Posts in Roseville Issues Forum

City Council vacancies - special elections? From: Dan Roe Date: Jul 03 17:10 UTC Short link

During the recent appointment process resulting from the passing of
councilmember Tom Kough, there were several expressions of concern that we fill
vacancies on the city council as "democratically" as possible.

One preference expressed was for the use of special elections in more instances
than state law currently requires.  State law requires special elections with
more than 2 years left on a vacant term, and allows cities to require special
elections in other instances.

Right now, our city code requires a special election only in the "other
instance" of a councilmember assuming an "incompatible office" (one that you
can't hold at the same time as being a councilmember).

I have brought forward a proposed ordinance to liberalize our use of special
elections in 2 ways:  First, to use special elections for all types of
vacancies (not just incompatible office), and second to use them for all
vacancies except those that occur late enough in a term where there will be a
regular election already going on for that seat (up to approximately May of the
last year of the term).

The city council will hear comments from the public on that proposed ordinance
at our 6 PM July 14th meeting.

Some discussion topics related to council special elections include:
-Is it preferable to have councilmembers that are appointed by the council who
serve for as much as nearly 2 years without having faced the voters, versus
elected councilmembers whenever possible? (Is it necessary to be elected rather
than appointed to have "legitimacy" or accountability?)
-Should the cost (estimated by city staff to be $20,000 per special election)
enter into the discussion?  If so, how important of a factor should it be?
-Should a special election for a vacancy be going on at the same time as a
general election for the same seat?  (If so, how much overlap in the schedules
of the 2 elections is acceptable?)

The city council would appreciate input from the community as we consider this
proposed ordinance.

More background information can be found here:
http://www.ci.roseville.mn.us/DocumentView.asp?DID=2000
    

Watch Davanni's get off selling alcohol to kids again, this coming Monday... From: John Kysylyczyn Date: Jun 29 21:39 UTC Short link

For those of you who are interested in the saga of how the worst violator of
alcohol laws in the history of Roseville is being helped by city bureaucrats to
get its penalty reduced by 97%, here is an update.

At the June 16th meeting, it was expected that the city council for a second
time was going to rubberstamp Mr. Klausing and City Manager Bill Malinen's plan
to reduce Davanni's penalty by 97%.  It was expected to be yet another split
council vote.  Ms. Pust was expected to vote no on the reduction.  Davanni's
was tagged for selling alcohol after the police had suspended their license for
a previous violation of selling alcohol to kids a few months earlier.

But to many people's surprise, Ms. Ihlan was unable to attend the meeting,
apparently being stuck out of town for the evening.  The other wildcard for the
meeting was that this was the first time newly appointed member Mr. Willmus
would have to vote on the issue.

To the shock of Mr. Klausing and Mr. Malinen, Mr. Willmus stated that he could
NOT support a 97% reduction in the penalty to Davanni's.  Ms. Pust also
restated her opposition to the reduction and said she would vote NO.  So that
left the issue a 2-2 tie.  So it got tabled until tomorrow's meeting of June
30th.

So tomorrow, June 30th, the council again will bring up the issue of reducing
Davanni's penalty by 97%.  It appears that if it passes, it will be done with a
split council vote with Mr. Klausing casting the tie breaker giving Davanni's a
97% reduction of their penalty.

Note that it was Mr. Klausing who led the effort to support former city manager
Neal Beet's illegal reduction of penalties for three other businesses just a
few years ago.

In my personal opinion, I find that this whole process of dealing with
Davanni's violation of the law to have been highly unethical from the very
beginning.

First, Mr. Malinen failed to completely inform the city council members of
Davanni's history of being the number one violator in the history of the city,
going back to 2000.  It is his job to do this.

Second, Mr. Klausing's and Mr. Malinen's claim that the council probably never
intended such a harsh penalty for someone who sold alcohol on a suspended
license was made in complete ignorance.  They had no research to support such a
claim.  In fact, the recommendation came from the Roseville Police Department.
I know, because I was there at the time.

Third, Mr. Klausing acts if this is no big deal because this is the first time
Davanni's has violated the law.  Well it is a big deal, because it is NOT the
first time they have violated the law.  It is like the 5th or 6th time they
have violated Roseville alcohol laws.  While there are a few other businesses
that have sold alcohol to kids once or twice, Davanni's has been caught selling
alcohol to kids at least 4 times and they are the only business to have sold
alcohol with a suspended liquor license, which is what they are currently
supposed to be penalized for.

