Go Brewers!

That someone is Sartell, MN.

The St. Cloud Times reports…

But in Sartell, the council has opted to omit one common ingredient.

Somewhere between the Pledge of Allegiance and adjournment, most area city councils include a public comment period. The brief segment of the meeting gives residents a chance to talk directly to council members about any topic they choose, from budget decisions to potholes.

Alone among a dozen area cities, Sartell doesn’t have an open comment period at its council meetings. Instead, the first point of contact for residents is often with staff at City Hall.

City Administrator Patti Gartland says that approach is more efficient, allowing staff to determine what type of action is required.

“A lot of the time we’re able to address the issue with the person,” Gartland said. “It may not be a policy issue. It may be an operations issue that doesn’t need council attention.”

When issues arise that do require council action, Gartland said they are placed on the council agenda.

Sartell Council Member Joe Perske said he appreciates the information that city staff provides, but he has some concerns about the system. He said getting a topic on the council’s agenda is not always easy.

“Often that never happens,” Perske said. “They’re told, ‘We can’t put that on the agenda because it’s not the right time for this topic. It will come up in the fall or the next bonding cycle. Even as a council member my requests to put topics on the agenda are sometimes dismissed.”

Whoa!

Citizens aren’t allowed to speak to the entire city council and council members requests for agenda items are denied … and the City Administrator says the system is “efficient?”

Let’s just say I wouldn’t be a very obedient citizen of Sartell if I lived there.

It is that time of year in the Pontificator’s home town.

What to do?

As the snow melts, bare ground appears.

With a hammer and screwdriver you can make the holes in the frozen tundra needed to get the stakes in the ground.

Yes, it is work. But it is the best solution I have found to this problem.

Many thanks to Kevin Underhill at Loweringthebar.Net for the following …

The author of a book about the parking situation in London (which is evidently so bad an entire book can be written about it) says that area city councils routinely issue tickets to city-owned vehicles but then dispute the tickets, requiring them to appeal against themselves in an effort to force themselves to pay themselves the amount of the fine.  Or in an effort to not pay it, I guess.

Barrie Segal wrote that in one case, the council failed to offer any evidence against itself, and then tried to recover costs from itself on the grounds that its lawsuit had been unjustified.

Parking disputes in England are resolved under provisions of the Road Traffic Act of 1991.  Motorists who want to challenge a ticket first present the challenge to the council for the area where the ticket was issued.  If the challenge is rejected, there is another appeal to an official known as the Parking and Traffic Adjudicator.  After the Adjudicator (a much scarier title than “judge,” although it seems a little misplaced in the parking context) rules on the appeal, either side may seek costs, but costs are allowed only if a party’s behavior is found to have been “frivolous, vexatious or wholly unreasonable.”

The council that sued itself was Islington, which believed (wrongly) that its individual departments had independent legal status.  In 2007, an Islington officer ticketed an Islington vehicle, but the department that got the ticket appealed.  Because the department is not a different entity, in legal terms the council was appealing a ticket it got from the council, and under the rules above, the council was hearing its own appeal.  After the council rejected its appeal, it then appealed again to the Parking Adjudicator.  But having appealed, it then presented no evidence, and the Adjudicator voided the ticket.  Feeling its appeal had been an outrageous waste of time, the council asked for costs, thus accusing itself of having acted frivolously, vexatiously and/or wholly unreasonably toward itself.  The Adjudicator declined to award costs, pointing out that “[t]he legal status of the two parties in this appeal amounted to one and the same.”

Several other councils have reportedly sued themselves as well, including one that managed to win its case and so had to pay itself the fine.

And you think your city council is screwy?

There is going to be a candidate school in Ottawa.

More specifically a women candidate school. But whatever. A candidate school for women interested in running for city council or school board.

I am all for these kinds of schools. They teach the basics and every candidate needs to start with the basics.

If I could give only one piece of advice to those students I would say…

If you lie you have to remember who you lied to and what you lied about.

It’s far easier to simply tell the truth, then you don’t have to remember anything.

Election ties happen all the time. When you scour the news for local political news like I do, you realize that tie votes are not all that unusual. It is how those ties are decided that is the news.

I was recently reading about the tie city council race in Sealy, TX.

In Sealy candidates  Mark Stolarski  and Wyn McCready rolled dice. Three dice each in their box, high score wins.

There is picking a name out of a hat.  Or picking the long match stick. Or a hundred yard dash. (Just kidding, seeing if you are still reading.)

