunderstood my September 2, 2009, Open Time request.
I was not asking to amend the July 15 minutes. I was asking that my written remarks and Judge Rick Solum's letter, which I handed to both Tom and Mike (to give to you), be included in the official record of the September 2 MPRB meeting.
My directions were clearly stated in my written remarks. They are as follows: "For the record I am attaching a copy of the letter from Rick Solum on which my statements were based. Please place this letter in the minutes of this meeting."
(I am including after my signature the full text of the remarks that I read and submitted last Wednesday.)
As for your suggestion that the Park Board censor citizens who wish to express opinions about their government, I believe that it would be unwise and unconstitutional for the Park Board to amend the rules for the purpose of limiting free speech; and doing so could be very embarrassing for the Park Board.
Therefore, I hope that you will rethink suggesting to the Chair of Standards and Conduct that the committee amend the rules.
Arlene Fried"
(the bold is highlighted by Fried)
Don responds:
"Dear Arlene,
“Please place this letter in the minutes of this meeting” was your request that was highlighted in green and submitted during the meeting. I must be taking your request literally to mean that you wanted that letter placed in the minutes of the meeting. There are balances to free speech such as slander and libel that protect private individuals and public officials. Are you suggesting that the Board allow slanderous and libelous comments to be made against public officials or private individuals during open time? I have heard second hand that a former elected official had suggested to you that your remarks about some public officials were slanderous – so I am just trying to verify your opinion on how far your beliefs on freedom of speech go in regards to expressing freedom of speech. I intend to move the concept forward to Standards and Conduct that the Board prohibit slanderous or libelous comments against private individuals or public officials during open time. Do you oppose that position?"
Don Siggelkow
General Manager
Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Justin Fay on todays court ruling.
In response to today's court decision regarding the independent parks question, the Citizens for Independent Parks committee would like to make the following statement:
We are deeply disappointed that Minneapolis voters have been denied the right to determine the future of their parks, lakes, and open spaces. While we strongly disagree with today's decision, the need to ensure the best possible leadership for our public lands and waters remains critical for the future health of our city. An independent park board would provide the best protection for our park system and the most accessibility for city residents. We intend to continue working to ensure that our children and grandchildren inherit the park system that they deserve. We truly believe the citizens of Minneapolis have the constitutional right to decide how to best protect the parks. We intend to appeal this decision and believe that the courts ultimately will give the citizens the right to decide.
Thanks,
--
Justin Fay
Campaign Manager
Citizens for Independent Parks
612-251-1457
We are deeply disappointed that Minneapolis voters have been denied the right to determine the future of their parks, lakes, and open spaces. While we strongly disagree with today's decision, the need to ensure the best possible leadership for our public lands and waters remains critical for the future health of our city. An independent park board would provide the best protection for our park system and the most accessibility for city residents. We intend to continue working to ensure that our children and grandchildren inherit the park system that they deserve. We truly believe the citizens of Minneapolis have the constitutional right to decide how to best protect the parks. We intend to appeal this decision and believe that the courts ultimately will give the citizens the right to decide.
Thanks,
--
Justin Fay
Campaign Manager
Citizens for Independent Parks
612-251-1457
Friday, September 4, 2009
What planet are you from Arlene Fried?
Many people sent us a copy of this E-mail which was sent to Arlene Fried and all the Park Commissioners. The letter addresses Fried’s request to have a statement added to counter a comment that Tommy Johnson made in an open session time during a July meeting. Tommy’s exact statement can be found in another post on this blog:
“Dear Arlene,
You requested at open time last night that the Board minutes from July 15th be amended. As you know, minutes are approved by the Board and any amendment to minutes that were already approved would require a Board action. I will be including your letter in the September 16th meeting agenda in petitions and communications and it will be part of the public record for that meeting.
As a side note, I think it is a major break through that you understand that making false statements during open time is blatantly wrong and discrediting individuals during open time that cannot respond to the false statements is inappropriate. I will suggest to our Standards and Conduct Chair that we consider amending the rules to prohibit the use of open time comments to discredit and disparage individuals and that information provided must be backed up by fact, not opinion. Some would view this restriction as impeding freedom of speech, but it sounds as though you and I agree that making false statements and damaging reputations are an abuse of the open time purpose. Now if we can just get the blogs to abide by those same guidelines, we would really be making progress in civility and respect in our community!
Thank you for your input!
Don Siggelkow
General Manager
Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board”
The irony of having Fried complain about someone making “false” statements is apparently not lost on Mr. Siggelkow. In several previous meetings Fried and her cohorts at Park watch have made claims that seem to counter with facts and in one case she had to be cut off by Board Chair Olson because she was so far out of line.
Watching the exchange between Olson and Fried reminded me of the exchange between Barney Frank and the tea bagger at a health care town hall last month. All that was missing was Olson asking Fried: “what planet are you from?”
What followed was park watch accusing the Park Board of restricting “free speech”, a rallying cry now picked up by several of Park Watch’s favorite candidates like co founder Wielinski, Guest and Stone.
