League of Women Voters of Northfield

Kiffi Summa , LWV Observer

There were two special meetings, 5:00 and 7:00 PM, followed by a work session.
The 5:00 PM meeting was to interview the three candidates for the interim administrator position:  1. Richard Fursman,  2. Todd Bodem,  3. Joel Walinski. Each was interviewed for approximately 1/2 hour, using the same questions. The selection process was then discussed with the Human Resource Director, Elizabeth Wheeler.   C. Denison then brought up the need for an interim Interim.  His long rationale on the need for an interim Interim was based on the need for this position during an emergency, tornado, train wreck, etc.

This observer commented that there are three levels of law in place dealing with the declaration and oversight of an emergency: city code, MN state statutes, and the emergency response plan. All designate the city’s highest elected official as the only party allowed to declare an emergency, and as responsible to delegate further procedures, with the city’s emergency response director.

Another councilor then said, “We’re not breaking any rules; we’re just making our own rules … ”

Mr. Walinski was named interim Interim City Administrator.

*****Half hour break until 2nd, 7 PM, special meeting *****

The 7 PM special meeting had three items on the Agenda:
1. Approve outdoor dining permits – Motion
2. Approve board and commission appointments (to be handed out) – Motion
3. Consider proposal for separation agreement (to be handed out) – Motion

Special/Agenda item #1. – Outdoor dining permits were approved for the Hideaway and Goodbye Blue Monday.

Agenda item #2. – Council chose to deal with appointments to the Rental Code Board of Appeals first. Staff went to make copies of the applications packet for the public. The Mayor explained he had consulted with Staff (O’Connell and Brookins) on the general qualifications needed for these board members. He reported that Staff felt “general sense of fairness”, i.e. personal attributes, were more important than specific skill sets such as architect, landlord, etc.

After some procedural “wrangling” requesting a motion so that discussion could ensue, C. Pokorney moved to approve the appointments for the Rental Board of Appeals. More questions and discussion of the Mayor’s process; C. Denison recused himself as he had done before, stating that he was in litigation with one of the landlord applicants. C. Davis requested a tenant be put on the board. There was a parliamentary “snarl” around “calling the question”, and that vote, followed by further discussion on process for selection.    C. Pokorney suggested swapping one of the two landlord applicants for a tenant.

Mr. Roder commented re: the Mayor consulting with Staff, as he didn’t feel it was Staff’s “burden”; the Mayor felt that Staff would have to work closely with the Board, and therefore consulting with them was appropriate.

A motion and 2nd was made to postpone the appointments to either the August 4th, or 18th meeting.

*** VOTE: all aye

The second half of item #2  was the appointment to the EDA. The Mayor brought back the same applicant as last time, feeling that he was the best candidate. The Mayor reported that he had spent an hour with the EDA president, who had said that the Mayor’s selection, as well as some other candidates were all qualified. C. Pokorney asked if the EDA president was comfortable with the Mayor’s selection; Mayor confirmed “yes”.

C. Denison chastised the Mayor for “lack of transparency and cooperation with the Board (EDA)”. Two citizens who had turned in cards to speak on the item, did so. C. Pokorney expressed concern that the Mayor’s applicant had been brought to the Council, at the meeting, not before.

*** VOTE: 3 – 3, fails for tie – To approve: Lansing, Nelson, Pokorney. To NOT approve: Davis, Denison, Vohs.

Agenda item #3. – Background: C. Vohs and C. Pokorney were designated to negotiate a separation agreement with Mr. Roder.  City Attny. Maren Swanson had specified a process for other councilors to submit input to the negotiators. All written comments would become public documents; phone conversations were discouraged, because of possible open meeting law violations.

C. Vohs spoke for the negotiators, and after some procedural “wrangling” with the Mayor who was requesting a motion be made to allow discussion,  C. Vohs made a motion for the second part of the negotiation options, which was a request by Mr. Roder.  This option requested an apology letter, acceptable to Mr. Roder, from the Mayor, for the Mayor’s “behavior and actions regarding (his) relationship with Mr. Roder”.  In return for this apology, Mr. Roder would sign a release (promising no future litigation against the city), and drop all payment demands.

An audience member requested copies of the related negotiation documents and they were then provided.

The first negotiation option, which was NOT moved for discussion, or vote, was “In return for his signature on the ‘release’, we will pay Mr. Roder $10,000 now, and $25,000 in the future if the Goodhue investigation does not charge him with any crimes.” Also included would be a letter of recommendation for Mr. Roder.

C. Vohs and C. Pokorney said they did not feel comfortable with awarding “severance pay”, and that is why the option of Mr. Roder’s request for an apology letter was moved.

(NOTE: This meeting, most specifically this agenda item, was so fraught with parliamentary and procedural problems, accusation and innuendo, opinion as stated as fact, that I cannot further characterize it in writing. Without the benefit of questions being able to be asked and answered, it would be almost impossible to describe without suggestion of bias, from one “side” or another, and would not be productive. )
I suggest anyone wanting to further inform himself or herself obtain a DVD of the meeting from City Hall; there is no charge for borrowing a copy of the meeting.

Another parliamentary “snafu” occurred, once again on “calling the question”, when a councilor, not the Chair, called for a vote. An audience member immediately objected with “Point of Order”. Eventually the Motion re: the apology letter was again read and a vote taken.
*** VOTE: all aye, except for Mayor Lansing.

Work Session – Joel Walinski reported that the two task forces that were on the work session agenda, Energy, and Non-Motorized Transportation, had been “dismissed”. Deb Little then presented, and conducted a short discussion on possible commuter services between Northfield and the Cities.

Meeting adjourned at 9:45 PM.