Category: Archives

“Minnetristagate” Update

MinnetristagateI’ve received a lot of inquiries about the status of the Minnetrista campaign finance violations alleged against Minnetrista’s mayor, 2 sitting and one past councilmember and leaders of the “Our Minnetrista” organization. A three judge panel heard testimony by all the Respondents and Complainant during an evidentiary hearing that lasted two days (May 7 & 8, 2019) at the Minnesota Office of Administrative Hearings in Saint Paul. Closing statements are due today, Friday, June 7, 2019, and a judgement will follow within two weeks.

Why Minnetrista needs a staff city engineer

A 178 page document, written by the city’s contract engineering firm, WSB Engineering, was provided to council members less than 2 business days prior to the council meeting on March 18 where we would be asked to approve the plans and specifications for Minnetrista’s 2019 street improvement projects that will cost the city over $800,000 this year. This Plans & Specifications document lays out the engineering specifications and bidding requirements for the year’s road projects. Would it surprise anyone that this document was never reviewed by a qualified, impartial party?

I asked our legal counsel if he had reviewed the 178 page document and he indicated he had not. I expressed a concern that none of our council members are engineers, qualified to assess whether or not these plans and specifications should be approved, nor do we have anyone on staff qualified to review them (other than WSB, the contractor that wrote them). My concerns were minimalized by our City Administrator who essentially said we should trust our contract engineering firm, WSB, who authored the document, to review it on our behalf. In my opinion, that would be appropriate had they no financial interest in the street improvement projects. But. They. Do.

I voted not to approve the plans and specifications. However, the rest of the council approved them, regardless of their ability to understand them. I wasn’t surprised by this, nor was I surprised that the concerns I voiced during the March 18 council meeting were not mentioned in the meeting minutes. I  requested the minutes be amended to accurately reflect the concerns I raised.

Minnetrista needs a staff city engineer without a financial interest in the engineering projects required by the city. That doesn’t mean we wouldn’t contract with outside engineering companies when necessary. It means we would have confidence our decisions prioritize Minnetrista residents’ interests over city contractors’.

 

 

Judgment due mid-June for “Our Minnetrista” candidates

The evidentiary hearing concerning the alleged campaign finance violations of the “Our Minnetrista” organization and the candidates they supported in the 2014 and 2018 elections concluded Wednesday, May 8, 2019. Testimony began the morning of Tuesday, May 7 and was heard by three Administrative Law Judges with the Office of Administrative Hearings in St. Paul, MN. Final arguments to be submitted in writing by both the Complainant and Respondents are due June 7, 2019 and a final judgement will be issued approximately 14 days following.

Audio recording of testimony is available to order from the Office of Administrative Hearings (Case# 71-0325-35774) https://mn.gov/oah/media/media-contacts.jsp

 

“Minnetristagate” Update

Coined “Minnetristagate” by the Center of the American Experiment writer, Tom Steward, the Minnetrista campaign finance violations matter, justice scalesinvolving the current Mayor, two current and one past council member and leaders of the Our Minnetrista organization, has been scheduled for an evidentiary hearing May 7. The Administrative Law Judge issued an order denying Respondents motion for a summary disposition on all but one minor allegation having to do with providing literature disclaimers.

The complaint, filed with the MN Office of Administrative Hearings, deals with allegations of campaign finance violations against the Respondents occurring during both the 2014 and 2018 Minnetrista city elections. An excerpt regarding the 2018 elections from the Judge’s order on page 8:

“Our Minnetrista engaged in all of these activities without ever being identified as a source of the funds on the candidates’ campaign reports.  Though Respondents maintain that Our Minnetrista acted as the campaign committee for the candidates, Mortenson and Tschumperlin’s financial reports were filed as candidate reports, rather than campaign committee reports, further obscuring Our Minnetrista’s role in the candidates’ campaigns.  Additionally, the funds expended by Our Minnetrista greatly exceeded the $600 contribution limit.” 

