Mayor Val Gets a DWI

Res ipsa loquitur:

Busted

The New Brighton mayor’s blood-alcohol level was more than twice the legal limit when a police officer pulled her over early Sunday morning, according to charges filed against her Tuesday.

Valerie Johnson admitted to the offense when she made her first appearance on the charges Tuesday afternoon at the Ramsey County Law Enforcement Center.

Johnson pleaded guilty to one count of third-degree DWI during the hearing. A second count against her was dropped.

Johnson, 60, was pulled over at Ramsey County Road E and Old Highway 8 at 1:55 a.m. Sunday by a New Brighton police officer who noted she had expired tabs and was traveling 54 mph in a 40 mph zone, legal documents say.

Johnson was slurring her speech and exhibited watery, bloodshot eyes, during the traffic stop, so she was given a preliminary breath test.

Her blood-alcohol at the time was 0.17, according to the charges. The legal limit to drive is 0.08 in Minnesota.

A few thoughts:

• If you blow a 0.17, you have no excuse. None.
• As readers of this feature know, I don't care for Mayor Johnson or her politics. I think she's been an abysmally bad mayor for any number of reasons. That stands.
• I've not personally witnessed her public behavior, but it's long been an open secret that she likes to drink and often drinks to excess. The stories have gone around town for years. Perhaps she'll learn from this. I hope she does.
• The most curious thing about the episode? I do not know how she could possibly have expired tabs. She is the mayor of New Brighton. There is a license bureau in City Hall. She would have had almost unlimited opportunities to go get new tabs. Plenty of people have trouble getting over to the license bureau. It does not compute.
• Should she resign? Maybe, but I'm not calling for it. She needs to get help, though, and soon. She could have killed someone. 

We'll continue to watch this matter. The jockeying for position could get interesting.

Your Arrogant New Brighton Overlords

We wrote about the ballot question in New Brighton last week. The city government has put out, at taxpayer expense, a voter guide that misrepresents the question. That's trouble enough. But worse, they had their propaganda posted at the early voting facility at City Hall ever since early voting began.

Several citizens noticed and brought in a lawyer, who wrote a cease and desist letter. The letter is shown below:

Election laws are fo suckas

As of yesterday, the city ignored this cease and desist letter. We'll be watching the polling places today in New Brighton to see if the city has once again put their propaganda up. If you want the corrupt regime at City Hall to get some oversight, be sure to vote Yes.

Vote Yes in New Brighton - Part Four

You may have noticed this, but in general in our politics these days, a call for civility is generally not about civility, but rather about silencing those who might oppose you.

I have lived in New Brighton for over 20 years now, and the oleaginous note from City Manager Dean Lotter that appeared in a taxpayer funded newsletter sent to all city residents over the summer was, well, stunning in its bad faith. Titled "The Efficiency of Civility," it was singularly lacking in civility and was a naked attack on a former member of the City Council, a turbulent priest. It's frankly jaw-dropping in its malice:

There is a place where civility has been improved and it’s due to you, the voters of New Brighton. Now having time to get familiar with new Councilmembers Emily Dunsworth and Graeme Allen and working with returning members of the Council, Mary Burg, Paul Jacobsen and Mayor Val Johnson, I am reminded and rejuvenated by how well opposing views can lead to better decisions when those differing views are handled professionally.

Set aside the propriety of using a taxpayer funded publication to bash one's political opponents, even though that's a crucial issue as well. The real issue is that Lotter's assertions are baked wind. As a practical matter, there aren't differing views these days in the New Brighton City Council, because anyone who might object to how Lotter runs things is effectively silenced. City Manager Lotter likes it that way:

Mayor Johnson and the rest of the current City Council have breathed a new air into the Council and staff relationship. Mayor Johnson and the City Council still ask probing questions and hold staff accountable, but they do so professionally. As a result, staff feels comfortable offering creative solutions to service or budget issues that oftentimes improve things and save money. This restored sense of civility means the City is not having meeting after meeting on the same topics repeatedly for the sake of a narrow political agenda. 

