Jane B McWilliams, LWV Observer
All members were present as the council convened for a closed meeting at 6:30 for an update on labor negotiations with Local 70 General Unit (Administrative Assistants, Custodians, Public Works Operators, Police Clerks, Transit Coordinator, Transit Operators).
Mayor Lansing called the regular meeting to order at 7:15. Councilman Denison proposed that the agenda be shortened in order to end the meeting early “because the staff has a hard day tomorrow”, election day. The council agreed, and postponed six items to be taken up at the September 15 meeting. Among the items postponed were: rental code changes, the separation agreement with former City Administrator Al Roder, and appointments to boards and commissions (the latter item was removed by a motion by Councilman Bond later in the meeting).
Following a presentation by Joan Janusz and Susan Sanderson of the Mayor’s Task force on Drug and Alcohol Abuse, several citizens made comments: Vern Rippley called attention to an article in Time magazine reporting the gas saving possible with replacement of 4-way stop signs with roundabouts. Former Councilman Noah Cashman questioned the validity of the petitions requesting a referendum on the remodeling of City Hall because some of the petitions had been removed from City Hall following the deadline. Victor Summa, who had circulated the petition, acknowledged he had removed a number of the pages in order to correct the notarization. Because over 400 people signed the petition, he said there is clearly interest in having the Council rethink the decision to remodel the building. David Delong asked the Council to consider other less costly options than the costly truck with a snowplow, an item on the Consent Agenda.
The Council postponed action on the denial of a Planned Unit Development Final Development Plan and rezoning for the Fargaze Meadows Second Addition. Application for this housing development had been initiated in 2005, but later the developer, while requesting periodic extension of the review period, had no further communication with the city. Nor has city staff been able to locate Fargaze staff. The current review period ends September 17. Councilman Bond, noting that they “couldn’t take away the developer’s right to request further extension before September 17,” gained approval of a motion to postpone the decision to the September 15 meeting. Councilman Pokorney added that in the 3 years since the initial application, the Comprehensive Land Use Plan has undergone revision, and the city’s development priorities have changed. The Fargaze plan “may no longer be within the vision of the city.”
Finance Director Kathleen McBride presented background for consideration for setting the property tax levies for the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, Economic Development Authority and the city’s General Fund (the City Levy). In the first two, no increase is being recommended by city staff. The City Levy increases by a total of $453,893, or 7.3% over the 2008 level, The projected tax rate increase is 5.8% over the 2008 rate.
McBride presented a summary of the City’s General Fund Budget, which proposes a 5.8% increase over the current budget. Although the tax levy increases, other revenues are increasing (including the state’s Local Government Aid). The staff presented a number of reductions in order to balance the budget. McBride emphasized that tonight’s action is just the first step as required by state law. Review of the budget, other components of the city’s operations and development and review of the capital improvement program will be on-going between now and December.
All three levies and preliminary budget were approved, with Mayor Lansing voting no on the City Levy.
Interim City Administrator Joel Wallinski distributed a memo providing a one-month review of his position, as requested by the Council. He noted that much of the month’s work was consumed with preparation of the 2009 budget, and that “Reducing the general operating budget by nearly $500,000 is not an easy task, considering many of the factors driving the budget increases are similar to those of your own household energy costs, costs for outside services and materials.” He commended the senior staff’s willingness to provide “honest and multiple options to help address this issue.” He concluded that he wishes to continue with the position of Interim City Administrator. “As we draw near the close of 2008, I will ask the council at that time for direction in permanently filling the position of City Administrator.”
Before adjourning the meeting at 9:20, Mayor Lansing commended city staff for the good work done over the Jesse James Celebration.
Comments
Jane: SO glad you're back ... Thank you.
I have a question about the closed meeting. I believe the open meeting law requires that at the next regular meeting, the outcome of a closed meeting be reported .
My sense is that this requirement is routinely overlooked.
Can you comment?
Jane,
I spoke as a citizen at the open mike. To characterize me by my former position is not relevant, and to be honest odd. Your description also fails to mention the point, and in fact is incorrect. Mr. Summa did not take the documents from city hall after the deadline, he inappropriately took the documents by force the day of the deadline, altered them, an then returned them after the deadline.
The fact that Mr. Summa absconded, or worse, with a public document by grabbing it from the hands of the public official is inexcusable. He avoided the issue at the open mike by claiming he "persisted". He did not did not just persist, Mr. Summa inappropriately, at the very least, removed an official city record from city hall, altered it, and returned it. Citizens who may have a different view point than Mr. Summa can no longer evaluate the validity of the original document because Mr. Summa, in the presence of witnesses, inappropriately, or perhaps illegally, removed the official document from city hall.
Isn't this a great place to have a dispute as to the truth of an action...
Mr. Cashman: you have seemed to have a problem with the LWV since some time last year when Ms. Mc Williams told me that when she called you about something, you told her that the LWV was far too involved in the city politics. This is obviously a paraphrase as it was some time ago; I believe the essence of the comment to be correct.