Minnesota Office of Administrative Hearings Media contact: https://mn.gov/oah/media/media-contacts.jsp

 

 

Rubber Stamp rides again

RUBBER STAMP RIDES AGAIN. Apparently Minnetrista council members are fine voting to update city policy without knowing what the updates are. In a 4-1 vote last night that’s exactly what happened. rubber stampUnder the consent agenda at our council meeting was an item updating the city’s Post-Issuance Debt Compliance Policy. In the policy/backgrounder (pg 30) provided there was nothing summarizing what was being updated and council was not given the changes in any form where we could see what, exactly, was being changed. Call me crazy but I said I couldn’t vote to approve updates without knowing what they are. The Mayor felt otherwise and indicated that as long as the finance director and city attorney had read it, that should be enough for council. I was cut off when I attempted to remind the council that approving city policy is the council’s job, not the job of city staff. Apparently not in Minnetrista.

Minnetrista campaign violations update

MINNETRISTA CAMPAIGN VIOLATIONS UPDATE: No judgement as of yet but Respondents in the case, which include Minnetrista Mayor Lisa Whalen, two present council members (Mortenson/Tschumperlin), one past council member (Thoele) and leaders of the “Our Minnetrista” organization, have admitted that contributions recorded as coming from individuals actually came from “Our Minnetrista” and were deposited into “Our Minnetrista” accounts, not accounts belonging to the candidates themselves as their disclosure reports showed. Subpoenaed bank records also showed many of the contributions to “Our Minnetrista” far exceeded the $600 statutory contribution limit. The scheme involved taking contributions that exceeded the limit and dividing them up among the candidates and recording them as multiple smaller contributions.

Bar Chart comparison 2014-2018 Contributions and ExpendituresThe scheme managed to go undetected for years until a banking regulation required that checking accounts opened under an assumed name had to be registered with the Secretary of State’s office. The discovery of the registration of “Our Minnetrista” as an assumed name led, among other findings, to the eventual filing of the complaint.

Both Complainant and Respondents have requested a summary disposition in the case. The Office of Administrative Hearings is reviewing the case but has not yet ruled.

Media contacts: https://mn.gov/oah/media/media-contacts.jsp (OAH case# 71-0325-35774)

GreenStep Cities Red Flags

GREENSTEP CITIES RED FLAGS: Mayor Whalen invited a representative from the GreenStep Cities program to address the city council last August. Enticed by the lure of recognition and their seemingly benevolent mission, “Minnesota GreenStep Cities is a voluntary challenge, assistance and recognition program to help cities achieve their sustainability and quality-of-life goals,” it gained legs with staff and was advocated again at the city council’s strategy meeting in February.

When the GreenStep representative was asked last August about where their funding came from they said it was primarily nonprofits, foundations, and grants. What they failed to disclose is they have two major funders, one of which is the Met Council. And we all know the Met Council’s allegiance to local government autonomy.
GreenStep Met CouncilRed flag number one: Not being transparent when asked a direct question about funding sources.

In conversations over the weekend I learned from one of our state legislators that the GreenStep Cities program is “Repackaged from what was formerly known as Agenda 21 (for the 21st Century) GreenStep appears to be an obfuscated friendlier name for the same thing.”

Those unfamiliar with the United Nations Agenda 21 need only know it didn’t receive a warm welcome in the United States, with states passing resolutions condemning it and one even passed legislation prohibiting government involvement in the program.

Red flag number two: Changing the organization name when it’s reputation is exposed as undermining federal, state, and local autonomy.

The GreenStep Steering Committee is comprised of representatives from several nonprofits that are all climate change evangelists working together with the University of Minnesota, League of MN Cities, and various state agencies.

GreenStep Steering CommitteeRed flag number three: Human caused climate change is a controversial topic and there is no diversity represented on the steering committee.

This is not a program that will benefit the Minnetrista electorate. In fact, the sample ordinances they provide to cities appear to be designed for more government control over building regulations and private property use.

No award from the League of MN Cities is worth this.

 

 

 

City funds to subsidize tree sales for personal use?

treesSHOULD MINNETRISTA PUBLIC FUNDS BE USED TO SUBSIDIZE THE SALE OF TREES TO RESIDENTS FOR PERSONAL USE? Let me think about that. NO! This was discussed Monday night and will be the subject of an upcoming city council work session. Post your comments below. I’m interested in what residents think.  Here’s what I think: There are three legitimate roles for local city governments: 1) Infrastructure, 2) Public safety, and 3) Planning/Zoning (which includes public parks & recreation). Helping residents buy trees for their own personal use is not one of them.

When a city begins to stray from it’s core mission we begin to see the neglect of those critical services. There is no end to the things people want for their own personal use. Using public funds for anything other than our core mission invites higher taxes, entitlement, and is not good governance…in my humble opinion.