The "narrow political agenda" Lotter references is trying to ensure that the city council doesn't just rubber stamp what the city manager wants. Whether Lotter wants to accept it or not, the former council members most responsible for challenging how New Brighton does business -- Gina Bauman, Sharon Doffing, and David Phillips, along with former mayor Dave Jacobsen -- had a constituency among the citizens of this community. All these individuals spoke for me and many of my neighbors. Did these individuals, especially Bauman, cause Lotter heartburn? I'm certain they did. Too bad.

The point of the referendum on the ballot is to ensure that those of us who prefer to have watchdogs on the council have a chance to consider their credentials. The current council members were elected to four-year terms and Mayor Johnson was elected to a two-year term. They were not elected for five years and three years. By eliminating the 2019 election, these individuals have extended their terms and denied the voters a chance to exert scrutiny and, potentially, oversight over the work of Lotter and the city staff.

A yes vote ensures that Lotter and his tame overseers receive the necessary scrutiny that voters by definition exercise. Voting no on the referendum rewards malfeasance and lets the current crew get by with having an extra year in office that they bestowed upon themselves. Under no circumstances should an election be taken away from voters.

Vote Yes in New Brighton - Part Three

Every move the New Brighton City Council has made regarding elections has been, in a word, disingenuous. No matter how the matter is framed, the real objective has always been the same -- maintain power for themselves and freeze out anyone who would challenge that power. Cancelling the 2019 election has never been about saving money; it's really about making sure that certain people in the city are denied a voice in government for as long as possible.

Gina Bauman was a member of the New Brighton City Council for two terms. Gina saw her role as being a watchdog and advocate for the taxpayers of the city. She had some success in her time on the council, most notably ensuring that local government assistance (LGA) money was returned to the taxpayers, not spent on pet projects. This was always a wise stance, because it is never a given that the city will get LGA money.

The rest of the council, and those within the city who preferred the status quo, always hated Bauman for her green eyeshade and her fearlessness. They tried to change the term of office in 2015 to shorten Bauman's term, but got swatted down by the courts. Badly. So when Bauman's term ended following the 2017 election, the council immediately moved to extend terms a year. This was never about saving money, but to prevent Bauman and others who share Bauman's views an opportunity to run against the current occupants of the office. Who will rid the City Council of these turbulent priests?

It's not about saving money, of course. The City Council loves spending money and, now that Bauman is out of the way, gets to spend even more. It's about avoiding accountability for as long as possible.  A no vote on the initiative rewards the City Council. A yes vote keeps the day of reckoning where it should be.

Next:  don't bother the City Manager. He's very important.

Vote Yes in New Brighton - Part Two

A few things to consider:

If the powers that be in New Brighton have their way and the 2019 city elections are cancelled, will that mean an end to off-year elections in New Brighton?

It won't. School board elections and other off-year elections will continue to take place. The city will still have to help conduct these elections.

Why has the city been using its newsletter and producing YouTube videos to campaign against the referendum?

Because they can. No one currently in city government is willing to question the propriety of using taxpayer funds -- remember, any revenue a government entity has comes from taxes and fees it charges citizens -- to get what they want. They call this civility.

Was there ever an outcry about the horrible inconvenience of off-year elections among the citizenry of New Brighton?

Of course not. But that's never been the issue. The whole point of the exercise has always been about maintaining power for the current council.

Next: turbulent priests.

Vote Yes in New Brighton - Part One

We've spent a fair amount of time over the years discussing the stupidity and cupidity of the local government in New Brighton, Minnesota. I've lived in New Brighton for 21 years. For much of this time, the levers of power have been in the hands of the very old guard within the city, especially longtime former mayors Bob Benke and his pal, Steve Larson. While both Benke and Larson aren't particularly visible these days, their successors have continued to treat city government as a fiefdom. The city employees like the arrangement just fine, because it means they aren't ever challenged on their decisions. The city manager, Dean Lotter, especially likes it, because he has no use for oversight or accountability.

Following the city council election in 2017, the outgoing city council, for the second time, changed the election laws for the benefit of those who would remain in office. Ordinance 857 cancelled the 2019 election, thus extending the terms of the mayor and all members of the city council by one year. The mayor, who is elected to a 2-year term, now would serve three years, while the city council members, elected to a 4-year term, would get 5 years in office.

This is wrong on its face; if politicians can extend their own terms and get by with it, the opportunity to hold them accountable is fundamentally reduced. By repealing Ordinance 857, the citizens of New Brighton would not lose a vote. We're going to spend the next few days discussing all of this in greater detail.

