olmsted county

The Rochester Ethical Practices Board dismissed a complaint against Public Works Director Richard Freese that alleged conflict of interest involving a legal judgment against his wife.

The complaint alleged that Freese did not disclose a $190,000 judgment against his wife brought by Rodney Younge, a long time developer who had projects under review in public works. (See previous postings)

The board action came after review of a report prepared by an outside investigator. The report was not available to Dr. Brad Erickson who filed the complaint. Under state law, nothing involving the proceeding becomes public unless disciplinary action is taken, according to City Attorney Terry Adkins.

Since no disciplinary action was against Freese, Erickson cannot see the investigator’s report.

Board member Ray Schmitz said that financial disclosure forms were existence and the Freese judgment should have been made clear.

Board member Kay Batchelder said she is very active in preserving her neighborhood. “It’s one of my passions,” she said, “Therefore I can understand the effort and stress that Dr. Erickson has gone through.”

Both Batchelder and Schmitz said that the private report highlighted “the sloppiness” of the city procedures for development. Batchelder said there was “lots of sloppiness.”

“The report pretty clearly expresses my concern about procedures for development, Much happens with the process which is totally opaque,” Schmitz said. “Hopefully we don’t have more investigations before city officials fully understand this.”

Following the decision Erickson provided this written statement:

“My wife and I are very disappointed that the city does not view a $190,000 loan by a developer to the wife of an influential city employee as a conflict of interest. At one point a member seemed to focus on the plural (referring to both Mr. and Mrs. Freese) and using that as a basis for dismissing the charge against Mr. Freese. However, the ordinance clearly includes family members. It is not clear what “interpretation” of this Mr. Adkins provided the EPB.

“Another comment made is that the report apparently said that the processes in place would prevent an employee from favoring a developer. At the same time, one board member said there was “incredible sloppiness” in the way the city conducts business. This seems very hard to understand. The sloppiness in the city is pervasive – that is well known. Why an employee can’t hide improperly motivated decisions by claiming ‘sloppiness’ or ‘honest error’ is hard to understand.

“While disappointed, we are not surprised with this decision, because the city attorney and the city council voted to give final approval to the project in question at the November 7 council hearing. In that hearing they announced they would not consider the matter, and would not pause the project, effectively saying they put the financial interests of the developer ahead of ethical handling of business.

“The EPB noted several times the flaws in the process as ‘teachable moments’. One important flaw that was never voiced is the conflict of interest that exists in the roles of Mr. Adkins. It is important that citizens understand that Mr. Adkins is the attorney for both Mr. Freese and the Ethics board. He selected the investigator. He wrote the scope of the investigation. He gave council to the EPB on how they should interpret the report. Only Mr. Adkins is allowed to speak to the ethics board and he claimed client-attorney privilege when we asked to know what he told the board. Only he and the board saw the investigator’s report. It is ironic that this hearing about conflict of interest failed to note the conflict of interest in the lawyer for Mr. Freese and the EPB. This is not a fair or proper proceeding.”

Also in attendance were Councilmen Michael Wojcik and Randy Staver, former Councilman Bob Nowicki, Mr. and Mrs. Tom Deboer who had his own problems with the developer and city administrators.

 Sloppiness, poor communication and customer service marked close to two weeks of efforts to resolve yet more issues with the Villas of Orchard Hills residential project in southwest Rochester.

Trying and eventually finding answers on building permits, buffer yards and new seeding were Drs. Brad and Dana Erickson. Recently the couple has put forth considerable time and effort on developer related issues including permits, violations of city ordinances and noise.

Ironically all of this new effort culminated the same week that the Rochester Ethical Practices Board dismissed a conflict of interest complaint against Public Works Director Richard Freese. (See other posting.) Brad Erickson had filed the complaint.

During the course of the ethics commission meeting, two board members Ray Schmitz and Kay Batchelder noted the “sloppiness” of city operations that the outside investigator reported.