What Fried is fighting for is the right to make any statement without regard to facts and to prohibit someone with facts from contradicting her. She has to win because Park Watch would hate to be encumbered by providing facts and truth in its statements.
Indeed Park watch is to the MPRB what the tea baggers are to the health care debate; loud, aggressive and factually challenged.
“Dear Arlene,
You requested at open time last night that the Board minutes from July 15th be amended. As you know, minutes are approved by the Board and any amendment to minutes that were already approved would require a Board action. I will be including your letter in the September 16th meeting agenda in petitions and communications and it will be part of the public record for that meeting.
As a side note, I think it is a major break through that you understand that making false statements during open time is blatantly wrong and discrediting individuals during open time that cannot respond to the false statements is inappropriate. I will suggest to our Standards and Conduct Chair that we consider amending the rules to prohibit the use of open time comments to discredit and disparage individuals and that information provided must be backed up by fact, not opinion. Some would view this restriction as impeding freedom of speech, but it sounds as though you and I agree that making false statements and damaging reputations are an abuse of the open time purpose. Now if we can just get the blogs to abide by those same guidelines, we would really be making progress in civility and respect in our community!
Thank you for your input!
Don Siggelkow
General Manager
Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board”
The irony of having Fried complain about someone making “false” statements is apparently not lost on Mr. Siggelkow. In several previous meetings Fried and her cohorts at Park watch have made claims that seem to counter with facts and in one case she had to be cut off by Board Chair Olson because she was so far out of line.
Watching the exchange between Olson and Fried reminded me of the exchange between Barney Frank and the tea bagger at a health care town hall last month. All that was missing was Olson asking Fried: “what planet are you from?”
What followed was park watch accusing the Park Board of restricting “free speech”, a rallying cry now picked up by several of Park Watch’s favorite candidates like co founder Wielinski, Guest and Stone.
What Fried is fighting for is the right to make any statement without regard to facts and to prohibit someone with facts from contradicting her. She has to win because Park Watch would hate to be encumbered by providing facts and truth in its statements.
Indeed Park watch is to the MPRB what the tea baggers are to the health care debate; loud, aggressive and factually challenged.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Fried wants MPRB to help her rewrite history
Park Watch co founder Arlene Fried has requested that a statement be added to the public record. A hearing on this matter will be conducted at the next MPRB meeting this month, once again proving the point that time and taxpayer’s dollars are wasted by Park Watch:
Fried was bothered by this statement:
"Mr. President, Ms. Vice President, Commissioners: My name is Tommy Johnson. Most of you know me as TwoPutt Tommy. I am a blogger at MNProgressiveProject. I am here to speak about blogging, ParkWatch, and a little bit about Crown Hydro.
MNProgressiveProject is a group of bloggers that speak for no one but ourselves. We cover issues all over the state of Minnesota. Like all reputable blogs, we try to follow something loosely called the Blogger's Code of Ethics. There are two basic elements we go by.
First, be honest in gathering, reporting and interpreting information. This means checking facts. One of the tenets of this guideline is to distinguish between advocacy, commentary and factual information. Even advocacy writing and commentary should not misrepresent fact or context.
Second, be accountable. We admit our mistakes, and correct our posts.
In the course of my blogging, I covered the issue of Crown Hydro, and became aware of ParkWatch. The Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board is covered extensively by the blog ParkWatch, and they are also activists against certain projects, such as Crown Hydro. On June 17th a blogger from ParkWatch addressed the Park Board and posted said comments on their blog.
I made a brief blog post about this on Friday, June 19th - I brefly touched on Park Watch's comments, but didn't get into specifics. Tonight, I'd like to.
On June 17th, a Park Watch member, Arlene Fried, made the following comments:
She said, and I quote: "We know that the public will lose control over St. Anthony Falls to a private developer and the FERC. No one can predict water flows over the next 50 to 100 years, and an EAW will not enlighten you on this topic. The FERC will have the authority to let the Falls run dry in order to produce energy."
This is completely at odds with what the FERC License says. The FERC license Article 309 requires Crown Hydro to work with the other water users on a flow plan. (1) They did this. (2) There are 4 water users at this elevation, the City, the Army Corps and Xcel Energy. Crown Hydro has last use. First to turn off, last to turn on, and will never run at times of low flow. Article 404 (3) requires them to have a plan to implement this. And finally, the lease terms negotiated by the Park Board indicate the Park Board has control of water diversion when flows are at 1000 cfs or below. (4) This lease term becomes part of the FERC license, in essence, fully enforceable federal law. Some people might call what Ms. Fried said untrue; I'll simply say the license contradicts what she said.
The second statement she made, and I quote: "We know that a FERC hydropower license will preempt local control of historic preservation issues."
Again, completely at odds with everything I've read. This is local park land, on a federal waterway, in part of a national park. The Minneapolis Heritage Preservation office will work with the State Historic Preservation Office and the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board to create a Programmatic Agreement that addresses historic preservation issues. Some people might call what Ms. Fried said untrue; I'll simply say the record contradicts what she said.