Meanwhile, in New Brighton

The cabal that runs New Brighton got their wish last year, finally ousting Gina Bauman, the turbulent priest of the city council. And to make sure they kept things the way they wanted, they changed the terms of their election to add an extra year to their terms, ostensibly to save money, or so they say.

Our friends at Enlighten New Brighton pick up the tale:

Ever since the New Brighton City Council gave themselves a one year term extension without the consent of the voters they have been actively trying to spin the situation to defend their unethical action. Their self serving, logically tortured arguments have come up in public meetings, official city publications, and a taxpayer financed campaign-style mailing. Regardless of the venue or vehicle the arguments are tired and lame, and apparently not impressing the voters.

The Council's unethical actions have also apparently gotten the attention of the Minnesota legislature, prompting language in an Election Omnibus Bill (SF3021) that includes language that clarifies that City Councils cannot change existing terms by changing the election cycle. During the debate on this legislation New Brighton City officials passionately, but futilely, testified against this provision with their usual specious (to put it politely) arguments.

SF3021 will almost certainly pass -- both the legislature and (crucially) Secretary of State Steve Simon support the bill, so there's almost no chance of a veto, although you never know what Mark Dayton will do, since most of the time he doesn't know, either.

Leave that aside, though. The larger point is this; twice now the New Brighton City Council has tried to change terms of elections to benefit their agenda. They are about to get slapped down again. Despite this, they persist in such behavior. It's a bad situation. We're continuing to keep an eye on their shenanigans.

The Local Scene -- Big Yellow Taxi, or Whatever Lotter Wants, Lotter Gets

Following the election results of yesterday, I can safely say two things about municipal government in New Brighton:

• The city council will get along splendidly and will be spending a lot of time congratulating itself for its wisdom and courage in investing in a brave new future for our fair city; and
• The city council will be a rubber stamp for the person who actually runs things, City Manager Dean Lotter.

After 12 years fighting the powers that be, Gina Bauman will not be part of the council next year. Gina was the one person on the council who would regularly challenge the logrolling and "what am I signing, Radar?" ways of the rest of the council, especially in the last two years. Because she was regularly outvoted 4-1 on fiscal matters, Bauman hasn't been able to effect needed changes for a while now, but her efforts have meant that some of the more dubious ideas get at least a touch of scrutiny. That's gone now. You can expect a lot of 5-0 votes on the council going forward -- the incoming council members, Graeme Allen and Emily Dunsworth, are both DFL operatives and while their positions are nominally nonpartisan, there's little question they will defer to Lotter's wishes and pose for a lot of photo opportunities. I'm sure they'll have a great time.

There's more to say about this election, especially the role of the successful school board levy vote in driving the results, but the lesson is obvious -- if you go along, you get along. And as the citizens of New Brighton look at their property tax bills in the coming years, they'll understand the refrain of Joni Mitchell's song "Big Yellow Taxi":

Don't it always seem to go, that you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone.

We'll be keeping a tally here.

The Local Scene -- Endgame

The election in New Brighton is tomorrow. I honestly have no idea what will happen. For the better part of a dozen years, the dynamic in the New Brighton City Council has been Gina Bauman vs. the Machine. For a few years, I wrote for a blog called Truth vs. the Machine. The underlying premise of that blog was to detail how Republican candidates had to fight against the political machine that is the DFL. The guy who ran the blog, Gary Miller, has long since left conservative politics and is now something of a anarcho-capitalist, which historically are not two great tastes that taste great together, but back then he was on to an important notion -- the left is machine-like, especially in Minnesota.

The way the dynamic plays out in New Brighton has been fairly predictable. The key player in New Brighton isn't anyone in elected office, but rather the city manager, Dean Lotter. Lotter, like most city managers, wants to ensure he has all the money he wants to pursue whatever agenda he deems necessary, so his goal is to find citizens who will serve in municipal government as rubber stamps. There's nothing particularly unusual about this dynamic; you see it in a lot of suburban enclaves. For the past dozen years, Gina has refused the ceremonial role and has been digging into how things are run. She asks tough questions and often challenges the prerogatives of the city government and its employees. Not surprisingly, these folks dislike Bauman for it.

