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.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Another SW Journal piece.
Independent parks initiative heads to court
By Cristof Traudes
// The City Council rejected a citizen petition to ask voters in November to make the Park Board a fully independent body. The petitioners promptly filed suit. //
The initiative to make the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board a financially independent body has landed in court.
A citizens’ group representing a push to reshape the Park Board as a fully separate local governmental unit filed a lawsuit Aug. 28 against the city of Minneapolis, after the City Council voted 11-2 not to place a referendum on the Nov. 3 ballot. The group had just successfully completed a petition drive — gathering 17,046 signatures, of which at least 10,449 were certified — and the issue appeared headed to voters this fall.
But deputy city attorney Peter Ginder told the council that the group’s question could be unconstitutional. It’s not legal, he said, for one local government to create another.
In a 10-page memorandum, Ginder wrote that the petition could be rejected because the issue is preempted by state law and conflicts with state public policy. Furthermore, if the referendum were approved in November, the Park Board would still have to wait until the next legislative session before finding out exactly how their new body of government would operate.
“As the board sits today, they don’t know what they’re creating,” Ginder said.
Council Member Betsy Hodges (13th Ward) said several times before the council’s vote that its decision wasn’t going to be about the content of the petition’s question.
“The question before us is a matter of law,” Hodges said during an emotionally charged meeting. “It’s about law. … We’ve been told in no uncertain terms by our attorney that this is unlawful.”
The petitioners, represented by a citizen group calling itself Citizens for Independent Parks, quickly shot back, promptly filing a lawsuit against the city. They are hoping a Hennepin County District Court will hear their case and rule quickly so the issue can still get before voters this fall. The deadline to get a question on the ballot is Sept. 11.
Former City Council Member Pat Scott, one of the faces of the petition effort, said the council’s decision was disappointing but not surprising.
“It’s unfortunate Pandora’s box was opened,” she said. “But it was opened by them.”
The other side
While Ginder argued the legal, appropriate route to create an independent Park Board would be to lobby the state Legislature, the petitioners said there already is room in state law for more independence.
Their side will be litigated by Fred Morrison, a University of Minnesota law professor who is considered a preeminent mind in local government law. Morrison is expected to argue that because the Park Board’s independently elected board was created in 1883 — before the creation of Minneapolis’ city charter — it can petition for more power. Ginder’s opinion that the referendum would illegally create a new local governmental unit doesn’t apply because technically, the modified Park Board wouldn’t really be new, Morrison wrote in an Aug. 19 letter to the petitioners.
“Your amendment does no more than what the Legislature actually did in 1883 and 1889,” he wrote.
Some council members struggled with what to do. Several appeared to sway, wondering whether to consider Morrison’s side with as much weight as Ginder’s opinion.
Council Member Cam Gordon (2nd Ward) implied several times that it seemed as if the council really was voting on the petition’s content. The city isn’t showing faith in its residents, Gordon said.
Those words set off Council Member Scott Benson (11th Ward), who pointed to Gordon’s opposition earlier this year to put to a citizen vote a charter amendment proposed by Council Member Paul Ostrow (1st Ward) to eliminate the Park Board.
“Nobody had faith in the people to decide that issue,” Benson said.
Ostrow also chimed in, vehemently opposing the ballot initiative.
“This is not legal,” he said. “This is not constitutional. And I frankly think it would be the height of cynicism to put this on the ballot.”
Council members Sandy Colvin Roy (12th Ward) and Gordon dissented.
Already a struggle
Even before the council’s decision to deny the petition, the Park Board’s commissioners were fighting an uphill battle with fellow politicians in Minneapolis.
The Charter Commission, which with citizen petitions usually plays little more than a handing-off role, moved the ballot measure to the City Council with a begrudging attitude. It attached a note to the council recommending against putting the question on the ballot.
Just a week earlier, while drafting a resolution to set out the principles it would follow if voters were to make them independent, the Park Board made several statements that directly attacked the biggest questions its initiative has faced. An early draft said, “It has never been nor ever will be the intent of the Park and Recreation Board to seek unlimited taxing authority.”
That appeared directly targeted at Mayor R.T. Rybak, who several commissioners said was making false claims to campaign against their initiative. Rybak has said the Park Board would gain unlimited taxing authority if the initiative succeeds, while also calling the effort “half-baked” and saying it’s based on “false fears about non-existent threats.”
Board Vice President Mary Merrill Anderson said the unlimited taxing authority argument is part of an “aggressive campaign of misinformation.” The state would set limits for how much the Park Board could tax, she said.
