I am becoming increasingly frustrated with the one sided nature of the park board discussion. I have pointed out the a few of the dissenting commissioners are part of the problem. Two candidates withdrew probably due to the tactics of Commissioner Mason. She consistently leaked information and challenged the credentials of candidates in public. I have done many interviews. Although not illegal, This is highly unusual and makes the process extremely difficult.
I agree that making public criticism about job candidates for any job is counter-productive, a lapse in civil behavior, and possibly unethical. However, I read every issue of the Star Tribune and the Southwest Journal and every post to this list, and not once did I see any leaked information or criticism attributed to Vivian Mason. Could you provide references to support your allegations?
Likewise, I have not seen anything published, or in the grapevine, that contains any statement from either of the two candidates who withdrew that their withdrawel had anything to do with alleged "tactics" of Ms. Mason. This allegation here is once again unsupported and seems to border on libel.. Can you provide any credible evidence or any evidence at all, beyond your own politically-motivated machinations, that either candidate withdrew because of any commissioner's tactics?
Commissioner Mason opposed the whole search process. She supported Don Siggelkow, a current staff member. I wonder how committed she really was to giving an external candidate an opportunity.
It is the right of any board member to oppose a process which they believe is flawed. Do you wonder equally about Bob Fine's continued opposition to open, fair and ethical process? If so, why aren't you jumping on that issue here? If not, how do you defend your position of allowing abuse of democratic institutions and voter trust, and abrogation of taxpayer fiduciary responsibility?
Mr. Gurban is under challenge. The tactics being used include impugning his character and innuendo. This is consistent with the previous tactics. Although maybe wrong, I can see why some Commissioners were not discussing with Commissioner Mason their ideas for the Interim Superintendent.
Which "previous tactics" would those be? All of the attacks I've seen made on Mr. Gurban have been from the tax-paying electorate, not from imagined tactics of Ms. Mason. Further, it appears five commissioners failed to discuss their ideas for an "interim" (your words, not the board's nor Mr. Fine's) superintendent with four commissioners, not just one.
I find it hard to believe that all four would fit your definition of somebody so difficult to work with -- despite it being "wrong" as you say yourself -- that normal discourse would be pointedly avoided in a juvenile manner. In fact, such an idea is laughable to me as I've had interaction with Annie Young on a few occasions in which I was adversarial and critical of her position, and yet she was highly civil, moderate and courteous in response. I would say that if one cannot work with Annie Young, one would be unable to work with many people and therefore have no place being an elected official of any sort.
I will personally continue to challenge Mr. Fine and Mr. Gurban. Mr. Gurban leads an organization that got a highly unethical, sweetheart deal to rent property from the MPRB. This deal has cost taxpayers tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars. I did not, nor did most other taxpayers, vote to subsidize the Minnesota Recreation and Park Association, a private organization which engages in lobbying to increase its members income.
I have not had a response to my question.
Let's see if you are as forthcoming as you expect with responses to my questions.
I hope the commissioners reach out to help build a consensus. John Erwin has made such a public gesture. I hope he has the courage to work for consensus instead of yielding to the wild accusations that are being posted. Continuing this devisive discussion will only damage the Park Board. Overturning the appointment of the Superintendent will only lead to chaos.
You appear to be the one making "wild accusations" from where I sit. Given such widely differing viewpoints, does it make sense to call for the ignoring of one set of those viewpoints? Will that lead to consensus? Avoid chaos?
I do have a suggestion I suspect none of the commissioners would like. I believe the Park Superintendent and the Library Director should be appointed by the Mayor which is the same for all other departments in the City.
Only if they likewise lose their tax levying capabilities as well, and become funded from the city's general funding mechanisms. I suspect most people would be opposed to that idea as it would open the parks to the whims of short-sighted city elected officials and put at risk the continued preeminence of Minneapolis parks among city park systems nationwide.
I am sure some on this list will not enjoy hearing the other side. I hope your responses will drop references to the "gang" and "rogue" commissioners. I thought this was to be a positive discussion.
Positive in the sense of refraining from unsubstatiated accusations of various vague "tactics" engaged in by a specific commissioner, and positive in refraining from blowing smoke to obscure the real issues of an out-of-control board president, unethical conduct, fiduciary malfeasance, and conflict of interest -- do you agree?
To Scott Vreeland, I find the innuendo relating to election financing and the Board meeting time to be inappropriate.
I find your innuendo that Ms. Mason's tactics resulted in the withdrawel of the two superintendent candidates to be inappropriate.
I hope members of the forum will return to a reasonable discussion. Both sides deserve criticism. The process failed. All the forum has accomplished is to produce more factionalism on the board with their one sided criticism.
I'm all in favor of reasonable discussion, too. Reasonable discussion includes the necessarily unpleasant and difficult task of shedding daylight on shady dealings and behavior.
I don't see the forum as having produced more factionalism on the board. If the forum is running ten to one against the Fine-orchestrated hostile majority, that's pretty clear evidence that it's the hostile majority who caused the faction, not the other way around. We haven't seen any big efforts the past couple of years to build consensus or meet in the middle on a compromised position with Mr. Fine's leadership. We've only seen him engage in a "my way or the highway" approach which is a fine way to create factionalism. It's a first-line tactic of those in the wrong to immediately attack their critics as unfair, negative, faction-creating, unreasonable, etc.
I don't know Mr. Fine or Ms. Mason personally, and have never had any contact with either of them or their friends. But if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck -- well, the onus is upon Mr. Fine and Mr. Scallon to prove otherwise.
Appearances matter when it comes to ethical behavior in public service, and the bar should be higher when it comes to spending tax payer money. It hasn't been, and that needs to be rectified. Elected officials are not kings and queens, nor are they any smarter or better qualified than the electorate at large.
Chris Johnson Not a politician with a vested interest Fulton
REMINDERS:
1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
