Issue of the week(4): Costs of reorganization - unions

It pays to procrastinate, at least now and then. This issue was to in part be about the relationship of the council majority to the city’s unions. John Nephew, in his response to the St. Paul Building Trades endorsement questionnaire, has said everything that needs to be said:

This council majority and their city manager have actively worked to undermine unions and workers' rights.

After city department heads and other managers petitioned to form a bargaining unit last year, the city manager announced a reorganization that effectively demoted everyone who was a member of a bargaining unit or union, by creating a new layer of managers above them. His original draft said the reorganization was needed, “given the action by department heads to vote to form a labor bargaining group in October 2006.” This language was quickly edited when observers noted that it appeared retaliatory on the face of it. Around the same time, the city manager rewrote the city employee handbook in order to reduce employee rights (for example, removing the “just cause” standard for dismissal, eliminating an employee's right to a hearing to respond to allegations used to justify dismissal, and adding “Reclassification or Elimination of Positions” to the list of actions that are not grievable).

The city's Human Resources director, who had led the formation of
the Maplewood Confidential & Supervisory Association, was fired last August. In the report that was used to justify her firing, there were numerous comments criticizing her performance on the grounds that during her tenure, negotiations with city unions resulted in agreements without ever having to go to arbitration. In effect, her ability to help create a cooperative environment with city employee unions was seen by this council majority as a major flaw.

In a later question he concluded:

I do not see any current city function that would benefit from contracting out or privatization. On the contrary, I think we have gone too far by outsourcing Human Resources, for example.

Issue of the week(3): Citizen Commissions and Boards

You open the letter from the Red Cross. It says in big red type, “You will no longer be permitted to donate blood. You were seen at the opera.”

It’s not a Monty Python sketch; it’s the Maplewood City Council majority refusing to reappoint a citizen with over twenty years of professional water quality management experience to the newly elevated Environmental and Natural Resources Commission. Who knows what some of them were thinking, but Mr. Hjelle expressed his view: “you cannot be on the Environmental Commission because you drive a gas-guzzling Porsche.”

That kind of pretext was not used when the council majority refused to reappoint a citizen to the Maplewood Police Civil Service Commission (PCSC), even though she was the only applicant and had served well and honorably. What she had done, again according to Mr. Hjelle, was participate in the commission action ordering the city to reinstate Deputy Chief Banick. The PCSC receives its authority not from city ordinance but from the state statute that creates and regulates police civil service commissions. The PCSC reads that statute as giving civil service commissions the sole authority over hiring and firing police officers. This authority was ignored by the council majority in its reorganizing Deputy Chief Banick out of a job.

The Parks and Recreation Commission Chair had two opportunities to interact with the council and city manager at a recent council meeting. During the discussion of the 2008-2012 CIP (Capital Improvement Plan) which eliminates most park spending and radically changes the priority of what park funds were left, Mr. Copeland accused the char of being ‘disingenuous’ for having pointed out the Commission’s CIP recommendations had not been included in the council document packet.
The packet did, however, include something else -the Commission's annual report. The chair had to wait until the end of the meeting to present the report to the council, since the majority had earlier refused to rearrange the agenda. The final item in the packet was a staff memo attached to the Park Commissioners' report that countered their recommendations. The memo was signed by the two senior staff members who now oversee the functions transferred from the dismantled Parks Department This unprecedented process likely had Mr. Copeland's blessing as he controls what is in the packet.

The council majority is fond of pointing out that the various commissions are advisory. They are less likely to mention the difficulties there have been finding enough citizens willing to be put in such positions. Try as they may, they have been unable to keep the commissions at their authorized levels.

Perhaps a new council appointed by voters this fall would have less trouble appointing commissioners to this opportunity for public service, and then listening to what they have to say.

Complete printable newsletter - Issue 3 [pdf]

Next Issue: Costs of reorganization

Issue of the week(2): Politicizing the Maplewood City News

If we all use our votes wisely, come January we can look forward to once again receiving useful resident information in the City News, rather than the self-congratulatory campaign literature we get now. Ms. Longrie and the other members of the council majority have co-opted the $4,600 monthly public expenditure to print and mail the City News to every resident household. This may have become easier once the publication's editorial board was abolished in summer 2006.

The May 2007 issue provides a recent example of what you pay to read. Mr. Rossbach wrote a short column briefly explaining the process for developing the city's Comprehensive Plan and invites citizens to get involved. Mr. Hjelle used substantially more space to attack prior councils, the previous city manager, Mr. Rossbach, Ms. Juenemann, the planning staff and consultants who developed the Gladstone master plan, the Police Civil Service Commission, the City of St. Paul, citizens who disagree with him, and the press. Mr. Bartol, whose candidacy had not then been announced, was praised. Ms. Longrie used the most space of all, including two pictures of herself, to tell us what a wonderful job Ms. Cave is doing throwing open the cable TV doors.

Perhaps the most disturbing example was the November 2006 issue, in which Mr. Copeland published a misleading chart depicting Maplewood senior staff as overpaid compared to other metro public employees. The article was subsequently used to demonize the staff in preparation for the reorganization incorporated in the 2007 budget proposal. Listening to the November 13, 2006 city council meeting provides a good example of this demonizing. Aside from the inherent disrespect for the staff he leads which Mr. Copeland displayed in the article, the apparent intent was to divide Maplewood residents. This was done by exploiting the resentment some people feel when they learn others are more highly compensated. Mr. Copeland only talked about salary cost. He ignored qualifications, experience, and productivity.

Using the City News this way is improper in and of itself. But it is also an example of an even larger problem: the council majority's habitual practice of ignoring the role of process in providing sound public service. Instead, they implement personal desires.

Behavior like this from elected officials is not what we mean when we say rule of law. The only way in a democracy to stop the council majority from acting this way is to replace the council majority.

Complete printable newsletter - Issue 2 [pdf]

Issue of the week: Professionalism

Under the watchful eye of the Maplewood Police Civil Service Commission, candidates for Police Sergeant must meet a stringent set of qualifications before they are allowed to undergo the examination process for appointment.

Potential candidates must be POST (Police Officer Standards and Training) certified, have several years experience as a police officer, and hold a minimum of an associate degree in a closely related field plus 45 quarter credits. Only if they meet those qualifications are they invited to participate in examinations. The examination process includes a written examination; a promotability assessment by department sergeants and lieutenants; and an oral interview in front of a board that includes officers from other police departments. This series of examinations produces a ranking which insures the position of Police Sergeant is only offered to the most qualified candidate available.

In contrast, the current council majority has created a situation in which that police sergeant's ultimate superior, the city manager, the person in charge of public safety for Maplewood's 35,000 residents, is not required to have any qualifications or any experience at all. Nor is that individual required to undergo any examination, review, or interview process whatsoever. Nor is that individual selected from a pool of candidates generated by a professional search process.

The process created by the current council majority could not be more simple. It has one step. The city manager is appointed by a majority vote.

There is only one way that process can be changed so that Maplewood's City Manager is at least as qualified as a newly appointed Police Sergeant. Voters must change the council majority and demand of the new council a process that will lead to a professional city manager.


Complete printable newsletter - Issue 1 [pdf]

Election 2007 Newsletter - Welcome

Welcome to the MVC Election 2007 Newsletter
Each week we will publish a one page letter discussing a topic and announcing events.

The entries will be posted here with a notification sent to the Newsletter email list.