All posts in the topic City Council Vacancy: Selection Criteria (Short link)
Summary
- There are 15 posts — by 11 authors — in this topic.
- Latest post made by Al Sands at May 19 15:38 UTC
I just watched the City Council's Special Meeting to interview the dozen or so
candidates for the empty seat caused by Tom Keogh's death. It was great that
it was televised in full on cable channel 16, and I was impressed by the
collaborative nature of the interviewing. And after almost two hours of
interviews it proved to my satisfaction that Roseville's most important
resource is not its retail but its residents: all the candidates were great and
should be thanked for opening themselves up to public review.
Since the selection of our next councilperson will be just that--not an
election but a selection by the council--I'd like to offer my opinion on what
the council's criteria should be, and invite other Forum members to add their
opinions.
Some previous experience in Roseville civic affairs and/or volunteering: I
don't think being a councilperson is an entry-level position or another step in
one's career advancement. I'd like to see someone appointed who's already
evidenced a willingness to serve Roseville and is already aware of many current
city issues. A ten-minute interview by four persons doesn't provide enough of a
basis for even a short-term appointment.
Ability to think critically and independently, and open to the opinions of
other residents: I don't want someone with all the answers who hasn't yet heard
the questions. I'd like more of a civic generalist rather than a specialist in
any one area, whether it be economic redevelopment or energy conservation.
Passionate and Practical: I'd like to see someone appointed who really believes
in local government as the foundation of our democracy and a primary means of
achieving community, that is, a home town where our opinions count and our
quality of life is critical. And who realizes that city government is not a
for-profit business but spends our money as if it was his/her own.
Not Running Again: Last and least, this is a valid criteria for making a
short-term appointment to a political office to be filled by the voters next
November. Although certainly not the most important criteria, I fear being an
incumbent could be an advantage in a general election in which there will be a
host of national, state, and local offices open, from President of the United
States to Ramsey County Soil and Water Conversation Board, All things being
equal--and I realize they never are--it may be more prudent for the council to
appoint a short-termer to this six-month council vacancy
This is my quick take on suggested criteria for the council's decision. What
do the rest of you think?
agree.
Here is my long take on the issue... noting that Gary said he was sharing his quick take :) First I would like to point out that for those who may have saw the meeting and would like to get a copy of the applications sent in, I have posted them at: http://www.ksolutionsllc.com/080512_interview_packet.pdf Gary, I believe you are correct with your comments about appointing someone who is not running again for all the reasons you stated and more. But to back up a step, I think it is important that the council recognize and do their best to respect and acknowledge Tom's comments on this appointment process. I believe that respect also extends to appointing someone who we believe Tom would have respected and supported for this appointment. For those who know and have served with Tom, this isn't hard to figure out. I considered Tom to be a very good friend. We talked an average of two times a week or more for the past 7 years, and we devoured more hamburgers at the Flame than I probably care to remember (Tom also finished off just as many bottles of ketchup too). So I speak from what Tom said in his letter to the council and what he told me personally. Tom said in his letter that he wanted someone appointed to his seat who had demonstrated broad public support. If we follow this statement, that means that out of the twelve applicants, there are really only three that meet this criteria. Note that I interpret his comments as having been elected to public office or have gotten close to it. But here is the problem. One of these three candidates treated Tom like dirt, and the other two who Tom respected would never get appointed due to the personal animosity of some council members. So that brings me to Gary's comments and my support for them. If Tom's comments in his letter couldn't be followed through on, I believe he would have wanted to see a caretaker appointment and an open election this fall with no one getting an advantage over anyone else. I can tell you that Tom just despised what he saw in Roseville where people who never ran for election got elevated to the chair of some citizen advisory commission, then were slid into some council member's seat who resigned with a few months left on their term, then set up for a pseudo reelection campaign. Tom would not have wanted someone to ride the end of his term like this. Tom worked hard for his seat every time he ran, which was something like 6 or more times between Roseville and his terms in Austin. Tom had a strong work ethic. Gary is 100% right that