Park Watch recently made a post entitled, "Another Power Grab?”
The MPRB is considering public ownership of a small run-of-river hydro facility, formerly proposed by private developer Crown Hydro. The board has stated that reducing their carbon footprint and energy independence are goals. On August 5th, the Planning Committee asked staff to meet with key stakeholders to gather their feedback on public ownership and to develop finance options. On August 19, the board as a whole supported the motion from the planning department and asked staff to evaluate the feasibility of public ownership. At that meeting Commissioners, such as Young, asked staff to present their information in the context of their renewable energy goals, and in comparison to other renewable sources.
At each of those meetings, Commissioners asked staff to present that information at the November 18th meeting. Staff made a partial presentation on the 18th, with feedback from project stakeholders as well as neighbors, and indicated they would present more information on December 2nd.
How Ms. Fried could twist this simple set of facts into a charge of a "power grab" illustrates why we struggle so much as a society to meet our environmental and renewable energy goals, and why we fail to solve many collective problems.
We are facing a Global climate crisis. Coal is the leading man-made source of CO2 (carbon dioxide) the largest human cause of that climate change. Businesses, Government and individuals are all being called upon to get involved in the solution which is the reduction of our carbon footprint. Many, like the MPRB are answering that call.
We should applaud the MPRB for taking a lead in this. We encourage the board to also seek out every possible alternative and implement the plan that best fits with the twin goals of carbon free energy independence and the economic benefits that go along with it.
To those that cannot contribute respectfully and constructively to this dialogue, we suggest you not participate.
Showing posts with label Annie Young. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Annie Young. Show all posts
Monday, November 23, 2009
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Evaluation of Superintendent Jon Gurban
Now we all know that superintendent Jon Gurban is number 1 on the Park Watch hit list. And while the Park watch slate of candidates (Guest, Stone, Tab, Vreeland, Wielinski and Bourn.) are all vague if not deceitful about where they stand on anything, they are united in saying that Gurban should go.
What this should point out is the lack of management experience or background that this slate has. Wielinski is a part time office supply store clerk; Guest is a lobbyist who just moved into the area he is running in, Vreeland use to build stage props. Bourn has yet to list a single issue on his web page.
But has any HR director can tell you one of the best tools a board can use is the JOB Performance and Evaluation survey.
Let’s look at the last evaluation done on Gurban. This one was basically a survey of sitting Board Members.
Summary of Salient Points of 2008 Evaluation of Superintendent Jon Gurban
The Park Board retained James Metzen to evaluate the current performance of Superintendent Jon Gurban. The evaluation was presented to the Park Board on October 1, 2008.
Superintendent Gurban was evaluated in ten areas and also gave him an overall rating. For each area, the possible ratings were
• Below expectations; needs improvement
• Meets expectations
• Exceeds expectations
• Consistent superior performance
The following is a summary of the salient points of the evaluation of Superintendent Gurban:
1) Board Relations
Below expectations; needs improvement (3)
Meets expectations (3)
Exceeds expectations (1)
Consistent superior performance (0)
Board members felt the Superintendent and his staff have a deep commitment to the parks and
done good work and deserve credit for that work. However, several Board members continued to have serious issues with the lack communication between the Superintendent and Board
members.
2) Staff Leadership and direction
Below expectations; needs improvement (0)
Meets expectations (3)
Exceeds expectations (3)
Consistent superior performance (2)
Board members felt Superintendent Gurban has done a tremendous job in putting in place
excellent staff is excellent and that our staff is our greatest asset. The need for strong diversity in management and staff was stressed.
3) Strategic Direction
Below expectations; needs improvement (0)
Meets expectations (2)
Exceeds expectations (3)
Consistent superior performance (1)
Board members praised the Superintendent and staff for the direction of the Park Board and
in particular the Comprehensive Plan, and for making the Park Board a national leader. One
Board member expressed the desire to work collaboratively with other park systems in the
region.
4) Innovation
Below expectations; needs improvement (2)
Meets expectations (2)
Exceeds expectations (2)
Consistent superior performance (1)
Board members addressed the "hub model," one feeling it was a great idea and another
expressing hope that it would improve the organization. One Board member expressed concerns about Phillips.
5) Thriving System
Below expectations; needs improvement (0)
Meets expectations (2)
Exceeds expectations (3)
Consistent superior performance (2)
Board members again stressed the excellence of the Superintendent and Staff in the
Comprehensive Plan.
6) Sustainability
Below expectations; needs improvement (1)
Meets expectations (2)
Exceeds expectations (3)
Consistent superior performance (1)
One Board member suggested the Park Board share a sustainability coordinator with Three
Rivers or St. Paul. Another noted concern that the Park Board does not get enough credit for the good things it does.