Of course, it would first need a victory in court.
—
The ballot question
A petition to place a referendum for a fully independent Park Board was rejected Aug. 28 by the City Council, but the question could still end up on the Nov. 3 ballot if its supporters win in court. The charter amendment would read:
“The Minneapolis Park and Recreation board shall be separate and independent governmental unit of the state of Minnesota with an elected board of commissioners. The Park and Recreation Board shall preserve and protect park land, lakes and open spaces as a public trust forever and shall have all powers and rights of a separate and independent governmental unit of the state as determined by the state legislature. The Mayor of Minneapolis shall have the right to veto the Park and Recreation Board’s legislative actions and budget, subject to the ability of Park Board to override a veto by two-thirds (2/3rds) vote.”
By Cristof Traudes
// The City Council rejected a citizen petition to ask voters in November to make the Park Board a fully independent body. The petitioners promptly filed suit. //
The initiative to make the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board a financially independent body has landed in court.
A citizens’ group representing a push to reshape the Park Board as a fully separate local governmental unit filed a lawsuit Aug. 28 against the city of Minneapolis, after the City Council voted 11-2 not to place a referendum on the Nov. 3 ballot. The group had just successfully completed a petition drive — gathering 17,046 signatures, of which at least 10,449 were certified — and the issue appeared headed to voters this fall.
But deputy city attorney Peter Ginder told the council that the group’s question could be unconstitutional. It’s not legal, he said, for one local government to create another.
In a 10-page memorandum, Ginder wrote that the petition could be rejected because the issue is preempted by state law and conflicts with state public policy. Furthermore, if the referendum were approved in November, the Park Board would still have to wait until the next legislative session before finding out exactly how their new body of government would operate.
“As the board sits today, they don’t know what they’re creating,” Ginder said.
Council Member Betsy Hodges (13th Ward) said several times before the council’s vote that its decision wasn’t going to be about the content of the petition’s question.
“The question before us is a matter of law,” Hodges said during an emotionally charged meeting. “It’s about law. … We’ve been told in no uncertain terms by our attorney that this is unlawful.”
The petitioners, represented by a citizen group calling itself Citizens for Independent Parks, quickly shot back, promptly filing a lawsuit against the city. They are hoping a Hennepin County District Court will hear their case and rule quickly so the issue can still get before voters this fall. The deadline to get a question on the ballot is Sept. 11.
Former City Council Member Pat Scott, one of the faces of the petition effort, said the council’s decision was disappointing but not surprising.
“It’s unfortunate Pandora’s box was opened,” she said. “But it was opened by them.”
The other side
While Ginder argued the legal, appropriate route to create an independent Park Board would be to lobby the state Legislature, the petitioners said there already is room in state law for more independence.
Their side will be litigated by Fred Morrison, a University of Minnesota law professor who is considered a preeminent mind in local government law. Morrison is expected to argue that because the Park Board’s independently elected board was created in 1883 — before the creation of Minneapolis’ city charter — it can petition for more power. Ginder’s opinion that the referendum would illegally create a new local governmental unit doesn’t apply because technically, the modified Park Board wouldn’t really be new, Morrison wrote in an Aug. 19 letter to the petitioners.
“Your amendment does no more than what the Legislature actually did in 1883 and 1889,” he wrote.
Some council members struggled with what to do. Several appeared to sway, wondering whether to consider Morrison’s side with as much weight as Ginder’s opinion.
Council Member Cam Gordon (2nd Ward) implied several times that it seemed as if the council really was voting on the petition’s content. The city isn’t showing faith in its residents, Gordon said.
Those words set off Council Member Scott Benson (11th Ward), who pointed to Gordon’s opposition earlier this year to put to a citizen vote a charter amendment proposed by Council Member Paul Ostrow (1st Ward) to eliminate the Park Board.
“Nobody had faith in the people to decide that issue,” Benson said.
Ostrow also chimed in, vehemently opposing the ballot initiative.
“This is not legal,” he said. “This is not constitutional. And I frankly think it would be the height of cynicism to put this on the ballot.”
Council members Sandy Colvin Roy (12th Ward) and Gordon dissented.
Already a struggle
Even before the council’s decision to deny the petition, the Park Board’s commissioners were fighting an uphill battle with fellow politicians in Minneapolis.
The Charter Commission, which with citizen petitions usually plays little more than a handing-off role, moved the ballot measure to the City Council with a begrudging attitude. It attached a note to the council recommending against putting the question on the ballot.