if someone is appointed to this seat, and they file for office 6 weeks after they are appointed (yes filing for the 2008 elections is coming up) they will receive a huge advantage in the fall election. The newspaper will essentially treat them as some sort of incumbent. This is the same thing the newspaper did when Mr. Klausing ran in his first election after having freshly been appointed. This advantage is probably worth $10,000-$25,000 of advertising if you had to try to duplicate this kind of advantage. The reality is that it is very possible that this person could receive this incumbency advantage after having only been appointed with the support of one council member if the vote on this issue ends in a tie. If the city council appoints someone to Tom's seat who is going to run in the fall election, it is the same as giving them at least a $10,000 donation. Keep in mind that with the exception of the last mayor's race, city council campaigns typically see only $10,000 spent per candidate. The only exception was the $65,000 that a Roseville developer spent in the last mayor's race to sway the outcome. Of the 9 candidates who have not received broad popular support, there were three answers to Ms. Pust's question on their future plans. Some said they would serve as a caretaker only and would retire when the November election results are certified. Some said that they do plan on running this fall. The category I am concerned with are those who claimed that they had no idea if they would run or said that they would have to see if they liked the job first before deciding. In my personal opinion, I don't find it to be the most honest answer to claim that you have no idea if you are going to run. Filing for office is in July. It is mid May right now. That is 8 weeks away. Then I really have to question those who said that they would have to see if they liked the job? Come on, how dumb to you think the council members and the public are. You will attend two or three council meetings before filing for fall elections starts in July. If you can submit an application for the position, and can locate the council chambers, you want the job. Plus candidates who have hired me as a consultant to their campaigns through my business know that they should have their walk piece in their hands by Memorial Day weekend. Enough said on this topic. So back to Gary's statement about having some experience and not running again, or being a caretaker appointment... I believe that in the political scenario that exists, this would be the most fair and ethical way to proceed. I believe it is a scenario that Tom would have supported if his first choice to have someone appointed who had demonstrated popular support was not politically feasible. While I would have to review the interviews a second time to be sure, I believe there were a few candidates in that group of 9 I mentioned above who met this criteria. The big question is whether continual council bickering and arguing is going to lead to a scenario where there will be a tie vote, and one person will get to make the selection, like what happened the last time there was a council appointment? The other question is how can the council fill out some vote slip with their top three choices, when they haven't even been able to agree on some basic standards or goals of what they are looking for in an appointee? Maybe if there was some agreement on goals, it would make the selection process better. 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
isn't it interesting that a city the size of north st. paul can get a special
election held by july 1st after the death of their mayor in april? their city
manager said " . . . the benefits of continuity and stability outweigh the
price . . . " of holding a special election. too bad roseville couldn't get an
election up and running as quickly as north st. paul.
as a side note, i also noticed that another roseville police squad was involved
in an accident tuesday night. it seems like quite a few of our squads have been
involved in accidents the last few years . . .
Roger makes some good points. I'd add to that the
point that, according to the April 22 artice in the
Roseville Review, Mayor Klausing and Councilmember
Pust (both lawyers) stipulate guidelines that are
clearly unconstitutional, excluding lawyers, and
persons who intend to run for a seat in November. Here
are their comments, excerpted from the article:
home : front page : front page
4/22/2008 2:52:00 PM Email this article Print this
article
Council will seek applicants for vacancy
George Fairbanks
news editor
<clip>
Prior to his death, Kough sent his council colleagues
a letter outlining two suggested options for naming
his successor in the event he was unable to complete
his term. . . .
<clip>
The second idea Kough forwarded was to name the
highest vote-getter from the last City Council
election who was not elected. That person would be
Karen Schaffer, who finished behind Council Member Dan
Roe in the November 2006 election.
<clip>
Asked if there was a certain set of skills he's
looking for in an applicant, Klausing said with a
laugh, "They'd have to be a non-lawyer." Klausing,
Pust and Ihlan are attorneys. [My comment: a
candidate's occupation is constitutionally irrelevant!
