Mound Elections

This entry was posted on 11/15/2006 3:23 PM and is filed under uncategorized.

Trackbacks

• No trackbacks exist for this post.

Comments

• 11/15/2006 8:36 PM Ray Salazar wrote:
  I was present at the Mound City Council meeting of November 14, 2006. I witnessed, several people, business owners citizens and city employees that live here all expressing their dismay with the proposal made by Mr. Osmek for an inquisition into the legality in the state statute of Mr. Skinner serving as City Councilman. As it was explained, this inquisition will be performed by the Minnesota Attorney General. Bruce Dodds as well as Jeff Anderson and other good citizens questioned the timing, as this should have been done prior to the election. I agree. Mr. Skinner filed for candidacy as we all did including myself. The inquisition should have been done immediately, not after the election. The city attorney was contacted on the 13th of September and the city attorney explained some conflict may exist. Nothing was done and/or requested until now. Whether or not you voted for Mr. Skinner, it is very disturbing and upsetting that this is happening now. This inquisition will not only cost the city money, but will embarrass both the city as well Mr. Skinner. Futhermore, Mr. Skinner spent his own money and time in his campaign and now, after the election the question arises? Mr. Skinner won the race fair and square like it or not. At this point the inquisition with the Attorney Generals office upon the legality of this within the Minnesota statute smarts of "Sour Grapes", "Do Overs", "juvenile 4th grade behavior". I shudder to think what surrounding cities such the city of Minnetonka thinks of this type of behavior going on here in Mound.
  Reply to this
• 11/16/2006 10:05 AM David Osmek wrote:
  Oh Ray, its better to park your emotions at the door and think for a minute about the issue. Or perhaps you were too busy listening to the well-organized lynch mob.
  
  First, the “opinion” that was rendered on September 14th was a hastily prepared eMail by the City Attorney, where he states: “So, I think that this is an open question that should appropriately be submitted to the Attorney General for an opinion.” As you will remember from last Tuesday’s meeting, I mentioned that even requesting that opinion (which would have been rendered smack-dab in the middle of the campaign season) would have created doubt in the minds of the voters and unfairly influenced the election against Mr. Skinner. Knowing now that he won by a scant 15 votes, I don’t think there is much question that the publicity of a legal inquiry would have cost Mr. Skinner his victory. It is also much more fiscally responsible to ask for the opinion only if Skinner won, as losing would have made the point completely moot.
  
  Did I ask for the AG’s opinion? Absolutely. Why? One of my primary responsibilities as an elected official is to ensure that the City operates legally and our liability for being drug into court is minimized to its fullest extent. Not only does an AG opinion create an insulation to possible legal challenges, it also clears all the questions regarding conflict-of-interest, incompatibility of office, and proper adherence to state statutes. Read the last sentence of State Statute 412.661 and tell me that we don’t need some legal ruling, knowing that Mr. Skinner has almost a dozen people reporting to him.
  
  The point is I want Mr. Skinner to take office with all questions answered and all road blocks cleared. Its not “sour grapes”…after all…I won. It’s making sure the City and Mr. Skinner are protected, and the AG opinion does exactly that.
  
  Ray, next time…don’t run with the crowd, but think on your own. Listen to what people say and do a little research on your own. And true leaders stand up in the face of a lynch mob to do the right thing, even if that’s unpopular.
  Reply to this
• 11/16/2006 10:26 AM David Osmek wrote:
  I do have a question for you, Ray:
  
  The addition of the agenda item for the AG opinion was requested, by eMail, by Kandis Hanson on Monday 11/13/06 at 5:24pm. It was not on the original agenda, not published in the Laker, not even on the City's website. Adding an agenda item requires (by Roberts Rules of Order) a unanimous vote.
  
  If you remember, Mayor Meisel opened that item (added as item 7A) by saying: [But before we start, I KNOW there are citizens present that wish to speak on the subject.] Go watch the tape, Ray. Then the parade of the lynch mob commenced.
  
  Ray, how did Mayor Pat Meisel "know" that there were people present to speak on this? Is her gavel actually a magic 8-ball or can she read minds?
  
  And, just for the record, the Council voted 3-1 (Brown abstaining) to request the AG opinion. In the end, even Pat Meisel had to agree that protecting the City and Mr. Skinner from future challenges was the right thing to do.
  Reply to this
• 11/16/2006 11:54 AM David Osmek wrote:
  Also, Ray, considering the item was not published ANYWHERE, added by a request only 26 hours before...by an eMail which was only sent to the Council, Councilman-elect Skinner, and Mayor-elect Hanus...how could all these "good citizens" even have known about he agenda item? And Ray, when you look at the videotape, how could the third person to the podium have a prepared statement or notes to read from?
  
  Incidentally, adding agenda items is rather routine and happens nearly every meeting. But when that happens, the meeting minutes reflect the information and the meetings are aired for the Public to see.
  
  So I ask you, Ray...how did these people find out BEFORE the item was actually added to the agenda? It wasn't public knowledge until 7:35pm, when we approved the agenda. And how does somebody come up with prepared statements to read BEFORE the first public knowledge of the agenda item is even made?
  Reply to this
  1. 11/21/2006 6:45 AM Jeff Andersen wrote:
     First off Mr. Osmek let me offer my opinion on your latest blogs. You speak of "organized lynch mobs" Let me first respond to THAT. You seem to be confused as to what a lynch mob is .......... perhaps we can compare it to yours and others persistent hammering of a former Council Member who have to have his own ideas and opinions. Is it  that he or others don't share your point of view then they become open targets for your wrath.
         Having said that,  it is also my opinion,  from all that has been said in the community,
     that the tactics of "Team Mound" are very questionable at best. Let's talk about your unstated, very organized agenda .............
         #1 - Already  in progress
         #2 - Have Mayor-elect Hanus appoint you to be " Acting Mayor " ..... once he takes office .
         #3 - Have Mayor - elect Hanus move you away from the " exit seat " and more to the middle of the Council table ........ for obvious reasons .
         #4 - Yourself and Mayor-elect Hanus appoint your choice to fill the  vacant seat ( if agenda #1 plays out in your favor ) .
         #5 - Can only take place if #1 and #4 take place .
         #6 -  Establish a Council  majority that are only  there  to self serve .... i.e. a 3-2 , get  my meaning .
             If anyone is well orchestrated Mr. Osmek it would  be you and your pals.
             It is my opinion Mr. Osmek that before you declare yourself a true community leader you must first educate yourself on the meaning of "Serving the Public",  NOT be self serving as you have  demonstrated .
     
     Reply to this

Leave a comment