You also have less than a factual command of the actions of Mr. Summa regarding the petition. You state "Mr. Summa did not take the documents from city hall after the deadline, He inappropriately took the documents by force the day of the deadline, altered them, an(d) returned them after the deadline.
You repeat "Mr. Summa inappropriately, at the very least, removed an official record from city hall, and returned it"
Both of these comments, being false, and written here are libelous.
The facts are: Mr Summa went to city hall the morning AFTER the deadline of the day before, when the petition papers were turned in. He asked to remove a packet that he feared was inappropriately notarized, saying that he prefer the whole petition go down, rather than have a notary's mistake cost the notary his job. He persisted that he did need to remove it for the fear of injury to an innocent person, and Ms. Little LET HIM DO SO, in return for a signed note. Mr Summa returned the packet to the person who had gathered it, and had nothing further to do with it.
FACT: He did not alter it. He did not return it.
You can check those facts with the person whose packet it was, and the notary who presumably made an error. City clerk, Ms. Little, can give you that information if it is indeed appropriate for her to do so.
I will expect a public apology for your un-factual, intentionally damaging, libelous statements.
Noah:
It is good to know my reports are being read. I value your feedback and corrections.
It never occurred to me that it would seem odd to refer to you as "former councilman"! There was no implication intended that you weren't speaking as a citizen.
I stand by my reporting on the timing of the removal of the petitions from city hall. According to th 9-11-08 memo from Deb Little and Maren Swanson to the City Council, Summa requested the petition sheets in question in the morning the day after the filing period closed.(There is a link to the memo in the Northfield News on-line article updated this afternoon, 9-15-08.)
Jane,
I now understand that it was the day after the filing deadline. I believe my comment at the open mike, however, was that I said it was the day of the deadline. My purpose in saying that was to give Victor the benefit of the doubt. I was asking you to be factual regarding my comments at the mike. I did not have the benefit of the memo at the time I spoke or the time I commented.
Kiffi,
You crticise me for a comment I made regarding the League of Women Voters at some point in the past. I surmise then that your response to my post was as the At-Large Director of the LWV-Northfield Board of Directors.
I am disappointed that a member of the Board of Directors of the League of Womens Voters sees fit to threaten me with libel for excercising my First Amendment right as a citizen to criticise the actions of a public official (member of the Charter Commission and the EDA) and a public figure (organizer of the petition). This seems so contrary to the purposes of this organization, which I greatly admire.
As to your comments regarding unfactual statements. I would suggest that you read the memo from Ms. Little and Ms. Swanson. The first section states the alteration of the petition was the removal of pages 18-23 of the petition. It was not the alteration that was performed by anyone else.
As for the statement that Victor returned it, I assumed that he did. Can Victor honestly tell me that he did not tell the other individual to turn it in? In answer to this question is Victor's memo where, in the PS line he indicates that he spoke to the individual who would be "correcting the error" i.e. making an alteration, and submitting the pages. Victor was responsible for the submittal of the pages, and by law was the only one who could submit the pages.
Perhaps most importantly, the city memo states that Victor was specifically informed that he was taking the pages of the petition against her (Little) will and without her permission.
I do not owe you an apology. I have the First Amendment right to criticise public officials and public figures, and I don't think a Director of the LWV should be trying to stifle this right they supposedly are defending. I am sorry that you have a difficult time listening to criticism about Victor in his public role but I have a right as a citizen to address public officials like Victor in a variety of forums.
Just so there is no confusion, I have nothing to do with what is reported in the paper as a criminal investigation of Victor. I simply think that public officials like Victor should know better rather than removing public documents from City Hall, particularly when there are citizens who may disagree with his position. I think Victor is a good person, his heart is in the right place, but why doesn't he quit with the stuff about "I persisted" and admit that he made a mistake instead of trying to blame it on others.
Mr. Cashman: You are an officer of the court, and yet you made statements on this site about actions which were hearsay, as you did not witness them.
The statement of the city, until it appears as a court document is only their POV, until it becomes something else by sworn testimony.
Please surmise nothing about the voice I use when I speak; I could not speak FOR the LWVBoard in the capacity of my position there without clearing a statement with them; therefor I speak as an individual,as you say you do.
Next, Victor is not a public official; he is a citizen member of NF Boards and Commissions. The City Attorney has defined the term "public official" very specifically because of the controversy surrounding the letting of city contracts, and who is, or is not, a "public official. It certainly does not extend down to the level of board and commission members. I believe you must be aware of this in your role as a former councilperson, as you followed the charter commission quite closely.
Victor has not tried to "blame" others. He has reported what happened, from the time he delivered the petition, through the actions of himself and others on the following day. He has repeatedly said that Ms Little was helpful (if that is the "blame" you refer to), and indeed in her relinquishing the packet in return for her request for the receipt.
I did not "threaten" you Mr. Cashman. I was disappointed, considering your professional role as an attorney for the State of MN, that you would report hearsay as fact, with regard to actions which you did not witness.
I said "I will expect" an apology; that is in no way a threat ... and in fact , an expectation I knew would be unlikely to be fulfilled.
We ALL have First Amendment Rights; let me make clear once again, I speak for myself alone.