The other politicians who serve on the city council are lefties for the most part. The mayor, Val Johnson, is very nice as long as you agree with her, but if you don't, she gets nasty and personal in a hurry. I posted the video of her outburst at a recent city council work session last week, but a repeat seems in order:





While Val Johnson isn't running against Bauman directly, that's the actual dynamic involved. The other members of the council include Brian Strub, who shares a similar mindset to Johnson (with more emotional control). He is not running for reelection. The machine has its candidates, Graeme Allen and Emily Dunsworth, who if elected would ensure that Dean Lotter's life would be much easier. Bauman is running as part of a de facto opposition slate, along with Susan Erickson and Sharon Doffing, who is Johnson's actual opponent. If elected, Doffing and Erickson would shake things up. The other two members of the city council, Mary Burg and Paul Jacobsen, aren't up for election in this cycle, but both have grown comfortable being Lotter's pal.

If I'm reading the tea leaves correctly, the machine is set to prevail this time. While Mayor Johnson's behavior has raised a few eyebrows, most of her supporters see the world the way she does and don't mind it much if she calls people racists without justification. It adds a little flavor to the stew and makes them feel better about living in Trumpland. Bauman has fought this machine for over a decade and deserves a chance to continue the fight. I hope she gets it. And further, I hope she gets some reinforcements in Erickson and Doffing. The city is a better place if we don't let it run on autopilot.

The Local Scene -- Taxes

My kids have both attended school in the Mounds View School District. As the Star Tribune reports, the district is looking for money, and a lot of it, for building projects:

At Irondale High in the Mounds View district, the “four corners” area becomes a traffic jam during passing times, officials say. The district’s $164.8 million ask is one of the biggest in the metro area. But officials say most buildings are already beyond capacity, with another 1,600 students expected within seven years.

As a marching band parent, I've spent a lot of time at Irondale over the years. It's an old building and it's not unreasonable to ask for the money. While our taxes would go up, I'm willing to spend the money. But there's only so much money to go around, especially for people on fixed incomes. And if the school district needs the money, should the county and municipal governments make do with less? That's a question worth asking:

Inner-ring districts face a challenge, though: a core of older voters on fixed incomes for whom “yes” votes can mean a big tax hike. In Roseville, the proposal would add more than $400 a year for median-valued homes. In New Brighton, a City Council member held her tax form up to visiting leaders from the Mounds View district and said of the $400-plus bump she faces: “That’s kind of a kick, right?”

The City Council member in question is Gina Bauman, who is running for reelection this year against considerable opposition. She has long been the meddlesome priest who often stands alone against the merry spenders who make up the rest of the council, along with the mercurial mayor we featured yesterday. They would like to raise taxes, too. Some of the people on my street are original owners and have been in their houses for 50+ years. It's going to be a challenge for them to pay more in taxes. Bauman is correct; an extra $400 a year is kind of a kick. That's why it's important to choose your priorities. Can the municipal government make do with less money? They'd rather not find out.

The New Brighton Kangaroo Court -- Local Letters to the Editor Edition

I am not finding a link to a remarkable letter that New Brighton city council member Brian Strub wrote, which appeared in the Nov. 30 edition of the New Brighton Bulletin, so I'm forced to retype it here.

Every year elections would have saved New Brighton taxpayers thousands, for many years, and increased voter participation -- we had only 2,900 voters in 2015. Gina Bauman stood in the way of this common sense change and flip-flopped from her initial support for this measure after realizing that it could shorten her own 12-year political career if she lost another election.

In contrast, I proposed shortening council terms, including reducing my own, for all four council members. When was the last time an elected official voted to reduce their term in office? I did on November 10, 2015 and the ordinance passed 4-1.

In the year since, Bauman claimed support for a popular vote on the November 2016 ballot. This vote did not occur because of Gina Bauman. Just days before the legal deadline Bauman submitted a petition full of errors and mistakes. Over 30 signatures were rejected for including minors, ineligible voters, and non-residents. A number of petition signers supported the even year change but were confused by misleading labeling on the petition. If submitted sooner, the city would have been legally obligated to provide an opportunity to correct the petition errors. Waiting until the last minute took away your ability to vote on even year elections. 

