[1]: http://maplewoodmn.blogspot.com/2006/06/math-skills.html
[2]: http://www.kpmartin.com/?p=86
[3]: http://www.kpmartin.com/?p=92
Welcome, City Pages readers! You may want to start here to get a quicker summary of what my Maplewood City Council commentary here is about. Enjoy you’re visit! :)
I seem to have drawn a little more attention concerning my [recent][2] [comments][3] on political movings in Maplewood, MN. A blog has appeared yearningly named: “[What’s Left of Maplewood][1]”. (I do actually like the play on words from the apparently “progressive” blogger.) Why does the old shop-worn idea of tax/spend/regulate get called “progressive”? Marketing, I guess. Anyway, this blogger said something plain wrong about what I’d written. That’s too bad, though it hints to me the strength of their position.
Their blog writes of little ‘ol me:
> This blogger from Saint Paul [Ed: that’s me!] is mostly complaining that the newspaper researched the background of interim manager Copeland (a Republican activist), but did not dig into the background of various Democrats/progressives who were quoted speaking in support of Mr. Fursman or criticizing the new council at the meeting. His complaint is bogus. The background of a completely unknown person who has just been made the executive in charge of the city is 100% newsworthy, and the sort of thing we Maplewood residents wanted and needed to know.
My complaint, far from bogus, is plain and obvious. They “did not dig into the background of various Democrats/progressives”. Just read the article. They didn’t. My [first post][2] found that fact and the tone and language of the article odd. My [second post][3] suspected it may be on purpose, and gave reasons. Also, the “mostly complaining” comment is wrong in that I did not complain at all that Copeland drew fire, and it was much more than just the perceived imbalance that I was “complaining” about.
Now, if Copeland is “completely unknown”, then he’s not much of a “Republican activist”, is he? But of course he was not a completely unknown entity, as the East Side Review’s reporting found out. And if the blogger would do me any justice at all, he would have noted that I didn’t mind that Copeland got coverage, as I’d written…
> **This is not to say that anyone should refrain from bringing up dirt about Copeland if such dirt exists**, but I’m an equal opportunity mud slinger, and would like to see such thorough reporting on all the key players. This is not in any way to suggest Wenzel wrote a hit piece. She didn’t. But I almost felt like I could see a little of where her interest lies in the way things were written, chosen, and researched.
I just didn’t think it was fair coverage for all players, and I laid out why pretty plainly in my original posts. Which remain unassailed. I never commented that Copeland’s background wasn’t newsworthy, so that’s just a plain old mischaracterization. No, a red herring. That’s it.
Anyway, the blogger writes more:
> If Mr. Martin thinks that the background of residents who speak at council meetings should be researched and reported, he should be complete by adding Stephen Carlson (who spoke in favor of Mayor Longrie) to the list, since he was also quoted in the article. Carlson appears to be a Republican who once registered as a candidate for the legislature … with Mayor Longrie’s husband as his treasurer. The point being, the newspaper was not distinguishing between “left” and “right” in deciding who to dig up information on — it was distinguishing between “public servant” and “private citizen.”
First, kudos to the blogger for digging that up about Carlson and his treasurer. Seriously. That’s good reporting. I didn’t look because I wasn’t doing a research paper on all parties, but was simply reacting to what seemed really odd, slanted coverage of an event. Check my blog out. I’d never posted on Maplewood, the East Side Review, or any of those people before. I was the noteworthy oddness of the article that drew my attention. It seemed and seems that a conservative got unfair coverage. So I dug and found what I found. I commend the reader to simply read what I wrote and see if it makes sense.
As far as the suggested “public servant”/”private citizen” dichotomy, well I guess I’d make a couple points.
First, who those particular “private citizens” are gives an awful lot of information to the reader. All the story’s color, in fact. At least one of those “private citizens” were only private citizens because they lost their election. Folks spoke who were publicly politically active. They hold or held public offices and have expressed themselves publicly. I didn’t share phone numbers, addresses, or social security numbers. There was no intrusion into a private realm.
Simply, their public and political works and acts are public. And they inform.
Is that not also, to quote the blogger(s), “the sort of thing we Maplewood residents wanted and needed to know?”
Second, if Holly Wenzel (the paper’s managing editor) “was not distinguishing between ‘left’ and ‘right’ in deciding who to dig up information on [but] was distinguishing between ‘public servant’ and ‘private citizen,'” then perhaps *that’s* all she did poorly by failing to report the prominence of the people quoted. As I noted then, I invited her to respond, and that would have been a perfectly reasonable explanation. Though perhaps not entirely satisfying given that was only one point of interest to me.