Fourth, it was pure deception on the part of the city to issue two council
reports on this issue.  One report given to the public telling them that the
city wanted the standard penalty applied, and then a second report sent to
council members hours before the meeting via email calling for a 99% reduction
in the penalty.  This second report was never brought to the attention of the
public and they were never given a copy at the meeting.

One has to raise the issue of who is being paid off.  Reports don't get changed
a few hours before a council meeting by accident.  Just a few years ago, we had
our previous city manager handing out favors to businesses who were selling
alcohol to kids.  All done behind closed doors.  Now we have Mr. Klausing and
Mr. Malinen handing out favors to a business whose management team sold alcohol
while their license was under suspension by the Roseville Police Department.
The police department suspended their license because just a few months
earlier, Davanni's was caught selling alcohol to kids.

I'm also concerned about the actions of Police Chief Carol Sletner.  Just a few
years ago, she kept silent while former City Manager Neal Beets knowingly broke
the law and reduced penalties to businesses caught selling alcohol to kids.
Yes she spoke up in what she had hoped were private emails to Beets, telling
him that she thought his actions violated the law, but said nothing to the
public and/or the city council.  Not until the council asked her directly at a
council meeting to give her opinion, and after Beets had left the room, did she
speak up publicly to state that she opposed reduction of penalties.  She said
it sends the wrong message to businesses, and if you give one a break, then all
of them will want the same break.

On June 16th, I attempted to ask Sgt. Matt Marshall at the council meeting (who
is the person directly in charge of the alcohol compliance program) why he was
not supporting the city ordinances and the penalty system we have which was
initially proposed by officers in his department.  He started to respond that
the department was not commenting about that, when Chief Sletner told him to
follow her back into the locked area of the police department.  Sgt. Marshall
said that he could not speak to me anymore and said that he had to immediately
comply with her request.

It appeared pretty clear to me that city manager Malinen has a gag order on
Chief Sletner to keep her mouth shut on this issue.  That gag order applies to
everyone who works under her.  It is pretty clear based upon the last blow up
of this alcohol issue a few years ago that Chief Sletner is opposed to the
reduction of penalties to businesses that violate alcohol laws.  But as we saw
a few years ago, she will not speak up.  Last time it was fear of city manager
Beets and this time it is fear of city manager Malinen.

I have to admit that it would be even a bigger embarrassment to Mr. Klausing
and Mr. Malinen if Chief Sletner spoke up to oppose this 97% reduction in
penalties to Davanni's.  So the gag order serves a political purpose it seems.

As I said, this whole issue smacks of favoritism, back room deals, and plain
and simple unethical behavior on the part of several people.

Ms. Pust and Mr. Willmus have put their foot down and said that they are voting
NO.

Hopefully one more council member chooses to step up at tomorrow's council
meeting (June 30th).  The council has an ethical duty of shedding light on this
whole situation and airing out the stink that is currently associated with it.


John M. Kysylyczyn
K Solutions LLC, owner
3083 Victoria Street
Roseville, MN  55113
email: <email obscured>
home office: (651) 484-1384

www.ksolutionsllc.com
Mayor of Roseville, MN  2000-2004
    

-----Original Message-----
From: John M. Kysylyczyn [mailto:<email obscured>]
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 4:27 PM
To: 'Roseville Issues Forum'
Subject: Re: [RIF] Watch Davanni's get off selling alcohol to kids again, this
coming Monday...

Dan, again I appreciate your willingness to respond.  Your commentary provides
more food for thought.

The damming words of the administrative law judge are posted at the end of my
commentary along with some history of these laws that hopefully should put in
perspective why this Davanni's violation is something we rarely if ever see in
Roseville.  I also offer some commentary on the secret report emailed to the
council on this issue just hours before the council meeting.

In reply to Mr. Roe's specific comments...

He mentions that while the council reduced the penalty for Davanni's by 97%
over the recommended penalty, this is a 6000% increase over the original
penalty.

Well this isn't exactly an apples to apples comparison.  You put forward an
apples to oranges comparison.  There is no comparison to the "original" penalty
because the two are not tied together to the level you seem to be implying.  We
have an old penalty from last year that is over and done with, and now we have
a new violation of a different provision in law.  Let me explain why I say
this.