Bauman's efforts to fight even year elections has distracted the city council from more pressing issues. I for one, am ready to discuss other issues that improve the quality of life in this fine city of ours.

Brian Strub
New Brighton City Council Member
New Brighton

As anyone who has followed this case knows, nearly every assertion Strub makes here is false. The findings of fact in the case before Ramsey County Judge Lezlie Ott Marek were clear. As a reminder, I republish the order from Judge Marek, which includes the findings of fact from the case, below:

So let's sum up, shall we?

1. The City did not pass the ordinance in a timely manner. For the ordinance to have been lawful, it would have needed to be passed by June 1, 2015, not November 10, 2015. You cannot blame Bauman for that.
2. The petition was not full of errors and mistakes and in fact it complied with statutory requirements.
3. The timing of the petition was indeed "just days before the legal deadline." Which means, of course, that it complied with the statutory requirement for timely submission.
4. The City improperly rejected the petition.
5. Since the City Council did not pass its ordinance in a timely fashion and also improperly rejected the petition, it was in violation of the relevant Minnesota statutes.
6. The City lost its case decisively.

Now, a few questions for Mr. Strub:

• If you still believe in saving money, are you willing to propose another ordinance that moves elections to even number years, which would extend everyone's term a year? You could do that at any time. If your stated goal of saving money is correct, why stop now?  Have you considered reintroducing your ordinance, which would be timely based on the statute?
• Speaking of money, how much money has the City spent on fighting this losing battle? Does the total exceed the anticipated savings from moving the election?
• How does your letter help to resolve the issues you and the rest of the City Council have created?
• If you are willing to shorten your term, have you considered resigning your position?

Gina Bauman had every right to pursue the remedies she pursued and she did so properly. Brian Strub can spin it any way he'd like, but the facts of the case are clear.

The Mayor of New Brighton

This Star Tribune article on the latest nonsense out of New Brighton city hall generally speaks for itself, but one passage deserves special note, as it neatly crystallizes the problem at the helm:

Instead, consultant Barb Strandell, who has worked with squabbling city councils around the region, will lead a “team-building” exercise in January that may include personality assessments.

Strandell learned how steep her challenge is at a recent preparatory session when Mayor Valerie Johnson declared: “I don’t want to walk into another meeting where the first words are, ‘You are not a dictator!’ ”

When Strandell sought to cut in with a soothing, “Well, now, just let me say …” the mayor was having none of it.

“No, I’m going to keep talking,” Johnson said. “It’s my meeting.”

Keep talking, Mayor Johnson. Keep talking.

We'll come back to this topic in the coming days.

The New Brighton Kangaroo Court Gets Struck Down Again

You might recall the case of the New Brighton City Council, which tried to move city council elections up a year, ostensibly to save money, but really to rid itself of the one person on the council who spoils all their free spending fun. I've written several pieces about the matter, all linked here.

A brief recap, in bullet form:

• City Council changes ordinance on elections. Doesn't follow guidelines
• City Council member Gina Bauman, who understands the law, works with other citizens to get a petition about the change on the ballot
• Other City Council members reject petition, censure Bauman for spurious reasons
• Bauman and other citizens get lawyer, file case in Ramsey County Circuit Court
• Ramsey County Judge Lezlie Ott Marek strikes down ordinance with great dispatch
• Other council members decide being wrong on facts and law is no deterrent to appeal, and appeal ruling

So the matter came up for expedited review at the Supreme Court this week. And the result is below:

Go home New Brighton, you're drunk (with power)

If you recall, the ostensible reason to change the elections was to save money. It's difficult to save money if the city council continues to set taxpayer dollars on fire in this pointless litigation, in which they have been defeated over and over.

This needs to end now. If the city council is really serious about saving money, they will stop litigating this case. We'll keep watching.

Meanwhile, back in New Brighton

The New Brighton City Council has, against all odds, decided to appeal the slam dunk judgment against it, which I wrote about at length. You can expect an expedited ruling any day now, which will almost certainly swat away the appeal with great dispatch. I'll have more about the ruling when it comes down -- I am having difficulty accessing the relevant documents at the moment, but they are public record and you can access them here.

The New Brighton Kangaroo Court Meets a Real Court -- Part Four, Keep It Dark

Parts one, two and three are available at the provided links.