But lawyers are expected to know the law. A different
occupation does not guarantee a different perspective]
<clip>
Additionally, he said he thinks a candidate should
know how to function well in a group and disagree
politely.
[My comment: I personally would appreciate an
atmosphere of civility during Council meetings, as
mentioned in the Lawyers' Code of Conduct of the State
of Minnesota . . .]
<clip>
Pust added she'd prefer to appoint someone who would
not run in the November election. That situation would
allow the council to avoid the appearance of
"king-making," she said.
[My comment: Interesting that the two stipulations
made by incumbent Councilmembers exclude only one
person under consideration: Karen Schaffer]
Vivian makes an interesting point about Karen Schaffer that has been discussed
in political circles in the community.
As far as the unconstitutionality claim goes, nothing I saw seems
unconstitutional to me.
This is why. Anyone was allowed to apply. This time, all applicants who
wanted to be interviewed were interviewed (I say this time because Mr. Klausing
has tried to exclude some from interviews in the past without success on
multiple occasions, and Mr. Klausing got a special stipulation put into the HRA
appointment process where he personally can exclude people he doesn't like from
council interviews for that position).
What I read in that Review article was members expressing their preferences or
opinions. It is their personal opinion, not a policy of the institution. The
only sticking point would be whether their opinions fell into a protected class
situation and/or maybe whether they tried to institute them as a policy of the
institution. I don't have the protected class list in front of me at the
moment, but the city attorney went over the list when I served as mayor. I
believe it included things like gender, race/ethnicity, and I believe age if it
was over a certain number of years, and one or two other things. I do not
believe I have heard any member make comments that fall into these categories.
As a side comment on the civility comment... from my work on dozens of
campaigns ranging from school board to congress across Minnesota, I find that
when you see civility in a governing body, it is because they had the argument
behind closed doors where they actually decided the vote, then they came out
into the public meeting and all vote unanimously, giving this fake sense of
consensus. Yes some of this has occurred in Roseville.
Just ask yourself, why is it that most governing bodies that have meetings on
TV, only televise the meetings where they cast the recorded votes. Then they
create fictional names like study sessions or work sessions for meetings where
issues are discussed, and these meetings are not on TV. At the legislature,
they call these meetings caucuses, conference committees, or negotiations.
Former city manager Steve Sarkozy called up every council member before a
meeting just to make sure that everyone was on board with every issue. If
there was a problem, he would take the item off the agenda and deal with it
behind closed doors where the public couldn't see. During his years it seemed
like a group of best friends at times up there at the dais.
So I guess residents have two choices. Pretty looking meetings where tough
decisions are made behind closed doors or ugly looking meetings in front of the
public eye. Sorry but there is little in between, unless you decide to shrink
the size of elected governing bodies down to one person.
What I always find interesting is that those in this community who I have heard
give speeches decrying debate, disagreement, and incivility at council
meetings, are interestingly silent in expressing their opinions about the
legislature. A $20 billion dollar, yes B as in billion, budget can be passed
on a 68-66 vote in the MN House and they are silent, while they scream at the
top of their lungs if a lousy $30 million, yes m as in only million, budget
isn't passed on a 5-0 vote in Roseville. Hypocrisy at its best.
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
It's great to see that the community is having a spirited discussion about the
appointment process. That is exactly as it should be, and I commend all of you
for taking the time to share your views.
I do need to correct some misinformation contained in Ms. Ramalingam's post. I
have not indicated that I support criteria that would exclude just one specific
candidate from consideration. I have said publicly, and will say again in this
forum, that I would prefer that this appointment not be used as “king making”
(or even “queen making”) to give any individual an advantage over others in the
upcoming election. Of the 11 candidates interviewed on Monday, 6 indicated that
they either planned to run or at least had not ruled out running and so my
views on this issue would apply equally to all 6. This group of 5 women and 1
man includes some great candidates, and I wish them all the best of luck in the
November election. Still, I believe that each candidate should compete for
votes fairly in the election by taking the time to meet with citizens, explain
their views and ask for support, and not rely on the obvious benefit that the
appointment could bestow.