The original penalty you refer to is the violation of the law of waiters
selling alcohol to kids.  Davanni's has been given this ticket multiple times
over the past 8 years.  Essentially what you have are minimum wage clerks
selling alcohol without checking id's, and who could care less because jobs are
a dime a dozen.

This most recent penalty given to Davanni's is something completely different.
That's isn't just my words, that is the words of council member Pust who gave
an excellent speech on this issue at the council meeting before she voted no in
reducing this new penalty by 97%.

This most recent penalty is one that as far as I know, no Roseville business
has ever been penalized with in at least 8 years if not in the entire history
of Roseville.

To very clear, in this case, it wasn't a minimum wage employee who could care
less about alcohol laws, selling a beer to a kid without carding someone.  This
was the Roseville Police Department telling Davanni's that they were having
their license suspended for one day and that no alcohol sales could occur.
Then MANAGEMENT chose to do nothing and due to MANAGEMENT failures, waiters
were allowed to sell alcohol when their liquor license was suspended.  To be
precise, it was the ASSISTANT MANAGER who actually made the sale.  Davanni's
received a direct order from the Roseville Police Department and their
management team was so inept that they couldn't even follow it.  It was pointed
out at the council meeting that other businesses have posted a sign a week
before a suspension date to alert customers.  Davanni's management didn't even
do this.  As Ms. Pust pointed out, this is a management failure.  I want
readers of this posting to understand that this isn't some minimum wage
 21 year old kid selling a beer to someone without checking id first.

Mr. Roe's comments about Davanni's having $4500 in alcohol sales PER YEAR, as a
reason to defend that revocation of their license was too harsh, is actually
not something to raise if you want to defend lowering their penalty by 97%.

Supporting a 60 day suspension of Davanni's license only cost them a measly
$750 dollars of sales.

Now I might buy your argument if we were talking about Old Chicago, another
frequently violator of the law, but not as bad as Davanni's.  A 60 day
suspension of Old Chicago's license would probably cost them over $200,000 in
sales, not a measly $750.

Even if this was Old Chicago that we were talking about, I still wouldn't buy
your argument in general.  What Mr. Klausing, Ms. Ihlan, and yourself have
decided to do is look at the balance sheet of the business and for financial
reasons have decided to substantially bend the existing standards we have in
law.

You bent these standards for a business that didn't just have a waiter get
caught selling alcohol to kids.  You have bent the standards for a business
that has a history of having waiters getting caught selling alcohol to kids,
placing them as the number one violator in the city of Roseville.  This time,
it wasn't a 21 year old kid selling alcohol to a kid, but a management team so
incompetent that they ignored a direct order from the Roseville Police
Department that their liquor license was suspended.

A 21 year old waiter selling a beer to a kid, and having a management team that
is completely incompetent and ignores direct orders of the Roseville Police
Department are two completely different things.

This is why the penalties for both of these situations are different.  Note
that it was the Roseville Police Department that recommended these issues be
treated differently and it was the Roseville Police Department that recommended
that revocation be the penalty for selling on a suspended license.

------Administrative judge comments

I do take note that the administrative judge did uphold the council's 97%
reduction in penalty to Davanni's.  But on the other hand, what else did we
think was going to happen?  Once you reduce a penalty by that much, how much
further down can you go?

I find the words of the administrative judge to be pretty damming upon Mr.
Klausing, Ms. Ihlan, and Mr. Roe's actions in my opinion.

The administrative judge states, "There is no inherent right to sell alcohol
beverages or hold a liquor license.  Municipal authorities have broad
discretion to determine the manner in which liquor license are regulated, and
when fines are imposed, the review is limited to whether the city acted
capriciously, arbitrarily, or oppressively."

The Roseville City Council has now seemingly added the standard that the
businesses balance sheet must be reviewed and considered before a penalty was
levied.

So these three members have put the city in a position where they cut one
penalty by 97% for the biggest violator in the city, Davanni's, and now if they
don't do the same thing for everyone else who has violations in the future,
that newly cited business could bring a claim forward stating that the city
acted "capriciously, arbitrary, or oppressively."  If the biggest violator in
the history of the city gets off with a 97% reduction in penalty, then they
will say why can't we all get that deal.