We briefly return to the story of the New Brighton City Council. The mayor decided to have a special emergency meeting to figure out how to respond to the order from Ramsey County Judge Lezlie Ott Marek that struck down the improper city ordinance seeking to change the election cycle. You can access the meeting agenda and a video at the links I've provided, although there's not much to see, as the video goes dark after a minute. What you will note is that the meeting took all of five minutes.

If the city is getting competent legal advice, they should have been told to forget trying to appeal the order. They were wrong on the facts and the law, and they also improperly rejected a petition to set things right. If the mayor and city council attempt an appeal, they will only compound the numerous errors they have made.

We'll keep watching the events unfold.

Lightning Round -- 082916

Things keep rolling:

• Not much new to report on the slam dunk ruling against the City of New Brighton. The only things I've heard are second- or third-hand reports and I'm not comfortable with saying anything more until I know more. My sense is the folks responsible for the debacle have to go through their own Kubler-Ross process. I will continue to watch events, however.
• An alert reader pointed me to this story involving the city council of Lake Elmo. In this case, a city council member was censured twice for calling public attention to an $11 million shortfall, because in doing so he brought a spotlight on the performance of the city finance director. The situation in Lake Elmo is, if anything, even more dire than what's been happening here in New Brighton. It may not mean anything, but the reader noticed something interesting that relates to the New Brighton matter -- the city attorney of  Lake Elmo and the new city attorney of New Brighton are both the same individual, Sarah Sonsalla. As I said, it may not mean anything, but it's an odd coincidence.
• On the national scene, not much seems to change. Every day brings new evidence of corruption from the Clintons, but it doesn't seem to matter very much to the electorate, or at least those who are being polled. It's no surprise that local governments assume they can get away with anything they desire -- if corruption isn't an issue on the national level, how worked up are you allowed to be on what happens locally?

The New Brighton Kangaroo Court Meets a Real Court -- Part Three, The Strib Takes Notice

The Star Tribune takes note of events in New Brighton:

City elections in New Brighton this fall have been called off.

A judge has decided that the city’s decision last year to switch to even-year elections, changing the terms of council members, was invalid under state law.

Ramsey County District Court Judge Lezlie Ott Marek also ruled Thursday that the city’s denial of City Council Member Gina Bauman’s petition challenging the switch — on the grounds that it didn’t follow the law — was wrong. Marek said the petition did follow the law.

That's the only reasonable conclusion. But the mayor doesn't seem to get it:

Mayor Valerie Johnson said she was “disappointed in the ruling, but I have to say that I believe the city did everything properly.”

How do we put this politely? That's delusional. Strib reporter David Peterson outlines the sequence of events nicely:

The dispute stems from the City Council’s decision on Nov. 10, 2015 — a week after the last election — to switch from odd- to even-year voting, lengthen the mayor’s term by a year and reduce the terms of other council members by a year.

Bauman dissented, saying the council didn’t have the right to overrule voters on terms of office and that the question should have been put to the people.

In May, Bauman formally petitioned for a referendum. The city denied it, saying she hadn’t followed required technicalities. The judge this week disagreed, saying that she had “complied with all of the requirements.”

And let's not forget how the city council chose to handle Bauman's concerns about the change:

A dispute on the issue led last spring to Bauman’s censure by the council and the resignation of City Attorney Troy Gilchrist, whom Bauman had consulted about the petition.

Let's review what happened. The city council made a change in elections that was invalid under state law. And when they were challenged on it, they censured the council member who was challenging the rule. They subsequently denied a petition seeking redress. And when the matter was brought to the district court, the city government got slapped down, big time and the ordinance was thrown out entirely.  But Mayor Johnson thinks the city did everything properly. Perhaps delusional isn't a strong enough term.

There's more at the link. It's worth your time.

The New Brighton Kangaroo Court Meets a Real Court -- Part Two

Part one of this series is here.