If the blogger(s) were fair to the tone of my post, they might have noted that I said this of the “Democrats and progressives”:
> Well, you know what? There’s nothing wrong with being upset and speaking out in the appropriate forum. I think our political system works (when it does work) because opposite sides test and push each other. More power to them and kudos for being there to voice their opinion. No, I’m not being sarcastic at all.
I wrote a fair and pretty well documented couple of posts. I appreciate being noticed, but I hope in the future the blogger might be more cautious to be fair to quoted material. Or at least actually *show* my points to be “bogus” as stated instead of just casting aspersions. (I don’t think I’ve ever actually written “casting aspersions”. How fun.)
A quick note on the bloggers’ comments on Maplewood Mayor Diana Longrie’s numbers later in his post: their challenges are quite possibly legitimate, but there’s one big part which may be missing.
They may have simply decided that Fursman is not their man and he was on the way out no matter what. Including severance in that case may not be a fair way to project the numbers; it may have been an upcoming cost no matter what. Like the recycling fee on a trash computer monitor. If so, then the Mayor’s numbers are fine, as she’s hired someone who runs less than market.
For those who don’t think Fursman should have been fired, this will obviously be unsatisfying because he was let go “for no reason” (which is exactly the conclusion you may have legitimately drawn from the East Side Review’s articles). But I wouldn’t keep someone around whom I don’t trust to do what I consider a good job.
Please note, though, that I’m just noodling around a thought (thus all the qualified statements). I have no idea if that’s really how it played out.
But the seriously big news in all this? Someone called me a “commentator”.
As for “[What’s Left of Maplewood][1],” three comments:
– Don’t worry. Maplewood appears to be holding up under the crushing tyranny of the Conservatives. There’s plenty left.
– Based on Maplewood’s last election, the answer may be “*you* are left of Maplewood”! :)
– If that was you visiting my blog from the Minneapolis Club, I want lunch. :)
Just to help some people “connect the dots”. The Stephen (Steven) Carlson (R) referenced in the article as making comments in support of the Council action, is brother to former Maplewood City Council member, Dale Carlson (D), who wanted to be Mayor of Maplewood at one time – but never successfully accomplished this dream. Additionally, Dale Carlson (D) had a Will Rossbach (D) for Mayor sign in his yard this past 2005 election year when Mr. Rossbach (D) unsuccessfully ran for Mayor of Maplewood.
Here’s another interesting tid-bit, in another part of your blog, you mention the recent KSTP news clip with Dale Trippler (D) speaking about the “stalling of the Gladstone Project”. In that same news clip is a woman speaking passionately against Mr. Copeland (R)(I)(D). That woman is Alice Jo Carlson (D) – that’s right, the wife of Dale Carlson (D), a publicly known supporter of Will Rossbach (D).
Now, Alice Jo Carlson (D) is good friends with the HR Department Head, Sherrie Le, the “at will” employee who was just terminated for cause. Sherrie Le was working at Maplewood City Hall during the time that Dale Carlson (D) was on the Council and McQuire was the City Manager of Maplewood. There are a lot of stories to be told about THAT chapter in Maplewood’s history!
By the way, a visit to your blog from a Minneapolis Club internet access point probably is from none other than Peter Fischer (D), Chairman of the Maplewood Parks and Recreation Commission who is tied to Dale Trippler (D), Judith Johannesen, and Stephen Flister (D) who have their own Blog. Judith Johannesen (former nun) is best of buds with Councilmember Kathleen Juenemann (D). Councilmember Juenemann is best buds with Rep. Mindy Grieling (D).
Best Regards.
P.S. Some day I’ll be able to answer the burning questions, “Why was Fursman released?” “Why did Kelly and Fawcett suddenly resign one Friday afternoon within 2 hours of getting a very important e-mail inquiry” and “Why is the Maplewood Mayor always talking about putting conservation easements on Maplewood’s publicly owned open spaces that where purchaced with referendum money?”
Welcome back, Mayor Longrie… that’s quite the soap opera you’re embroiled in. :)
Say, I’m wondering if you can tell me…
[A] Does “Mr. Copeland (R)(I)(D)” mean he’s been a Republican, an Independent, and a Democrat?
[B] Was Fursman terminated for cause?
Thanks for commenting. It’s nice to have feedback from folks involved.
General note to readers: It occurs to me that anyone could come along and pretend to be Mayor Longrie. FWIW, the DNS for this comment resolves to Comcast Cable (an area ISP) and the email address supplied was the same as the last comment she sent, but it’s neither her public email address nor was it available here in the previous comment. It seems legit to me.
Greetings!
Will the real Mayor of Maplewood please step forward!