7} Dynamic Parks
Below expectations; needs improvement (O)
Meets expectations (2)
Exceeds expectations (3)
Consistent superior performance (2)
Most board members felt that the Superintendent and Staff had done an excellent job in this area.
One commented that data preservation, record keeping and information retrieval systems are poor and other commented that progress on the assessment of Park Board properties was slow.
8) Safety
Below expectations; needs improvement (0)
Meets expectations (3)
Exceeds expectations (0)
Consistent superior performance (5)
One Board member noted uncleamess on the Park Board's goals in the area of safety. One Board member felt that the Superintendent and staff should get an A+ in the area of safety and another also praised not only the commitment to safety but the monthly police updates for the Board.
9} Urban Forest, Natural Areas and Waters
Below expectations; needs improvement (1)
Meets expectations (2)
Exceeds expectations (3)
Consistent superior performance (1)
More than one Board member noted the lack of an overall environmental plan. One Board
member felt there was a need to focus on getting information to citizens on what the Park Board is doing. Others felt the Superintendent and staff was doing a good job, particularly given limited resources.
lO} Independence
Below expectations; needs improvement (2)
Meets expectations (3)
Exceeds expectations (1)
Consistent superior performance (1)
Board members had mixed opinions on this point including about what relationships are
necessary to maintaining the Board's independence.
1 1) Overall rating
Below expectations; needs improvement (1)
Meets expectations (2)
Exceeds expectations (2)
Consistent superior performance (1)
Board members again stressed that the Superintendent has strong leadership skills, particularly
with staff, and that he is highly competent and loves the park system. However, Board members
also reiterated that the Superintendent continues to have significant difficulties with
communicating with the Board and the Community and needs to improve these relationships.
Once again, this evaluation says a lot about some (Vreeland, Young) board members.
In almost every measurable area Gurban gets great reviews. The board thinks Gurban has Great leadership skills, has shown great Strategic Direction, We have a thriving system that’s sustainable, It’s Dynamic and safe.
But for some reason 1 board member (Vreeland?) thinks Gurban is working below his expectations. 3 board members (Vreeland, Young and?) think board relations need improvement. I agree with this. But rather than replacing an innovative great leader with strategic vision who’s created a thriving system, isn’t it better to replace the board members who oppose him?
Friday, October 23, 2009
Staff shows support for Gurban.
About 100 park board staff employees showed up after work to the board meeting to show their support for extending Superintendent Jon Gurban’s contract for another year.
The board will take up this matter in their November meeting but it looks like Jon has the support of 6 of the members. Annie Young and Scott Vreeland wanted to put off the vote until there is a new board but thankfully were over ruled by members who knew they were elected to make decisions. Tom Nordyke tried to walk the line between doing the right thing and pleasing Park Watch by saying he would go along with whatever the majority of members wanted to do.
I suspect this did not sit well with the Park Watch crowd. They were counting on Nordyke, Young and Vreeland to make good on their promises to do away with the Superintendent in spite of the outstanding performance reviews he gets year in and year out. Having 100 staffers show up in support also tends to make politicians like Vreeland less boisterous because almost all of these staffers vote.
It says a lot about Gurban that so many of his staffers showed up. It also says a lot about those who oppose him about what kind of relationship they will have with staff should they take power.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
If It Ain’t Broke, For the Love of Parks, Don’t Break It!
Reform transitive verb \ri-ˈfȯrm\
1. to induce or cause to abandon evil ways
2. to put an end to (an evil) by enforcing or introducing a better method or course of action
Park Watch asserts the Park Board needs ”reform.” Their reasons include charges of incompetence, like not attending to Dutch Elm Diseased trees. Oops! Turns out that’s not true. Charges of non-transparency, like not providing meeting minutes. Uh oh! Another fiction. Charges of corruption, like a half-million dollar superintendent’s slush fund. Doh! A totally bogus claim.
Park Board needs reform. Whoops! Guess not. What Ignoratio Elenchi is this?
Red Herring noun, idiom \ˈred ˈhe-riŋ\
1. a dried and smoked herring having a reddish color
2. a device which intends to divert the audience from the truth or an item of significance.
So what is this truth from which Park Watch seeks to divert our attention?
Decision Resources, Inc. conducted a poll of some 600 random Minneapolis residents – a large and statistical sample – asking their perceptions of the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board.
97% of respondents say the parks “meet the needs of their household.” 99% of respondents say the park system is a “unique and valuable asset.” 99% of respondents say the parks “play an important role, benefit the public good and are low cost.” Not bad, maybe it should have been 100%?
