Signs of discontent

About an hour after Tuesday's probable cause hearing, held by telephone conference, Mr. Hjelle sent this email to the participants:

Judge Heydinger,

After the telephone conference, I spoke with 2 board members and they concurred that while the MFA does not in anyway accept the argument about voter confusion regarding the lawn signs, the MFA has decided to take them down. They should all be down by Saturday.

Perception is everything and acting within the law should not be the "benchmark". Acting within a ethical boundary is much more important. As firefighters, we solve problems for the people of Maplewood, not create them.


Thank you.

Erik Hjelle

Have a safe day!

Several of you have sent notes or called that some 'Maplewood Police and Fire endorse Rebecca Cave' signs are gone, and as of noon today (Sunday 9/16) some were still up. Being a voluntary effort on the part of the Maplewood Firefighters Association, Inc. (MFA), who paid for the signs, it is up to the MFA if and when the signs come down. The Office of Administrative Hearings (AOH) has made no such order, and their removal has no bearing on our formal complaint.

Where the sign has come down, a new one has gone up in its place, this one paid for by 'Citizens for Rebecca Cave'. The new text is

Fire * Police**
endorse
Rebecca Cave
Maplewood City Council

The single asterisk is footnoted in tiny print at the bottom of the sign as 'Maplewood Firefighters Association, Inc. is a nonprofit organization and is not affiliated with the City of Maplewood'. The double asterisk reads 'Maplewood Police Officers Union (LELS #153)'.

While this edges back towards text more commonly seen on lawn signs, and the footnotes are both helpful and accurate, something still seems troublesome. It becomes clear when you consider what one version of an ethical, to use Mr. Hjelle's word, sign might look like. Here is a crudely photoshopped version to make the point:

[sign altered for illustration]

The top text reads 'LELS # 153* and MFA, Inc.**' leaving in references to the same helpful footnotes.

This made up version respects voters and the endorsing organizations by simply using their good names. Wouldn't that remove every ambiguity?

The question is, why don't the new signs say this?

Stephan, member of MVC