I hope the ParkWatch blog accepts these fact corrections and edits their blog accordingly.
***
1 - pages 10 and 17 of FERC License, 19 March 1999
2 - System-Wide Low-Flow Management Plan, Mississippi River above St. Paul, revised 11 March 2004
3 - pages 10 and 20 of FERC License, 19 March 1999
4 - Crown Hydro Proposed Lease Term Sheet
Note: We had incorrectly asserted that Arlene Fried had asked for Mr. Johnson’s statement be removed from the public record. We amended this post to correctly show that Fried has asked to have a statement added to the previously approved minuets.
Fried was bothered by this statement:
"Mr. President, Ms. Vice President, Commissioners: My name is Tommy Johnson. Most of you know me as TwoPutt Tommy. I am a blogger at MNProgressiveProject. I am here to speak about blogging, ParkWatch, and a little bit about Crown Hydro.
MNProgressiveProject is a group of bloggers that speak for no one but ourselves. We cover issues all over the state of Minnesota. Like all reputable blogs, we try to follow something loosely called the Blogger's Code of Ethics. There are two basic elements we go by.
First, be honest in gathering, reporting and interpreting information. This means checking facts. One of the tenets of this guideline is to distinguish between advocacy, commentary and factual information. Even advocacy writing and commentary should not misrepresent fact or context.
Second, be accountable. We admit our mistakes, and correct our posts.
In the course of my blogging, I covered the issue of Crown Hydro, and became aware of ParkWatch. The Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board is covered extensively by the blog ParkWatch, and they are also activists against certain projects, such as Crown Hydro. On June 17th a blogger from ParkWatch addressed the Park Board and posted said comments on their blog.
I made a brief blog post about this on Friday, June 19th - I brefly touched on Park Watch's comments, but didn't get into specifics. Tonight, I'd like to.
On June 17th, a Park Watch member, Arlene Fried, made the following comments:
She said, and I quote: "We know that the public will lose control over St. Anthony Falls to a private developer and the FERC. No one can predict water flows over the next 50 to 100 years, and an EAW will not enlighten you on this topic. The FERC will have the authority to let the Falls run dry in order to produce energy."
This is completely at odds with what the FERC License says. The FERC license Article 309 requires Crown Hydro to work with the other water users on a flow plan. (1) They did this. (2) There are 4 water users at this elevation, the City, the Army Corps and Xcel Energy. Crown Hydro has last use. First to turn off, last to turn on, and will never run at times of low flow. Article 404 (3) requires them to have a plan to implement this. And finally, the lease terms negotiated by the Park Board indicate the Park Board has control of water diversion when flows are at 1000 cfs or below. (4) This lease term becomes part of the FERC license, in essence, fully enforceable federal law. Some people might call what Ms. Fried said untrue; I'll simply say the license contradicts what she said.
The second statement she made, and I quote: "We know that a FERC hydropower license will preempt local control of historic preservation issues."
Again, completely at odds with everything I've read. This is local park land, on a federal waterway, in part of a national park. The Minneapolis Heritage Preservation office will work with the State Historic Preservation Office and the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board to create a Programmatic Agreement that addresses historic preservation issues. Some people might call what Ms. Fried said untrue; I'll simply say the record contradicts what she said.
I hope the ParkWatch blog accepts these fact corrections and edits their blog accordingly.
***
1 - pages 10 and 17 of FERC License, 19 March 1999
2 - System-Wide Low-Flow Management Plan, Mississippi River above St. Paul, revised 11 March 2004
3 - pages 10 and 20 of FERC License, 19 March 1999
4 - Crown Hydro Proposed Lease Term Sheet
Note: We had incorrectly asserted that Arlene Fried had asked for Mr. Johnson’s statement be removed from the public record. We amended this post to correctly show that Fried has asked to have a statement added to the previously approved minuets.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Commissioner Vreeland admits he steals plank road bolts!
In the Star and Tribune today they had this to say about Plank road:
“Oak and pine hold up many a Minnesota home, but they aren't holding up as road-building materials.
A 600-foot section of old-fashioned plank road, which opened less than six years ago on the Minneapolis riverfront, has surprised drivers with its slippery-when-wet surface and the rumbles the boards make when tires roll over them. Now the loosening planks and other safety and maintenance concerns have led the city's Park and Recreation Board to decide to close that stretch while it figures out what to do.
"I have bolts that I have picked up along there that have come out," said Scott Vreeland, the Minneapolis park commissioner whose district includes the plank road. "I could show you the boards where they rattle."
Everyone who lives by or uses this bridge has known what a problem this is. It’s in Scott Vreeland’s district yet it seems the only thing he has done about this problem is figure out which boards rattle and pick up some lose bolts. The least he could have done was give the bolts to one of the parks maintenance people to put them back. What he should have done was to propose to pave this road. He’s been in office for 4 years now, what is he waiting for? Vreeland spoke against paving this road at last months board meeting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