We pick up the story of the New Brighton City Council's move to change the municipal election cycle, and the tactics they used to change the law. Council member Gina Bauman, who opposed the measure and who had a petition rejected by the others on the council, filed a lawsuit in the Ramsey County District Court, after advising the rest of the council that she and co-petitioner Susan Erickson, a resident of New Brighton, had planned to do so. So what happened in the Ramsey County District Court? The easiest way to see what happened is to look at the order that was entered. It's five pages long and is written in such a way that you do not need any specific legal training to understand the findings of the court. Since the order is a matter of public record, I have taken the liberty of reproducing it below.

You will rarely see an order that is such a slam dunk. While the order speaks for itself, some commentary is in order.

• I find it astonishing that the New Brighton City Council members who hatched this plan in the first place did not understand the statutes involved. Either they were too lazy to undertake even the most rudimentary search for the relevant statute, or they were too corrupt to care. The statute is clear -- you cannot entertain an election change for 2016 unless you start the process before June 1, 2015. The now-stricken ordinance was passed on November 10, 2015. The ordinance they passed was doomed from the outset.
• As the findings of fact in the order demonstrate, state statutes are equally clear on the matter of how to handle a petition. By rejecting the petition out of hand and not allowing an opportunity for the petitioners to correct the presumed defects, the council members involved were reckless at best. And one can safely surmise that if the city got legal advice from the new city attorney, they got very bad advice, indeed.
• Given the recklessness of the city council members who voted for the ordinance, it's outrageous that this same group would censure the one member of the council who raised an objection to an ordinance that was, as a matter of law, dead on arrival. As a practical matter, Bauman is a whistleblower and she was retaliated against for blowing the whistle. The three members of the New Brighton City Council who voted to censure Bauman, along with the current mayor, are the ones who merit censure or some other form of condemnation for their misconduct in office.
• I am not close enough to the matter to know for sure, but based on what I have heard, it would also be useful to determine what role the city manager played in this particular episode. While the mayor and city council set policy for the city, the manager is responsible for implementation of the policies and has a significant say in how such matters are approached. As a resident of New Brighton, I would have expected the senior member of the city's administrative staff to have considered and addressed the issues at hand, including the potential statutory requirements involved, in such a momentous change. Perhaps he did, but it doesn't seem likely.

Most of all, the whole episode demonstrates our local government officials are not serving us well in New Brighton. Wise leadership is always what we want, but at a minimum we should have competent leadership. I don't believe we have wise or competent leadership in New Brighton.

The New Brighton Kangaroo Court Meets a Real Court -- Part One

You might remember the noxious behavior of the New Brighton city government in recent months, especially concerning they way it dealt with a disagreement among its members. Following is a quick recap:

• New Brighton held municipal elections in November, 2015, as per usual. In that election, the sitting mayor, Dave Jacobsen, was defeated in a three-way contest by a newcomer, Val Johnson. Two city council members, Mary Burg and Paul Jacobsen (no relation to the outgoing mayor), were reelected to office. Two other city council members, Gina Bauman and Brian Strub, were not up for election.
• Under the city laws in place at the time, Johnson earned a two-year term as mayor, while Burg and Paul Jacobsen earned four year terms. Bauman and Strub, who were elected in 2013, would continue in position until 2017.
• Bauman, who had unsuccessfully run for mayor in 2015, has generally disagreed with her fellow council members over policy approaches. She has generally supported keeping taxes low and municipal spending to a minimum. The other members of the council like to spend money.
• At the regularly scheduled city council meeting in November, council member Strub introduced a new ordinance that would change the election cycle from the odd-number year cycle it has been on to an even-numbered year cycle, to coincide with state and national elections. The effective import of the change was to shorten the four year terms of Bauman and Strub to three years, and to extend the term of incoming mayor Johnson's term to three years, meaning elections that would have taken place in 2017 would now take place in 2016. The ordinance, which had received no public notice before Strub introduced it, was passed 3-2, with Bauman and outgoing mayor Dave Jacobsen in opposition.

Fast forward to April. Bauman, who continued to oppose the change, asked the city attorney of New Brighton to research whether a petition could be brought forth to put the election change to a referendum. The other members of the council, working in concert with City Manager, Dean Lotter, voted to censure Bauman for her impertinence in questioning their wisdom. They then went even further, removing Bauman from the local government commissions she served on as part of her city council duties. They also forced the city attorney to resign for taking Bauman's call.

