All posts in the topic Jon Olson running for 58A (Short link)

From: Justin C. Adams Date: Jul 18 21:17 UTC Short link

I too would have preferred Peggy, and remain very sad about the circumstances
which led to her withdrawal from this race.

That said, I think commissioner Olson could mount a significant challenge.  He
has difficulties to overcome, but the people in this district deserve someone
who will return emails and phone calls, who will stand up for residents rather
than special-interest "constituencies", and who will use their committee
assignments to get progressive/liberal results rather than using them to block
any potentially controversial bills.  My more complete opinion on this subject
is available at mnblue.com <a href=http://mnblue.com/blog/259>here</a>.

I will be very interested to see issue statements and, well, his website in
general, once the commissioner gets it up and running.
    

From: Justin C. Adams Date: Jul 22 13:36 UTC Short link

Second attempt to post...

Regarding Record V. Statements, I generally agree.  Unfortunately, the park
board has no jurisdiction over issues important to me (tax fairness, a state
level solution to the healthcare mess, a vision to expand public education to
include very young learners and increase access to higher education, moving
forward with mass transit infrastructure), so the commissioner's record is of
little use to me in determining which candidate is more to my liking for state
rep.

The single most important issue to me, though, is accessibility and
responsiveness to constituents.  I don't know the commissioner's record on this
question - I haven't had much to talk to the park board about.  I do know
Mullery's record quite well, and I am open to replacing him (to say the least).
Peggy would have been a massive improvement.  If it's going to be the same
safe, moderate positions and no time for constituents, then I'll just write
myself in.  If the commissioner intends to be elected on anti-Mullery
sentiment, I think he's going to be disappointed.  He needs to provide issue
statements that show he's better than the incumbent on the issues, and he needs
to really hit the doorsteps and phones to talk to constituents.

The DFL has a great chance to control a super-majority of seats in both houses
starting in January.  Committee Chairs are going to be more important than the
governor in shaping the kind of legislation that goes through in the next
session.  It is important that we have bold leaders who are taking us in the
right direction, especially in districts with a 76-18-6 electoral result.
Mullery is o.k., but I would not ever call him a bold leader.

Regarding these video links - I have seen them both.  I do not see how they
reflect on the commissioners 'record'.

Regarding the NIMBY charge, from the video, we don't know what controversy led
the commissioners to accuse the VP of putting personal interest ahead of public
interest.  It is therefore difficult for the viewer to judge the merits of the
case.  The point this video seems to make, to me, is that Mr. Olson won't show
excessive diffidence to party elders and is willing to make his opinion known
even if it means he has to be unflattering towards respected public figures.
To me, this is a point to the positive.

Since I don't know the specifics of the controversy, but do know that the video
is sympathetic to the VP and not to the commissioners, I assume that the
specifics are left out because it would weaken our sympathy for the VP or
increase our sympathy for the position of the commissioners.

Second, in the free speech case, the woman speaker was clearly out of order.
The rules permitted discussion of the process of selecting a superintendent.
She acknowledged the rules and agreed to abide, then launched into a list of
ten problems with the system that apparently resulted from (in her opinion) the
poor leadership of the current superintendent, breaking the rules.  The
commissioners were tolerant of her brazen disregard for the rules right up to
the point where she started accusing the commissioners of violating the law -
and even then Commissioner Olson gave her a chance to provide evidence, which
she could not do.

The president or chair of a board has obligations to keep order and ensure that
the rules are followed.  In this case also, I do not know why there was not a
public hearing where this testimony would have been in order - perhaps the
personnel decision about who should be superintendent of the parks is a
question limited to the commissioners themselves, in which the public has only
a representative say.  If this is the case, the speaker could have let her
concerns about the current Super be known in a way that did not disrupt a park
board meeting, by letter or whatnot.  Accusing public officials of actual
crimes without evidence is, in my opinion, is defamatory and should not be
allowed.