The poorly thought out decision of the city council also gives a clear
statement that gross mismanagement practices of a business who sells alcohol in
violation of a direct order from the Roseville Police Department, is now
apparently in the same penalty category as a 21 year old waiter who serves
alcohol to a kid.

-----Roseville city code

A past city council (8 years ago) determined that three offences were so
egregious that the standard penalty would be REVOCATION of your liquor license.
They are as follows (Roseville City Code 302.15):

"Commission of a felony related to the licensed activity."
"Sale of alcohol beverages while license is under suspension."
"Sale of intoxicating liquor where only license is for 3.2 percent malt
liquor."

To the best of my knowledge, no Roseville business has violated any one of
these three items in the past 8 years.  It is quite possible that these three
activities have never been violated in the past 20 years.  Unfortunately
historical research is not a strong point of staff so we probably will never
know.

To be clear, the current violation of the law before us is the second item in
this list.  Davanni's sold alcohol while their license is under suspension.  To
my knowledge, no Roseville business has done this in the past 8 years and quite
possibly in the past 20 or more years.

So while Mr. Klausing, Ms. Ihlan, and Mr. Roe have tried to paint Davanni's
actions as just being an extension of their existing violations of the law
(without pointing out to the public that they are the number one violator in
city history), this simply is not true.  As Ms. Pust clearly pointed out at the
last council meeting this issue was discussed, these actions are two separate
issues.  A minimum wage waiter selling to a kid is a completely different
category than what is clearly a management problem at Davanni's.

------Adding insult to injury

To add insult to injury was this stunt pulled by the council and the city
manager to change the report on the Davanni's penalty just hours before the
council meeting was held.  They put one report in the council packet and posted
it on the internet for the public, which called for the standard penalty of
revocation of the license.  Then just hours before the meeting, a secret
revised report calling for a 99% reduction in penalties was emailed to just the
council members just hours before the meeting.

I have to wonder what is actually going on behind the scenes.  Clearly this
deception was done intentionally to cut down on the number of people who would
testify on the issue.  I believe the people at Mothers Against Drunk Driving
would have testified in opposition to a 97% reduction in the recommended
penalty.  They and other similar groups have testified before the council in
support of more stringent standards numerous times in the past.  It appears
that some backroom deal was struck over the weekend or the morning the day of
the council meeting.  It also appears that the city attorney played a role in
this.  A lot of us would like to know who cut who a deal and for what personal
benefit.  Common sense says that this wasn't any sort of accident.  It was way
too orchestrated.

I would consider filing an ethics complaint against the city attorney, but Mr.
Klausing (an attorney himself) in his much self-praised ethics reforms, removed
the city attorney and all outside hired consultants from oversight of the
ethics commission and compliance with our ethical rules.  (I believe that Mr.
Klausing, Mr. Maschka, and Ms. Pust passed that change over the objections of
Mr. Kough and Ms. Ihlan)

I personally feel the council's and city manager's actions to be dishonest,
unethical, and probably illegal.  The public is owed an on camera apology and a
press release expressing this, at a very minimum.

John M. Kysylyczyn
K Solutions LLC, owner
3083 Victoria Street
Roseville, MN  55113
email: <email obscured>
home office: (651) 484-1384

www.ksolutionsllc.com
Mayor of Roseville, MN  2000-2004


-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Roe [mailto:<email obscured>]
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 9:06 AM
To: Roseville Issues Forum
Subject: Re: [RIF] Watch Davanni's get off selling alcohol to kids again, this
coming Monday...

The original suspension for selling to the minor during our compliance check
was 1 day, plus a fine - the full provision of our code for the original
violation.  Davanni's was found to have violated THAT suspension, which led to
the additional penalty.

While one can say that the 60-day suspension we imposed for violating the
original 1-day suspension is a 97% decrease in penalty over full revocation
(based on the statutory 5-year limit on revocation), I would point out that it
is also a 6000% (60x) INCREASE over the original penalty, plus another $2000 in
fines.  I hardly see that as letting Davanni's "get off (for) selling alcohol
to kids."  Especially when they claim something like $4500 in liquor sales per
year.  Short of revocation of their license, the 60 days and $2000 fine is the
maximum allowed by law.  I respect the opinion of those who believe that the
full license revocation is more appropriate, but believe that to be simply too
harsh in this instance.