The most interesting question asked respondents to rate the value they are getting for their tax dollars.
9% said excellent value, 73% said good, 5% said fair, and 13% were unsure.
Only 1% rated the value for tax dollars as poor.
Do we know the identities of the six respondents that comprise that 1%? Perhaps they are ParkWatch candidates Liz Wielinski, Michael Guest, Jason Stone, Annie Young, Scott Vreeland and John Erwin.
The Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board continually improves the services it provides, stewardship of the parks, and its financial performance. That is as it should be. Every organization can be improved, and every organization should have a process for continual improvement.
So why the clamor for “reform” based on false assertions? Here’s one idea…
Trojan Horse noun, idiom \ˈtrōjən hôrs\
1. a large hollow wooden figure of a horse (filled with Greek soldiers) left by the Greeks outside Troy during the Trojan War
2. a subversive group that supports the enemy and engages in espionage or sabotage; an enemy in your midst
1. to induce or cause to abandon evil ways
2. to put an end to (an evil) by enforcing or introducing a better method or course of action
Park Watch asserts the Park Board needs ”reform.” Their reasons include charges of incompetence, like not attending to Dutch Elm Diseased trees. Oops! Turns out that’s not true. Charges of non-transparency, like not providing meeting minutes. Uh oh! Another fiction. Charges of corruption, like a half-million dollar superintendent’s slush fund. Doh! A totally bogus claim.
Park Board needs reform. Whoops! Guess not. What Ignoratio Elenchi is this?
Red Herring noun, idiom \ˈred ˈhe-riŋ\
1. a dried and smoked herring having a reddish color
2. a device which intends to divert the audience from the truth or an item of significance.
So what is this truth from which Park Watch seeks to divert our attention?
Decision Resources, Inc. conducted a poll of some 600 random Minneapolis residents – a large and statistical sample – asking their perceptions of the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board.
97% of respondents say the parks “meet the needs of their household.” 99% of respondents say the park system is a “unique and valuable asset.” 99% of respondents say the parks “play an important role, benefit the public good and are low cost.” Not bad, maybe it should have been 100%?
The most interesting question asked respondents to rate the value they are getting for their tax dollars.
9% said excellent value, 73% said good, 5% said fair, and 13% were unsure.
Only 1% rated the value for tax dollars as poor.
Do we know the identities of the six respondents that comprise that 1%? Perhaps they are ParkWatch candidates Liz Wielinski, Michael Guest, Jason Stone, Annie Young, Scott Vreeland and John Erwin.
The Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board continually improves the services it provides, stewardship of the parks, and its financial performance. That is as it should be. Every organization can be improved, and every organization should have a process for continual improvement.
So why the clamor for “reform” based on false assertions? Here’s one idea…
Trojan Horse noun, idiom \ˈtrōjən hôrs\
1. a large hollow wooden figure of a horse (filled with Greek soldiers) left by the Greeks outside Troy during the Trojan War
2. a subversive group that supports the enemy and engages in espionage or sabotage; an enemy in your midst
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Gurban's First Year and the Birth of Park Watch
It was 2004, and the hiring of Jon Gurban spawned Park Watch, or so the story goes. Minneapolis politics was known for being a contact sport, but this small and dedicated group was going to take this game to an all-time low.
Destructo-spin
Below is a sample of the Destructo-spin that this group uses to spread its message:
“Last year (2003), the MPRB hired a search firm to find prospects to fill the position of superintendent. We recently obtained a copy of the text in the document the search firm sent to prospective applicants. The criteria all seem reasonable. Jon Gurban (current interim superintendent and appointed at the last moment by the Gang of Five in what clearly was a backroom deal) did not apply for the job, or follow any of the application requirements outlined here. Thus we have no way of knowing if he is at all qualified. The commissioners never received any further information beyond a brief, inaccurate resume handed out just minutes prior to the vote. What are they trying to hide? That Gurban is completely unqualified?”
Out of Options
Of course this leaves a few critical elements out of the story, like why the Grown-up 5 had to hire an “interim” superintendent in the first place. It was because some of the Defiant 4 had treated the final candidates so shabbily, so offensively, that they dropped out of the search. Mr. Gurban was well-known to the Commissioners as Executive Director of the Minnesota Recreation and Park Association. He was recommended to the board by the outgoing superintendent after she flat-out refused an offer to stay until another search process was completed. So on December 17, 2003, at the last meeting of the year, with no superintendent at the helm, a majority of the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board Commissioners voted to offer Mr. Gurban a one-year temporary position to help them through this transition.