Yes, indeed, I am the Mayor of Maplewood. My yahoo address is posted on the City web site for confirmation. The answer to your questions above:
A) Yes, Mr. Copeland has been a Republican, Independent, and Democrat at various times of his life from what been presented to us. The League of MN Cities, in a presentation given to the Council a while back, said that a City Manager should not be “political” but should understand “politics”. Who better would appreciate and understand “politics” than someone who has been affiliated with three different parties in his lifetime?
B) No, while I believe Mr. Fursman could have been released from his employment from the City of Maplewood “for cause” (I have a folder of documentation), Mr. Fursman was not fired “for cause” because of a number of reasons including but not limited to 1) it was less expensive to release him under the terms of his contract and not have the risk of litigation and 2) firing someone “for cause”, who is under contract and has the ear of the City Attorney (let’s see, who just had a letter to the editor published about Mr. Patrick Kelly of Kelly and Fawcett?), can be tricky business and the litigation resulting from an improperly executed termination “for cause” would be extremely expensive for the Citizens and simply would create greater unrest and more “fodder” for the reporters and political machines.
On another matter, many of the past articles about Maplewood refer to a Harassment Restraining Order against Mr. Berglund that was dismissed. This Harassment Restraining Order case occurred before I married him. However, I have provided a copy of this Order TWICE to the folks at the other blog (the Dale Trippler, Judith Johannesen, Stephen Flister site). However, I don’t believe they ever posted it. The Judge talks about the Culture that was at Maplewood City Hall under Mr. Fursman’s management and that a City can not decide who they want to give information to and who they do not want to give information to – that a City CAN NOT use the harassment restraining order statute to circumvent the Data practices statute. If you want to post it, let me know and I will give this public information to you for your readers!
Hello, mayor. Thanks for the two answers.
I don’t really know much about the harassment issue you’re mentioning. A quick visit to Google cache shows me a Star Tribune article from April 8, 2006 which includes:
Is this what you’re talking about? The idea that city employees used a restraining order statute to circumvent data practices statute is interesting to me. If the public document you mention notes that, I would be interested in seeing it, and possibly posting it.
What blog or website do Dale Trippler, Judith Johannesen and Stephen Flister contribute to?
Greetings!
The “Berglund harassment restaining order”, filed June 25, 2004, addresses the issue of city employees using the restraining order statute to circumvent their obligation to provide public data as well as the culture that developed at Maplewood City Hall under Mr. Fursman’s management. The order also speaks to the credibility of the testimony given by Councilmember Juenemann and Ms. Sherrie Le at the trial. Contrary to what Ms. Le has asserted a number of times (in various instances) Mr. Fursman never testified at the trial, was he a named party in need of “protection”, nor did he personally submit an affidavit in the matter. If you send me an email (you know my email address) with instructions on how to get a copy of the order to you, I would be happy to provide the same. It is public information.
Also, in the Ramsey County Court House file for this matter can be found the Affidavits submitted prior to the trial – an interesting read for anyone with the time or interest. References to the Berglund order took up a lot of ink and space in the newspaper articles during the 2005 Maplewood Mayoral election cycle (what happened to talking about the issues and the candidates’ views and/or qualifications?). Ironically, Ms. Le continues to cite to this 2003-04 legal matter, which was between Mr. Berglund and the City of Maplewood, as “evidence”, in part, as to why she believes she was terminated from her employment with the City of Maplewood on April 11, 2006.
With regard to the Dale Trippler, Judith Johannesen and Stephen Flister blog site, they are the listed sponsors/authors of the blog referenced on the TV news story that mentioned a blog formed by community members displeased with Maplewood’s current city council. Unlike your site, if you are an elected official, a member of the elected official’s household, the elected official’s friend or neighbor, they say you can not participate in their blog and that their blog is a “documentary project”. Michael Moore, (www.michaelmoore.com) where are you when we need you?
Best Regards, Mayor Longrie
The answer to another question:
http://www.intercognition.net/mplwdcl/publichome.asp
For clarity’s sake, that link you’ve just provided is not actually the site noted in the TV story, which instead was “What’s Left of Maplewood”, noted on my blog previously. That site has two authors who are using pseudonyms.
I have been to the intercognition.com site, though I didn’t know who was behind it. Thanks for that.
As far as getting a copy of the order to me, you can email it to ken at kpmartin dawt com. (Yes, I wrote it weird; spambots have a harder time reading that.)
All this just goes to prove that citizens must be more involved with what’s going on in City Hall. I imagine after the Citypages article voters from all parties in Maplewood are feeling a wakeup call that should improve voter turnout next election.