Just a week earlier, while drafting a resolution to set out the principles it would follow if voters were to make them independent, the Park Board made several statements that directly attacked the biggest questions its initiative has faced. An early draft said, “It has never been nor ever will be the intent of the Park and Recreation Board to seek unlimited taxing authority.”
That appeared directly targeted at Mayor R.T. Rybak, who several commissioners said was making false claims to campaign against their initiative. Rybak has said the Park Board would gain unlimited taxing authority if the initiative succeeds, while also calling the effort “half-baked” and saying it’s based on “false fears about non-existent threats.”
Board Vice President Mary Merrill Anderson said the unlimited taxing authority argument is part of an “aggressive campaign of misinformation.” The state would set limits for how much the Park Board could tax, she said.
Of course, it would first need a victory in court.
—
The ballot question
A petition to place a referendum for a fully independent Park Board was rejected Aug. 28 by the City Council, but the question could still end up on the Nov. 3 ballot if its supporters win in court. The charter amendment would read:
“The Minneapolis Park and Recreation board shall be separate and independent governmental unit of the state of Minnesota with an elected board of commissioners. The Park and Recreation Board shall preserve and protect park land, lakes and open spaces as a public trust forever and shall have all powers and rights of a separate and independent governmental unit of the state as determined by the state legislature. The Mayor of Minneapolis shall have the right to veto the Park and Recreation Board’s legislative actions and budget, subject to the ability of Park Board to override a veto by two-thirds (2/3rds) vote.”
Friday, August 28, 2009
City Council to voters: No!
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Friday, August 28, 2009
Citizens Take Action to Protect Constitutional Rights
Supporters of an independent Park Board, including two former Minneapolis Mayors, have filed suit against the City of Minneapolis to ensure that a proposed amendment to the City Charter is placed on the ballot this November.
The action comes after the Minneapolis City Council voted not to place the proposed amendment on the ballot. A petition requesting the amendment, which would declare the Park Board to be a “separate and independent governmental unit”, was submitted to the City with over 17,000 signatures on August 10.
“We are deeply disturbed that a majority of the City Council feels empowered to thumb their noses at thousands of citizens exercising their Constitutional right to petition for Charter change,” said Scott Neiman, chair of the Citizens for Independent Parks Committee (CFIP), which led the petition drive. “We believe strongly that the Council does not have the authority to refuse this petition,” added Neiman, “City residents have asked for a chance to vote on this issue, and we intend to make sure that happens.”
An opinion recently issued by University of Minnesota Law School Professor Fred Morrison maintains that the petition meets all legal requirements, and that the state Constitution requires the City to place the petition question on the November ballot.
Along with Neiman, a former President of the Minneapolis Park Board, the five Electors who led the petition drive include former Mayor and Congressman Don Fraser, former Mayor Sharon Sayles Belton, former City Council Member Pat Scott, and former County Commissioner Mark Andrew. Over 250 volunteers participated in the petition drive, which began in early July.
For questions or additional press inquiries please contact Justin Fay at (612) 251-1457.
Friday, August 28, 2009
Citizens Take Action to Protect Constitutional Rights
Supporters of an independent Park Board, including two former Minneapolis Mayors, have filed suit against the City of Minneapolis to ensure that a proposed amendment to the City Charter is placed on the ballot this November.
The action comes after the Minneapolis City Council voted not to place the proposed amendment on the ballot. A petition requesting the amendment, which would declare the Park Board to be a “separate and independent governmental unit”, was submitted to the City with over 17,000 signatures on August 10.
“We are deeply disturbed that a majority of the City Council feels empowered to thumb their noses at thousands of citizens exercising their Constitutional right to petition for Charter change,” said Scott Neiman, chair of the Citizens for Independent Parks Committee (CFIP), which led the petition drive. “We believe strongly that the Council does not have the authority to refuse this petition,” added Neiman, “City residents have asked for a chance to vote on this issue, and we intend to make sure that happens.”
An opinion recently issued by University of Minnesota Law School Professor Fred Morrison maintains that the petition meets all legal requirements, and that the state Constitution requires the City to place the petition question on the November ballot.
Along with Neiman, a former President of the Minneapolis Park Board, the five Electors who led the petition drive include former Mayor and Congressman Don Fraser, former Mayor Sharon Sayles Belton, former City Council Member Pat Scott, and former County Commissioner Mark Andrew. Over 250 volunteers participated in the petition drive, which began in early July.
For questions or additional press inquiries please contact Justin Fay at (612) 251-1457.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