Reinventing Reality
But rather than see things as they were, a few individuals decided to form an alliance with the most disruptive members of the board and commence an inquisition.
They cried corruption. They howled about a back room deal. They questioned Gurban’s resume. They said he was inexperienced and “completely unqualified.” They said he would sell off park land to greedy developers. They even disparaged his grammar. Of course all of these serious allegations turned out to be false. To Park Watch’s great shame they never printed a retraction.
As a condition of his employment, the Board required that Gurban meet the same requirements and take the same tests the other applicants had taken. It turned out that Gurban exceeded the requirements, and his test results surpassed the other applicants. Park Watch has this information, but again to their shame, it has never been posted on their website.
Just the Facts, Ma’am
Here are some other things you won’t find on the ParkWatch blog. In 2004 (Gurban’s first/interim year) the MPRB did accomplish a thing or two:
1. Rehabilitated the athletic fields at Armatage Park and Marshall Terrace.
2. Rehabilitated 8 miles of pathways around Cedar Lake and Lake Nokomis.
3. Restored the Lake Harriet Bandshell.
4. Introduced skate parks.
5. Acquired the Edward C. Solomon Park, adding 40 acres of new parkland.
6. Implemented a cutting edge engineering strategy called “surcharging” which restores park land prone to flooding.
7. Developed a new geographically-based organizational structure to adapt more quickly to changing metro demographics.
8. Implemented an online park reservation system.
So under Gurban’s leadership the MPRB rehabilitated a few parks and trails, so they added a little park land, so they reorganized staff to be more efficient, so they automated a reservation system, so they introduced skate parks. Park Watch still says he’s not qualified. What else did he do as Interim Superintendent?
9. Removed 5300 trees due to Dutch elm disease (the 3rd highest number since the 1970’s).
10. Increased awareness of cultural diversity, particularly within the Latino community.
11. Established the Minneapolis Parks Foundation.
12. Installed the system’s first solar array computer and electrical converter.
13. Started broadcasting all board meetings live on cable access television.
That’s in addition to running the day-to-day operations that require 600 full time and 1000 part time employees. The system includes 7 golf courses, 183 tennis courts, 8 historic sites, 3 pools and a heck of a lot more, like coordinating some 5000 volunteers.
Now, that’s a pretty full plate for a guy with at least 4 board members and Park Watch dedicated to opposing his every move. And indeed 2004 seemed to be Gurban’s least productive year compared to what he has accomplished since then.
Park Watch Brooks No Dissent
The next year, to Park Watch’s great consternation, Mr. Gurban was offered a contract and the label of “interim” was removed from his title. Up from 5:4, the vote was now 6:3 in favor. Commissioner John Erwin joined the Grown-up 5 in deciding Jon Gurban was the best candidate for the times and challenges ahead. Park Watch had this to say, “Commissioner John Erwin is now persona non grata after abandoning and alienating the constituents who both elected and supported him, as well as abandoning the now minority three commissioners. Erwin instead voted with the steam-rolling, dirty-dealing majority five. Erwin will never be part of the inner circle formed by majority five commissioners: "jocks" Walt Dziedzic, Bob Fine and Jon Olson, and empty-headed "cheerleaders" Marie Hauser and Carol Kummer.”
Perhaps there is just no pleasing Annie Young, Vivian Mason or Rochelle Berry Graves.
Psycho-activists or Rovian-politicos?
This leaves Park Watch Watch wondering about the motives of Park Watch. In a recent post, we observed that Park Watch members exhibited symptoms of “psycho-activism.” This means they started out as well-intentioned, and sadly lost their way. Not guilty by reason of mental defect. But perhaps they do know right from wrong, and are acting with malice aforethought. In this case, it smells more and more like “Rovian-politics.” Did these Park Watch players have a hand in thwarting the superintendent search or did they just observe it? Who is behind the curtain? What is their end game?
Next up:
If it ain’t broke, don’t break it.
Destructo-spin
Below is a sample of the Destructo-spin that this group uses to spread its message:
“Last year (2003), the MPRB hired a search firm to find prospects to fill the position of superintendent. We recently obtained a copy of the text in the document the search firm sent to prospective applicants. The criteria all seem reasonable. Jon Gurban (current interim superintendent and appointed at the last moment by the Gang of Five in what clearly was a backroom deal) did not apply for the job, or follow any of the application requirements outlined here. Thus we have no way of knowing if he is at all qualified. The commissioners never received any further information beyond a brief, inaccurate resume handed out just minutes prior to the vote. What are they trying to hide? That Gurban is completely unqualified?”