The appeal hearing did not go in Davanni's favor - it upheld the city's
penalty.  The action item on Monday's agenda is to agree with the
recommendation of the hearing officer, and re-affirm our penalty.  Other than
perhaps Davanni's, I don't know of anyone proposing at this time to reduce our
original penalty.


Dan Roe

Info about Dan Roe: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/danroe

This topic's messages may be viewed at:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/4e1eC0Ro5TFR7GBiOqOkJe
-----------------------------------------
  To post, send your message to: <email obscured>
  To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
  in subject line and send to: <email obscured>

  More info about Roseville Issues Forum:
  http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/roseville-issues

  E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
-----------------------------------------
Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net

 Roseville Issues Forum
  http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/roseville-issues/stats.html


John Kysylyczyn
Roseville
Info about John Kysylyczyn: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/johnmkysylyczyn

This topic's messages may be viewed at:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/L44Sj97zTEhFIhKxngyJB
-----------------------------------------
  To post, send your message to: <email obscured>
  To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
  in subject line and send to: <email obscured>

  More info about Roseville Issues Forum:
  http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/roseville-issues

  E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
-----------------------------------------
Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net

 Roseville Issues Forum
  http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/roseville-issues/stats.html

Celebrating Nature in Roseville - MinnesotaMinute.Org Video Contest From: Steven Clift Date: Jun 26 21:13 UTC Short link

The Minnesota Minute online video contest celebrating Minnesota's nature,
environment, and outdoors that I mentioned earlier has been extended to
September 1st.

Check out the submissions and prizes (including a Sony Palmcorder) from:

   http://minnesotaminute.org

Steven Clift
E-Democracy.Org
    

Filing for City Council election begins July 1 From: John Kysylyczyn Date: Jun 26 06:32 UTC Short link

Another screw-up on the part of the partisan Roseville communications
department.

The city website claims the following qualifications to RUN for city council:

Must be an eligible voter of the City;
21 years of age;
Resident of the City for at least thirty days before general election.

State law on the other hand says in Minnesota Statutes 204B.06:

Must be an eligible voter of the City;
IS OR WILL BE ON ASSUMING THE OFFICE, 21 years of age or older;
Resident of the City for at least thirty days before general election.

The difference?

According to the city, you have to be 21 years old to RUN for office.
According to state law, you do NOT have to be 21 years old to RUN for office.
You only have to be 21 years old by the time you take the oath of office which
would most likely be the first business day after January 1, 2009.  So many 20
year olds ARE eligible to RUN for office.

Personally I would put my faith in state law over the partisan Roseville
Communications Department.

Hopefully somebody down at City Hall will issue a correction.  Sorry, but I
think it is kind of embarrassing when the elections people don't know the
qualifications to run for office.  We have only been holding city elections for
60 years.


John M. Kysylyczyn
K Solutions LLC, owner
3083 Victoria Street
Roseville, MN  55113
email: <email obscured>
home office: (651) 484-1384

www.ksolutionsllc.com
Mayor of Roseville, MN  2000-2004
    

-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Venters [mailto:<email obscured>]
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 8:45 PM
To: Roseville Issues Forum
Subject: [RIF] Filing for City Council election begins July 1

For those that are interested, here is a cut and paste from the city's web-page
on this. It is still cheaper than a movie.





Roseville has two City Council seats up for election this fall. Filing begins
July 1 until July 15. If interested in running, file at the Administration
Department at Roseville City Hall, 2660 Civic Center Drive. To file, a person
completes an affidavit and pays a $5 filing fee. More information is available
on the Elections webpage. Call 651-792-7026 if you have questions or contact
the City's Elections Coordinator.