On May 15 John K wrote:
"So I guess residents have two choices. Pretty looking meetings where tough
decisions are made behind closed doors or ugly looking meetings in front of
the public eye. Sorry but there is little in between, unless you decide to
shrink the size of elected governing bodies down to one person."
I'd like to respectfully disagree with you on this point John. I don't
think having a thourough, deliberative decision-making process and
civility are mutually exclusive. In my opinion respectful conduct by all
parties increases prioductivity and efficiency. People can collaborate and
still agree to disagree if such a situation arises.
Working well with others is requires a skill set that often times takes
many of us years to develop. It is a skill I look for when choosing somone
to lead.
Dennis Hill
Still working on my people skills in St. Paul
One difference between Roseville and North St. Paul is that their Mayor
still had over two years remaining in his term, and by state law they
are required to hold a special election. The winner of that election
will fill the remaining term until the end of 2010. They could have
waited (with a 4 member Council) until the November elections - though
that may have been arguably too long a period to not appoint someone, or
appointed someone on a temporary basis (until the November elections) -
which could have created another vacancy if a Councilmember were
appointed, so they chose to have the election earlier. I think that's
the continuity and stability issue referred to. Roseville is not
required by law to hold a special election because Councilmember Kough's
term expired this year and there will already be an election for that
seat in November.
For everyone's information regarding the police collision, I think you
should know that our Roseville officer's car was struck by another
vehicle while he had his emergency lights and siren going, and had the
right of way with a green light when he was hit. Our officer was
responding to a medical emergency. The officer required
hospitalization and has some injuries, the long term severity of which
is unknown to me right now. Thankfully, neither he nor the other
individual was more seriously hurt.
Bill, thank you for letting us know the details of the accident. I was
concerned when I heard about it here. I hope that he is doing well.
It's astounding to me how many people ignore emergency lights and sirens. I
drive 36, and both 35E and W on a daily basis and often see people who don't
obey the rules about emergency vehicles (or buses for that matter). There have
been many accidents across the country where Emergency Services personnel have
been seriously injured or killed, because someone wasn't paying attention to
the flashing lights on the side of the road (or the lights coming up behind
them).
The problem is that there are a lot of people, especially those who grew up in
the pre-Vietnam War era in my opinion, who believe that words like
"deliberative" and "agree to disagree" are simply synonyms of the word
incivility. You and I separate out these words, but I find that most blur them
together.
I used the terms "pretty looking" and "ugly looking" in my quote. Many have a
warped belief that local government meetings should look pretty. That means no
"deliberation" which in their mind means arguing, and no "agree to disagree"
which essentially means disagreement. This warped belief is what drives many
of these local governments to do things like I referenced such as only
televising the meetings where hard decisions are NOT made.
To show the level of absurdity of this whole concept, look at Mr. Klausing's
campaign for mayor a few years ago. The statement that kept being made is
elect me and I will bring consensus to the council. I will work on team
building. He stood for no issues, no public policy goals, etc. Ms. Pust on
the other hand had issues and public policy goals as part of her campaign.
Well the public supported a campaign of consensus voting over a campaign of
issues and public policy goals.
The definition of consensus in the context that it was used was that all votes
will be 5-0. Team building, as one Roseville Review editorial writer stated,
implies group think and that everyone must conform. Heck, the staff even
brought in this character called Carl Neu who preached group think.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I look for candidates who can get
the job done that needs to get done. I could care less whether they work well
with others. As I believe Margaret Thatcher once said, consensus is the
absence of leadership.
One last thought is take a look at the new city hall, new public works
building, and the rebuilt civic center campus started in 2003. This is what
got done when you threw aside consensus and embracing what some call
incivility. Now this building should have been built 10 years earlier, but the
atmosphere of consensus accomplished nothing. In fact the city actually
removed it from long range plans thinking it was never going to happen. Then
after this project was done, the council was supposed to turn their attention
to tearing down and replacing the dilapidated Fire Station #1 in 2004. Well
where is the new fire station 5 years later? Well I guess that is what happens
when you elect a leader who ran solely on a platform of bringing consensus to
the council. Consensus is just a form of paralysis.
