Post in City Council Vacancy: Selection Criteria

May 13 06:09 UTC

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