Qualifications to run for a City Council seat include:

Must be an eligible voter of the City;
21 years of age; and
Resident of the City for at least thirty days before general election.

http://mn-roseville.civicplus.com/index.asp?NID=1261


Bob Venters

Info about Bob Venters: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/bobventers

This topic's messages may be viewed at:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/7izv3TqSV3O7aZOD1Z7NAJ
-----------------------------------------
  To post, send your message to: <email obscured>
  To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
  in subject line and send to: <email obscured>

  More info about Roseville Issues Forum:
  http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/roseville-issues

  E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
-----------------------------------------
Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net

 Roseville Issues Forum
  http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/roseville-issues/stats.html

Reflections From: Wanda Shelton Date: Jun 26 04:48 UTC Short link

Hello,
    I appreciate and agree with these writers.  From time to time we may
forget that RIF can be for communications beyond the "issues," and we have
much to enjoy in Roseville.
    I am reminded of a bumper sticker I saw recently.  I think it was worded
as:  "More wagging, less bark."  Of course, if you are a cat feeder, you'd
likely word that differently.
    By the way, what are residents of Roseville properly called?
Rosevillites?  Rosevillians?  Rosevillans?  Rosevillers?  Hmm?

Best wishes,
    

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dennis H Harris" <<email obscured>>
To: "ROGER TOOGOOD" <<email obscured>>; "Roseville Issues Forum"
<<email obscured>>
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 10:26 AM
Subject: Re: [RIF] Reflections


>I greatly endorse Roger's message. My wife and I have had the privledge of
> volunteering in Roseville for many years. I have owned two different homes
> in Roseville since 1966. Have met and enjoy many friendships in Roseville
> and consider it a pleasure to have lived in a city where we have such
> great
> amenities. Hope to see everyone at tonight's Rose Fest Parade. I will
> again
> have the privledge of volunteering for the parade. We have some of the
> greatest bands in the state in our parade.
> Go Roseville!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>            Mary & Denny Harris
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "ROGER TOOGOOD" <<email obscured>>
> To: "Roseville Issues Forum" <<email obscured>>
> Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 7:22 AM
> Subject: [RIF] Reflections
>
>
>> While walking to the Roseville Ampitheater last evening I was reminded
>> about how fortunate we are to live in Roseville. A variety of reflections
>> occurred:
>> #1- Our beautiful Central Park- Perfect in every detail. The Parks and
>> Recreation staff should be complimented for their hard and competent
>> work.
>> #2-The well kept homes- We went by one home that was a mess with high
>> grass -weeds etc for the past couple of weeks but yesterday it was mowed
>> and cleaned up. How great it is that we have the Neighborhood Enhancement
>> Program. One citizen told me that our quality staff had helped get
>> volunteers to come and help her clean up and improve her place.
>> #3-Our streets- Well maintained and done with out special assessments
>> because of money having been set aside some years ago so the income from
>> the Fund can be applied to the cost on a planned basis.
>> #4- The pleasant City Staff and Council Members who are always ready to
>> help-
>>
>> And the list goes on & on-  We all can be proud of our City - Roger
>> Toogood
>>
>> Roger Toogood
>>
>> Info about Roger Toogood: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/rogertoogood
>>
>> This topic's messages may be viewed at:
>> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/5CAz9sGQN3EcjHwuJLRJnI
>> -----------------------------------------
>>  To post, send your message to: <email obscured>
>>  To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
>>  in subject line and send to: <email obscured>
>>
>>  More info about Roseville Issues Forum:
>>  http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/roseville-issues
>>
>>  E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
>> -----------------------------------------
>> Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net
>>
>> Roseville Issues Forum
>>  http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/roseville-issues/stats.html
>>
>
>
>
> Dennis Harris
>
> Info about Dennis Harris: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/dennisharris
>
> This topic's messages may be viewed at:
> http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/ZLGanSelsf4VcxS0Y70bN
> -----------------------------------------
>  To post, send your message to: <email obscured>
>  To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
>  in subject line and send to: <email obscured>
>
>  More info about Roseville Issues Forum:
>  http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/roseville-issues
>
>  E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
> -----------------------------------------
> Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net
>
> Roseville Issues Forum
>  http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/roseville-issues/stats.html
>

Filing for City Council election begins July 1 From: Bob Venters Date: Jun 26 01:42 UTC Short link

For those that are interested, here is a cut and paste from the city's web-page
on this. It is still cheaper than a movie.





Roseville has two City Council seats up for election this fall. Filing begins
July 1 until July 15. If interested in running, file at the Administration
Department at Roseville City Hall, 2660 Civic Center Drive. To file, a person
completes an affidavit and pays a $5 filing fee. More information is available
on the Elections webpage. Call 651-792-7026 if you have questions or contact
the City's Elections Coordinator.