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
Here's the American Heritage Dictionary definition of
"consensus":
1. An opinion or position reached by a group as a
whole: "Among political women . . . there is a clear
consensus about the problems women candidates have
traditionally faced" (Wendy Kaminer). See Usage
Note at redundancy.
2. General agreement or accord: government by
consensus.
Here's the American Heritage Dictionary definition of
"civility":
1. Courteous behavior; politeness.
2. A courteous act or utterance.
Consensus and Civility are not the same thing. One is
(hopefully) the goal; the other is the primary means.
I find it incredible that people think you can put five people, all with
different life experiences, backgrounds, education, goals, beliefs, morals,
etc. and EXPECT them to always agree on every issue that comes in front of the
city council, or for that matter, any organized group.
In fact, if you do have that, you are not building consensus, you are breeding
resentment. In a political situation, the losers are the taxpayers. In
non-political situations, the losers just leave the organization.
It is healthy to debate and hash out issues. Sometimes you win, sometimes you
lose. But you will always feel better about the debate and the aftermath if
you have the debate. Debate builds respect. Shutting down debate breeds
resentment.
And why is it "bad" for people to see the debate? We should all see the
debate, understand the people's positions and thinking, their rationale, their
trade-offs. That is not an unhealthy thing. If we don't see that debate, we
don't see elected representatives fighting for us, and instead we think they
are mindless party trolls.
If you have a council that is more interested in being/appearing collaborative,
you have a council that is more interested in perpetuating themselves rather
than protecting their citizens.
- Tom
Tom, I think you hit the nail on the head.
There is a very fine line to walk when in a "group governing" situation. You
will never be able to please everyone. It is a hard line to walk.
We, as voters, have the ability to see the government in action by watching the
meetings on TV or by attending the meetings in person. We can then make an
educated decision based on our "life experiences, backgrounds, education,
goals, beliefs, morals, etc." as to whether or not we re-elect those members in
the next election cycle.
I agree that seeing the debate is a vital part of government.
Just my 2 cents.
May 19, 2008
Political Realities
My loss of innocence, politically speaking, happened when I was a senior at
the U majoring in accounting, and my fraternity decided I should become
president of the accounting club that year (it will look good on your resume).
We gathered enough brothers to vote that in, and I was so elected.
I’ve been suspicious ever since on how people get elected or appointed to
power, and how they maintain their position. When voting, we expect the winner
to represent us fair and square. Don’t count on it. People get elected to
power because of special interests promoting them with their much needed
money, and their influence. It’s expensive to fund a campaign. Money is there,
but there are strings attached. Case in point: What happened to those
Republicans who recently voted their conscience to get us a much needed gas tax
increase? They’ve been disciplined, shunned, stripped of their committee
assignments, and they will lose their party’s financial and other support. They
won’t get re elected. Goodbye ethical politician.
How does Roseville score? I believe there are powerful forces at work to get
their way, and to remain in control of local affairs. Commercial real estate
interests paid out tens of thousands of dollars during the last election to get
their pro development candidates (successfully) elected. Powerful people and
forces are at work behind the scenes to play kingmaker, based on their arrogant
assumption that they, as the elite political sophisticates among us, have the
inherent right to force their will upon us.
Tonight offers the opportunity for the politically naïve to witness this
process in action. If you come to tonight’s council meeting at 6PM, or tune
into cable, you can see for yourself how this works, under the façade of
democracy at work. Tom Kough’s dying set up an opening on the council. Many
candidates applied—some of whom would make excellent interim councilors. They,
like you, are unaware the winner has already been pre selected, and this
process is merely a routine. When you get politically connected applicants
applying by invitation of council leaders, the results should not surprise any
of us.
Welcome to the real world. Get your antennas up for the fall elections.
Figure out who is being set up, by whom, and why. You’re in for an education
in reality politics. Also, get out your checkbook, and pay for the governance
you want.
Al Sands