Sloppiness was part of the problem in trying to get answers on the newest issues, Brad Erickson said. The couple was told by Randy Johnson of Building and Safety, Erickson said, to work with Doug Nelson, manager of engineering services in the public works department.  Nelson was out of town this week and not available for comment.

As part of the couple’s attempt to communicate, Dana Erickson met with Nelson. Here is how her husband summarized the session, “well, they gave Dana the royal runaround….”

Also Brad Erickson attempted to contact the mayor who did not respond.

The events started with the Brad Erickson trying to find out when the buffer between his property and a new lot would be in place.

“Most recently, we noted that the developer began digging on a lot next to us. Back in September we questioned the developer and the city on when the buffer between us and the development needed to be in place. Mr. Svenby (Rochester-Olmsted County Planning and Zoning) said the buffer needed to be established at the time the building permit was issued.”

According to an email from Brad Erickson, the developer said that he was not going to put in the buffer. But the building permits had already been pulled. Erickson said that Nelson told his wife to go to the building permits office to find out why they issued the permit.

In November Svenby approved installation of the buffer yard in the spring, according to a planning department document. But Svenby did not communicate this to anyone else. The question of trees will be decided later.

By January 20, five building permits had been pulled by the Orchard Hills developer. A host of problems were identified by Brad Erickson and within a few days were resolved. Some of the issues involved the developer not describing the planned project correctly on the building and safety department application.

Assistant City Administrator Gary Neumann responded about a week after the Ericksons started their latest round with the city with email comments on buffer yards (already discussed in this posting) and on mailbox seeding.

On mailbox seeding, Neumann said, “The public works department (Doug Nelson contact) agreed that the mailbox seeing is not adequate. They intend to have the contractor address the seeding this spring. They do plan some sod of your boulevard area.”

Questions leftover from recent coouncil actions:

Legends liquor license debate:

1. CouncilmanMichael Wojcik reported the details of the police investigation on his blog after the vote. Why didn’t he attempt to bring the discussion of the details of the report out in the open during the debate?

2. Why did Sgt. Jim Evenson suggest illegal money-relate activities involving Legends and other members of the bar community, without qualifying say with a statement about an investigation is getting underway. Why the issue was even brought up without a closed door meeting first with the police department so officials could act accordingly?

3. If there is a legitimate issue then why did the police department put the entire bar community on alert in such a public fashion and still expect cooperation?

4. Why didn’t the police chief who was sitting in the audience say something? If there is an issue, certainly his view on how to proceed needed attention.

Moratorium

1. Why weren’t the ramifications of a moratorium put on top of the committee-of-the-whole discussion list?

2. What does the ordinance say about future transfer of licenses, since those already in business don’t have to meet the business plan requirement as things now stand?

3. Why is there a discussion on a moratorium planned when only two licenses are left to be issued?

4. Is the moratorium discussion going to deal with too many bars, too many bars in a small area, or too many bars which are supplanting the space for the downtown plan’s development?

5. What is the balance between free enterprise and liquor establishments given the council’s previously expressed views on promoting business?

6. Is the revised licensing ordinance now going to be scrutinized for changes on renewals or grandfathering. Shouldn’t the city be ready and not make other applicants suffer in the same fashion as Legends?

7. Currently an applicant can’t have a license if convicted of a felony. Are there are adjudicated crimes that the council wants on the list?

8. Why is the Post-Bulletin seemingly entering the discussion fray now? The revised ordinance was available days before last week’s vote as was the police report on Legend’s Bar. The newspaper is raising good questions, but are those really focused on a moratorium?

9. Will the hospitality industry weigh-in on the debate?

10. Given actions often are judged by community values, is the standard now that the word “liquor” is a dirty term, like drugs and prostitution?

Has it dawned on anybody yet that construction season will soon be upon downtown businesses and because of that extra help will be needed to let the world know where they are?

Whenever long-term construction is scheduled for an area it’s typical to post extra directional signs, run ads saying “we are open” and maybe even have some fun, with construction related events. How about a hard-hat wheelbarrow race?

Yes, the public works department will be signing and running public service announcements. Contractors will be required to prepare for access.