Qualifications to run for a City Council seat include:

Must be an eligible voter of the City;
21 years of age; and
Resident of the City for at least thirty days before general election.

http://mn-roseville.civicplus.com/index.asp?NID=1261
    

Reflections From: John Kysylyczyn Date: Jun 23 20:28 UTC Short link

Certainly a positive message that I am sure many would like to project to those
outside the community.

I prefer to stick to the cold hard facts.  Let me expand upon the previous
comments.

1. Central Park, along with all of our parks, are a community asset.  We can
first thank the voters and city leaders back in the 1960's and earlier for
having a high level of community vision in setting aside the land, and
approving referendums to make this happen.  I personally believe this kind of
leadership and vision is lacking in most of society today.

The Parks and Recreation staff do their best with the limited resources they
have.  Thankfully we have citizen volunteers who step in and contribute.

But when you look closely, you see that there are "issue".  Let's face the
facts, you have a park system that has a $5,000,000 to $10,000,000 backlog in
repairs.  This isn't small change.  The council just recently bypassed voter
approval to approve bonds in the $2,000,000 range for some arena expenditures
and this isn't part of the backlog I am referencing above.  Burying our heads
in the sand won't make it go away.

Then you have leadership issues at the elected level where there seems to be a
greater desire to build even more new items rather than place a priority on
fixing what we have.  Should we be installing more streetscaping and pathways
which require long term maintenance costs when we can't afford to fix what we
already have?

2. We do have well kept homes in general.  The Neighborhood Enhancement Program
really is just window dressing and more to do with public relations if you take
a broad look at this whole issue.  The Roseville Housing and Redevelopment
Authority has wanted to really dive into this issue for the past two years but
has been rebuffed by the city council every step of the way.  Mr. Klausing
along with staff who do not live in Roseville, have blocked their efforts
numerous times.  Just recently, public hearings for many of these issues were
eliminated by the council.

We can do ten times better, and we have volunteers who have stepped up to the
plate to lead the way, if certain people would put aside personal power,
political, and ego issues.  The HRA is in an excellent position to take a
leadership position on this issue.

3. Our streets are well maintained.  The comment about them being done without
special assessments is false.  The council years ago followed state law which
allowed them to bond for millions of dollars without voter approval, by
assessing properties anywhere from 25-100% of the cost.  The bonds have been
paid back over a lot of years through increased property taxes.  Having new
streets means minimal maintenance in the short term.  There is no free ride.

Then from what public works staff has said in so many words, the taxpayers were
overtaxed over many years in order to create some kind of endowment where they
use the interest off of this endowment in order to pay for minimal maintenance.
Let me be clear that this is taxpayer money, not some gift from Guidant, 3M,
etc.  Instead of us using this money to pay down our mortgages, car payments,
credit card debt, or sending our kids to college, the city has our money and is
using it.  In other communities, they chose to let the taxpayers keep their
money and simply use assessments when projects come along.  Again, there is no
free ride.

Government overtaxing citizens and keeping their money is not what I would call
planning or vision.

4. Pleasant city staff does exist.  I have personally met many of them.

What is unfortunate is that a few bad eggs spoil the batch.  When we do find a
few bad eggs, rather than separate them from the batch, they are protected by
the city manager.  The manager uses a loophole in state law to keep
investigations of other employees non-public and out of sight from council
members.  This loophole doesn't exist for state level management employees.
The desire to bury problems by the city manager ends up creating an atmosphere
where it appears that all employees are on the take.  It also lowers the
standards that other employees feel they should strive to achieve.

Let me give you some examples of what this management style creates.  If the
fire chief can run a political campaign website from city hall during the
business day on city owned computers with no repercussions, then certainly an
employee should be free to run their ebay business from city hall on city owned
computers during the work day.  If a communications department employee can
make a derogatory comment towards council member Kough during a public meeting,
then why can't all employees make similar derogatory comments to county or
state elected officials in a public environment on city time in their official
capacity as a representative of the city of Roseville.

Then look at the example our council sets for our employees.  The council never
holds the city manager accountable for anything.  When a police investigator
from the Maple Grove Police Department proved that the city manager broke the
law, the council never even considered disciplining him.  Never considered a
written reprimand, a day off of work without pay, or firing him which would
have been the standard action.  Instead they let him stay on the payroll as
long as he wanted while he looked for another job.  Then the police chief who
stayed silent when emails showed she knew the city manager was breaking the
law, is allowed to continue on as if nothing happened and it was just another
day at the office.
    