Out of Options
Of course this leaves a few critical elements out of the story, like why the Grown-up 5 had to hire an “interim” superintendent in the first place. It was because some of the Defiant 4 had treated the final candidates so shabbily, so offensively, that they dropped out of the search. Mr. Gurban was well-known to the Commissioners as Executive Director of the Minnesota Recreation and Park Association. He was recommended to the board by the outgoing superintendent after she flat-out refused an offer to stay until another search process was completed. So on December 17, 2003, at the last meeting of the year, with no superintendent at the helm, a majority of the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board Commissioners voted to offer Mr. Gurban a one-year temporary position to help them through this transition.
Reinventing Reality
But rather than see things as they were, a few individuals decided to form an alliance with the most disruptive members of the board and commence an inquisition.
They cried corruption. They howled about a back room deal. They questioned Gurban’s resume. They said he was inexperienced and “completely unqualified.” They said he would sell off park land to greedy developers. They even disparaged his grammar. Of course all of these serious allegations turned out to be false. To Park Watch’s great shame they never printed a retraction.
As a condition of his employment, the Board required that Gurban meet the same requirements and take the same tests the other applicants had taken. It turned out that Gurban exceeded the requirements, and his test results surpassed the other applicants. Park Watch has this information, but again to their shame, it has never been posted on their website.
Just the Facts, Ma’am
Here are some other things you won’t find on the ParkWatch blog. In 2004 (Gurban’s first/interim year) the MPRB did accomplish a thing or two:
1. Rehabilitated the athletic fields at Armatage Park and Marshall Terrace.
2. Rehabilitated 8 miles of pathways around Cedar Lake and Lake Nokomis.
3. Restored the Lake Harriet Bandshell.
4. Introduced skate parks.
5. Acquired the Edward C. Solomon Park, adding 40 acres of new parkland.
6. Implemented a cutting edge engineering strategy called “surcharging” which restores park land prone to flooding.
7. Developed a new geographically-based organizational structure to adapt more quickly to changing metro demographics.
8. Implemented an online park reservation system.
So under Gurban’s leadership the MPRB rehabilitated a few parks and trails, so they added a little park land, so they reorganized staff to be more efficient, so they automated a reservation system, so they introduced skate parks. Park Watch still says he’s not qualified. What else did he do as Interim Superintendent?
9. Removed 5300 trees due to Dutch elm disease (the 3rd highest number since the 1970’s).
10. Increased awareness of cultural diversity, particularly within the Latino community.
11. Established the Minneapolis Parks Foundation.
12. Installed the system’s first solar array computer and electrical converter.
13. Started broadcasting all board meetings live on cable access television.
That’s in addition to running the day-to-day operations that require 600 full time and 1000 part time employees. The system includes 7 golf courses, 183 tennis courts, 8 historic sites, 3 pools and a heck of a lot more, like coordinating some 5000 volunteers.
Now, that’s a pretty full plate for a guy with at least 4 board members and Park Watch dedicated to opposing his every move. And indeed 2004 seemed to be Gurban’s least productive year compared to what he has accomplished since then.
Park Watch Brooks No Dissent
The next year, to Park Watch’s great consternation, Mr. Gurban was offered a contract and the label of “interim” was removed from his title. Up from 5:4, the vote was now 6:3 in favor. Commissioner John Erwin joined the Grown-up 5 in deciding Jon Gurban was the best candidate for the times and challenges ahead. Park Watch had this to say, “Commissioner John Erwin is now persona non grata after abandoning and alienating the constituents who both elected and supported him, as well as abandoning the now minority three commissioners. Erwin instead voted with the steam-rolling, dirty-dealing majority five. Erwin will never be part of the inner circle formed by majority five commissioners: "jocks" Walt Dziedzic, Bob Fine and Jon Olson, and empty-headed "cheerleaders" Marie Hauser and Carol Kummer.”
Perhaps there is just no pleasing Annie Young, Vivian Mason or Rochelle Berry Graves.
Psycho-activists or Rovian-politicos?
This leaves Park Watch Watch wondering about the motives of Park Watch. In a recent post, we observed that Park Watch members exhibited symptoms of “psycho-activism.” This means they started out as well-intentioned, and sadly lost their way. Not guilty by reason of mental defect. But perhaps they do know right from wrong, and are acting with malice aforethought. In this case, it smells more and more like “Rovian-politics.” Did these Park Watch players have a hand in thwarting the superintendent search or did they just observe it? Who is behind the curtain? What is their end game?
Next up:
If it ain’t broke, don’t break it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