Yes, the Mayo Clinic will be alerting patient-visitors so that they can function better.

That leaves the businesses.

To answer a question – no, the public works says that the work will not be staggered. It’s going to happen all at once. This week Jon Eckhoff of the Rochester Downtown Alliance said it hadn’t occurred to him that this should be done. “It’s a good idea,” he said.

A group being viewed as the official committee for promotion of the sales tax referendum will hold its first meeting this week.

The committee chaired is chaired by Jerry Williams who also headed the initial effort to decide projects that will get sales tax support.

Mayor Ardell Brede asked Williams to head the community effort. But the committee is not a city project. Under the rules established by the legislature, city officials and staff cannot discuss and/or promote a “yes” vote in the November referendum.

Because the committee is not a city effort, rules about open meetings do not apply. Williams will decide how much is said and when. No doubt many know there the sessions will be held, but no public notice has to be given about the meetings.

No public funds will be used. But City Clerk Judy Scheer said a final financial report has to be turned over to the city.

Comment: Without communications from the committee, the rumors are going to fly as to who is doing what and for what reason. Williams has a reputation for control of publicity.

But at the same time, the committee can’t broadcast strategy because opposition is expected, especially from the Tea Party.

A group being viewed as the official committee for promotion of the sales tax referendum will hold its first meeting this week.

The committee  is chaired by Jerry Williams who also headed the initial effort to decide projects that will get sales tax support. John Wade, executive director of the Rochester Chamber of Commerce, is a committee member, he said via email. Wade was a member of the original committee.

Mayor Ardell Brede asked Williams to head the community effort. But the committee is not a city project. Under the rules established by the legislature, city officials and staff cannot discuss and/or promote a “yes” vote in the November referendum.

Because the committee is not a city effort, rules about open meetings do not apply. Williams will decide how much is said and when. No doubt many know there the sessions will be held, but no public notice has to be given about the meetings.

No public funds will be used. Wade said private funds will be used. But City Clerk Judy Scheer said a final financial report has to be turned over to the city.

Comment: Without communications from the committee, the rumors are going to fly as to who is doing what and for what reason. Williams has a reputation for control of publicity.

But at the same time, the committee can’t broadcast strategy because opposition is expected, especially from the Tea Party.

Discussion on how to discuss was the last item on the city council’s committee-of-the-whole session this week.

The council has been asking for weeks for discussion time involving a number of issues, so rules were being examined on what to do.

After a bit of testy debate, the tired council members said C-O-W sessions need to be scheduled until the list is depleted.

Each council member will provide a list of discussion items to City Administrator Steve Kvenvold. Then on a meeting-by-meeting basis discussion items for the next session will be decided. One of the issues, Kvenvold said, is whether material has to be prepared in advance.

For the next C-O-W session the council will discuss the lists submitted to Kvenvold for discussion.

A liquor license approval became a showcase for the beginnings of a moratorium debate, police questions about the bar community and procedural missteps involving a newly revised ordinance.

Getting a narrow 3 to 2 approval was Legends Bar which is located in the former downtown site of Gilligan’s, an establishment that was in constant trouble with the police. Voting for approval was Councilmen Dennis Hanson, Ed Ruska and Bruce Snyder; against were Michael Wick and Mark Silverback. Councilman Randy Staver abstained because of a family relationship with Jeremy Fieseler, a Legends co-owner. Councilman Sandra Means was absent.

Hanson said Legends was facing “guilt by association. It seems we are targeting a person because of association with a bar that used to have problems.”

Hruska added, “It’s time to allow them to move forward.” Hruska said, “We don’t like to see bars showing up at city council meetings. We hope they are out doing their thing.”

The Legends application was the first done under a revised ordinance requiring greater detail including a business plan with the financial data. The police department and city clerk’s office asked for clarification of the ordinance in order to better evaluate applications.

A police department investigation has always been part of the city’s liquor license application process.

Hanson noted that no other businesses have faced this level of scrutiny. Existing bars will not have to meet the detailed business plan requirement.