Bauman, undeterred, then subsequently submitted the petition to the council at their May meeting, which the rest of the council summarily rejected, claiming it did not conform to state statute. More importantly, they did not allow Bauman to correct the error they claimed the petition had, thus killing the petition. The municipal government then went on its merry way and began work on putting the election for Bauman and Strub's seats on the ballot for this year.

The issue went to court and a Ramsey County judge ruled on the matter this week. We'll discuss what happened in greater detail tomorrow, but let's just say this -- it didn't go well for the City Council.

The Kangaroo Court at the New Brighton City Council

I've been meaning to write about what's going on in New Brighton for a while now. The Star Tribune has picked up on the banana republic shenanigans and has filed this report:

Tensions have boiled over on the New Brighton City Council after a council member was accused of using city resources for her own benefit.

After an animated session six weeks ago, the council voted to censure Council Member Gina Bauman and relieve her from her appointed positions representing the city. Bauman believes her punishment was personal — and the situation’s fallout threatens to affect the council’s cohesion and productivity.

“As you can imagine, this is a highly sensitive situation,” said Dean Lotter, city manager.

Lotter described censure as “a public shaming” and said Bauman’s temporary removal from two committees, including the North Suburban Cable Commission, “is punishment for going out and representing the city poorly.”

Censure — essentially creating a public record that an official erred — is rare, and the state provides little guidance on it, said Lotter.

So how did Bauman represent New Brighton poorly? She asked the city attorney a question:

The censure came after Bauman consulted the city attorney in a private conversation about a petition she created to challenge a council decision. That phone call, which goes against council policy forbidding council members to use the city attorney for personal matters, resulted in City Attorney Troy Gilchrist resigning.

The question concerned a petition to put a change to the election schedule to the people of New Brighton. The council, on a 3-2 vote, decided to change the election schedule, which had been on odd-number years, to an even numbered year schedule. By doing so, the change shortened Bauman's 4-year term to three, and increased Mayor Val Johnson's 2-year term to three.

The boisterous dialogue at the April 26 work session between Johnson and Bauman — who squared off in the mayoral election last fall — extended to the regular meeting afterward.

Johnson said Bauman’s concern should have been brought to a council meeting, where the attorney could have commented publicly.

Bauman said there is no rule against her conferring with the attorney on what she believes is a city issue — a November council decision to hold future city elections during even years instead of odd — and that it’s been done before.

It has. There's more

Changing the city’s election years from odd to even was wrong, because the city had just had an election, Bauman said, and residents could have voted on the decision then. The switch means Johnson will be mayor another year while council members’ terms will be shortened a year, something voters didn’t authorize. 

That's right. The voters didn't authorize it. Even now, I would wager most voters remain unaware of the change. Back to the Star Tribune:

“What they did was they negated an election,” Bauman said. 

Bauman was absent from the first meeting and work session in May. On May 13, she dropped off a petition saying the election-year change should have been a ballot question. Bauman had the required signatures — 10 percent of city voters — but the petition was deemed invalid because she didn’t meet a statutory requirement to include a synopsis of the question on each page.

Some people didn’t know what they were signing, said Lotter.

As opposed to most people, who still don't know what the city council did in November.

I have lived in New Brighton for 19 years. I was at the original meeting in November, when the change was made. Although the current mayor is involved now, she wasn't in office when the original proposal was jammed down, a week after the election last year. There was no public discussion of this change beforehand, although it was pretty evident that the other three members of the city council had discussed it. I'm guessing that sort of discussion is just fine; it certainly doesn't seem to bother City Manager Lotter nearly as much as Bauman's pursuit of a legitimate question that affects the entire city, not just Bauman. One might also ask about the propriety of a city manager publicly disparaging a member of the council that employs him, but apparently that's okay, too.

The bottom line here is that Gina Bauman has been elected three times in New Brighton and the other members of the council don't like her because she challenges their decisions, generally on fiscal grounds. The other members of the city council like to spend money and Bauman is standing in the way of their wishes. The other council members don't much like transparency, either; if they did, they would have made this election schedule change a ballot question in the first place, instead of jamming it through when they hoped that no one would pay attention. The censure of Bauman is a show trial move and frankly it's embarrassing. I'd expect this sort of behavior from the student council at Highview Middle School, although that's an unfair comparison, because Highview adheres to higher ethical standards.