------

Certainly we can be proud of our city.  I just believe that we can do 10 times
better and that putting our heads in the sand is not the way to begin the
process.

John M. Kysylyczyn
K Solutions LLC, owner
3083 Victoria Street
Roseville, MN  55113
email: <email obscured>
home office: (651) 484-1384

www.ksolutionsllc.com
Mayor of Roseville, MN  2000-2004


-----Original Message-----
From: ROGER TOOGOOD [mailto:<email obscured>]
Sent: Monday, June 23, 2008 7:22 AM
To: Roseville Issues Forum
Subject: [RIF] Reflections

While walking to the Roseville Ampitheater last evening I was reminded about
how fortunate we are to live in Roseville. A variety of reflections occurred:
#1- Our beautiful Central Park- Perfect in every detail. The Parks and
Recreation staff should be complimented for their hard and competent work.
#2-The well kept homes- We went by one home that was a mess with high grass
-weeds etc for the past couple of weeks but yesterday it was mowed and cleaned
up. How great it is that we have the Neighborhood Enhancement Program. One
citizen told me that our quality staff had helped get volunteers to come and
help her clean up and improve her place.
#3-Our streets- Well maintained and done with out special assessments because
of money having been set aside some years ago so the income from the Fund can
be applied to the cost on a planned basis.
#4- The pleasant City Staff and Council Members who are always ready to help-

And the list goes on & on-  We all can be proud of our City - Roger Toogood

Roger Toogood

Info about Roger Toogood: http://forums.e-democracy.org/p/rogertoogood

This topic's messages may be viewed at:
http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/topic/5CAz9sGQN3EcjHwuJLRJnI
-----------------------------------------
  To post, send your message to: <email obscured>
  To leave or for daily digest, type "unsubscribe" or "digest on,"
  in subject line and send to: <email obscured>

  More info about Roseville Issues Forum:
  http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/roseville-issues

  E-Democracy.Org rules: http://e-democracy.org/rules
-----------------------------------------
Technical assistance thanks to our friends at http://OnlineGroups.Net

 Roseville Issues Forum
  http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/roseville-issues/stats.html

Reflections From: Roger Toogood Date: Jun 23 12:27 UTC Short link

While walking to the Roseville Ampitheater last evening I was reminded about
how fortunate we are to live in Roseville. A variety of reflections occurred:
#1- Our beautiful Central Park- Perfect in every detail. The Parks and
Recreation staff should be complimented for their hard and competent work.
#2-The well kept homes- We went by one home that was a mess with high grass
-weeds etc for the past couple of weeks but yesterday it was mowed and cleaned
up. How great it is that we have the Neighborhood Enhancement Program. One
citizen told me that our quality staff had helped get volunteers to come and
help her clean up and improve her place.
#3-Our streets- Well maintained and done with out special assessments because
of money having been set aside some years ago so the income from the Fund can
be applied to the cost on a planned basis.
#4- The pleasant City Staff and Council Members who are always ready to help-

And the list goes on & on-  We all can be proud of our City - Roger Toogood
    

Volunteers looking for missing Roseville man From: Bob Willmus Date: Jun 23 02:36 UTC Short link

Not Sure what happend with the prior link.

Keith Kennedy was found today, as reported tonight by the Star Tribune.

Good News!
    

Final weekend (June 27 & 28) for free hazardous waste disposal at Roseville site From: Nicole Waxmonsky-Tu Date: Jun 22 00:53 UTC Short link

Ramsey county is wrapping up its seasonal collection site in Roseville next
weekend, June 27th and 28th.  The process is very efficient; show up in your
vehicle of choice, get your license scanned and have your items unpacked.  It
takes about 5 minutes.  Hours are Friday, 10am-6pm, and Saturday, 9am-4pm.

The site is located on Kent St, which is off of Larpenteur and the street after
Dale (heading east).  Items include:

- automotive products
- home improvement products
- cleaning products
- lawn & garden chemicals
- oil and oil filters
- propane tanks
- items containing mercury

They will not take alkaline (AA, AAA) batteries (can be thrown in the trash if
made after 1993) or incandescent light bulbs (can also go in the trash).

For more information on accepted items or a map, I have attached a relevant
PDF.