In response City Attorney Terry Adkins said, “We are asking for proof that they have the financial ability to carry out the plan.” He said the difference in application requirements between bars and other businesses is the liquor.

Fieseler said that several attempts to meet with the police department were unsuccessful prior to this week’s session.

Sergeant Jim Evenson said he didn’t see a need to meet with Legends until the license was approved. Even with the approval he said several questions remain as to the Legend’s financial resources. Rochester Police Chief Roger Peterson was in the audience but did not comment.

Fieseler said that he had bank records with him which he did not know before he had to provide.

Evenson’s concern, he said, that with so many bars now unfavorable financial resources from outside can come.

The department’s investigation also raised questions for Wojcik. But in what might be viewed as another misstep, the details were not discussed in detail, thus leaving Legends again with innuendo and open to questions and gossip. (See previous posting.) The investigation is a public document, according to Adkins.

Mike Belknap, a neighbor to the Legends bar, had some strong words for the council.

Belknap said he “really believes in the vision of downtown.” But the council doesn’t have to give a license anybody, he said. Belknap said that 11 establishments in a three-block area “sets up the cops for babysitting.”

“What is the city council saying” Is it that this three block area is not coinhabitable with the downtown plan? The tell us and we will change.”

Later in Monday’s session, the council discussed issues that members want on coming agendas. The question of whether a bar moratorium being first on the discussion list was hastily put aside, at least for the time being.

1. The public transit program monthly expense summaries  are now available for entire year in public works. Time will be needed to reconcile and audit the figures. But Tony Knauer has suggested that the final final numbers will be available in a few weeks. In other wards don’t come looking for them now.

But does Knauer remember that the at least some members of city council just might want to look at the numbers before the next contract signing? How many weeks is a few weeks? Of course, this assumes that concerned council members might feel homework is necessary before  the July 1 start date of the new contract.

2. Do we all know that the Mayo Civic Center is a triage center in case of an emergency?

3. Two-way radios:

Within the last year, the public transit buses have upgraded their radios. Before drivers could not communicate across the city with each other without a relay. Now that is possible. Other bells and whistles allow communication functions never before available.

Also within the last few months the police department has upgraded their radio capabilities.

And finally the Mayo Civic Center has done the same thinig with Homeland Security Department funds and assistance from the police and city emergency management. The previous radios were at least 15 years old.

4. Mayo Civic Center Manager Donna Drew reminded advisory committee members that activities will substantially pick up even later this month. The public can see who is using the MCC on the website. But even with that it was alsmost surreal to have only one group using the entire facility on Jan.19. The group? The MCC advisory committee.

5. The Rochester Public Library has trained 330 E-book owners since Christmas and are gearing up to do more. Check the library website for the schedule. Another sign of the value of the library to the city.

It’s January in Rochester and it’s hard to describe what is going on.

Active, out-going, boisterous and similar words don’t apply.

Despite more local reports of the economy looking up, signs of just the opposite have been seen. Downtown businesses are moving out, consolidating or now telling the world how badly new income is needed.

No doubt many downtown businesses may not know or don’t comprehend yet the negative impact a full 2012 construction season will have. How is the Downtown Alliance gearing up to aid its members during construction?

Is the cost of health care catching up to local businesses? The Mayo Clinic’s patient census may still be high but are folks spending less when here?

The political season is now in full-swing. Does this explain the atmosphere? By the nature of politics strategy sessions are held behind closed doors and off in corners of large rooms. Interruptions are not tolerated, please.

Adding to the atmosphere are the future of the Mayo Civic Center and the renewal of the local sales tax. The latter is prompting a level of wariness – questions about what should be said carefully to whom. City elected officials and employees are not allowed to talk about the sales tax.

In the total mix is the weather not helping? Of course Minnesotans adjust when the weather changes.

Then there is the gossip which is the fuel that operates the city. What might be the headline for the next day can spread throughout the city overnight. The speed involved is amazing. What is even more amazing is the level of personal information that is included in this gossip.

Is the city going to change again – with the weather or the end of the election season? We will have to wait and see. In the meantime, it’s going to be a long, very long 2012.