My favorite? The good old fashion cut of the cards. But, that’s just me.

How would you want your race decided?

I have always believed that political apathy starts at the bottom. That is the citizens. They do not go to meetings when issues are being discussed that impact their lives. They do not speak up at the earlyist opportunity to provide input. I recently came across an article that challenges my theory.

It was written by someone who just refers to himself as Dan. No last name. It was written in 2002. Dan lives in Britain, but what he says could also refer to the United States. Dan believes that apathy comes from the top down. Not the bottom up.

Dan writes, “It is an inevitable end result from the transition of politics from an art form that is dominated by those who engage in politics for the love of politics, and a genuine desire to improve conditions and see good done, to cooler, colder, more calculating ‘career’ politicians, who see it as a job, like in any other company, where the goal is to keep the current party, or company, in power, without the regard to what happens in the country as a whole.

Politicians are, indeed, apathetic. They seem to have no true beliefs these days. This is sad, but also inevitable; since to belong to a major party these days is to allow oneself to be submitted to their rules – namely, you must not have an opinion unless it is that of the party. There is no belief behind their politics.”

Dan continues, “Now, if the politicians really cared and were there for love of country, then they would be more outspoken and genuinely campaign for what they think is right. But they do not, since they love their jobs far too much for that. They stay in the safety and toe the party line. They are apathetic, in short, about genuine politics.”

Dan’s conclusion is, “If politicians or other commentators bemoan that no younger people these days are interested in politics, then how can they be blamed? They should look around them – the politicians aren’t interested in politics, the politicians in power aren’t interested in the public’s wishes, and the public, in term, has nowhere to turn to get things done. They created my apathy. They must remove it.”

Dan is certainly correct. Partisan politics now permeates our government. It does not matter what the issue is. If one party supports an idea, the other party opposes it, just for the sake of opposition it seems. There is no attempt to find common ground to solve problems. The bickering is non stop. Politics as we know it today, is split along party lines. Period. Exclamation point!

Dan, you’ve made me think. I’m not ready to agree that apathy is a problem that starts at the top down. But, you definitely have made me think about it.

Yesterday I was at the State  Capitol. I need to tell you a story of one of the State Senators.

Back in the mid 80’s I was a young Mayor. We had an upstart radio station that bought some fresh voices to town. I don’t even remember the names of most of those voices.  But one of those young radio announcers went on to a successful TV news career before being elected to the State Senate.

Shortly after he was elected I ran into him. He reminded me of way back when he was a young radio announcer and had to interview the local Mayor. He never forgot  how an open and accommodating I had been to him. I vaguely, very vaguely, remembered him from that time.

It just goes to show that you better be kind to everyone coming up the ladder … you never know how high they may go.

They might become a State Senator or even more.

And it is good to have friends in high places.

I loved reading the following from the Liverpool Daily Post so much it rendered me speechless …

COUNCIL bosses are embarking on a multi-agency exercise aimed at reducing the opacity of municipal information resource materials. Confused? So are they.

In a bid to end the practice of clogging up important documents with impenetrable language that neither they or the public understands, town hall leaders are turning “jargon busters” in a bid to put plain English back on the agenda.

And, in a sign the action could not come a moment sooner, the report in which the recommendation featured contained 117 uses of words on the banned list of confusing language from the Local Government Association (LGA). The recommendation itself contained three.

As part of the effort to bring the “jargonauts” back down to earth, the council is considering sending senior officers on courses to help them rediscover the benefits of plain-speaking.

Another option is to change senior officer job titles so it is easier for the public and other council employees to understand what they do all day.

It is hoped that straight-talking will encourage more people to get involved in local politics.

It is local election time in the Pontificator’s home town. In addition to a very interesting two way Mayor race we have eight council candidates running at large with four seats vacant. Yard signs are multiplying with every passing day. It reminds me of Ole Oleson.

Ole ran for Mayor the same time I did in 1984. In addition to the incumbent there were four challengers including Ole and myself. A primary was needed to cut it down to the final two. Ole was a very popular “character” around town. He owned a small diner and was very involved in the local Elk’s Club. Everyone like Ole.

I vividly remember standing on a corner while going door to door and seeing a wave of Ole signs as far as my eye could see. On both sides of the street. I remember questioning myself “what the hell are you doing?” Ole had more yard signs than the other four candidates combined. Ole came in last place.

Yard signs don’t win elections.

I’ve never forgotten that.