Tag Archives: duluth politics

We Now Speak Ojibwe: Duluth School Board Notes, 2/26/14

The ISD 709 School Board convened on a frigid Duluth night for its February meeting Tuesday night, and got right down to business. Chair Miernicki called upon himself as the first citizen speaker, and left his seat to address the Board as a citizen. He did so to acknowledge the passing of local businessman and political activist Charlie Bell, and in particular thanked Mr. Bell for his efforts to push through the renovations to Public Schools Stadium, in addition to his work on other pro-education campaigns. After returning to the dais and thanking himself for his comments, he called up the next speaker, a bus driver who came forward to decry the District’s management of disciplinary issues on school buses. She called the disciplinary procedures “inconsistent,” noted a time lapse in school action, and noted at least one serious case that had gone unpunished. She requested supervisory helpers on troubled routes and an updated, clearly established policy in the district handbook. Next, four speakers pushed the implementation of an Ojibwe language immersion kindergarten class starting next school year; two addressed the Board in Anishinaabe, and two talked up an immersion program at UMD that had been a positive experience for their relations.

During the Superintendent’s update, Supt. Gronseth celebrated the District’s climbing graduation rates and falling achievement gap. He announced that the District was accelerating a 4-year plan to better align curriculum with state and national standards, and hoped to have a plan in place by the summer. The Board also thanked a representative from Kwik Trip for a donation to the District.

Member Harala then delivered the Education Committee report, explaining each of the items in detail. The Board decided to table the addition of several weather-related make-up days to the school year, as there are still negotiations going on there, and there is also a very real chance that more school days will be canceled in the coming weeks. Four other items on the Education Committee report inspired some debate, though all were approved unanimously.

While he supported the measure, Member Johnston had some qualified critiques of the plan to establish an online schooling program through the alternative Unity/ALC High School. He reminded everyone that computers are not replacements for teachers, and worried that, if not implemented properly, the program would leave “a whole bunch of students somewhere out in the ozone.” He added his worries about over-emphasis on “digital stuff” and talked about getting “kids outside boxes and playing in snow.” Chair Miernicki agreed with Member Johnston (prompting some humorous shock on his part), saying he’d seen how Unity teachers can turn lives around, and Member Harala also agreed with these general sentiments.

Member Westholm took a few moments to talk up the Scott Anderson Leadership Forum, for which the Board had filed a grant application. Member Welty had some good things to say about a plan to re-do the Administration’s organizational structure, and brandished several intricate charts while ribbing Supt. Gronseth about his position on said charts. Members Seliga-Punyko and Harala had some minor questions that Supt. Gronseth handled, and after that, it was on to the Ojibwe language program. Member Seliga-Punyko wanted to know what would happen if not enough students signed up, or if funding sources dried up. Supt. Gronseth replied by saying that kindergarten classes could handle relatively small class sizes, and said there were numerous streams of revenue available. (Right now, the District will pay only for the teacher.) Member Seliga-Punyko also wanted to know when the District will choose a school for the program, and suggested it would be best to use one of the less full schools, such as Myers-Wilkins or Laura MacArthur; when called forward, Supervisor of Indian Education Edye Howes said that decision process would begin immediately after approval. She also told the question-filled Member Seliga-Punyko of her experience visiting a K-5 immersion school that saw over 90% of its students pass standardized tests. Member Loeffler-Kemp thanked Ms. Howes for the research and focus on the budget that had gone into the planning process, and its unanimous passage brought a spurt of applause out of the crowd.

The HR Committee Report sailed through without any holdups, and the Business Committee report was also handled with relative ease, despite its length. Member Welty had a few questions for Business Services Director Bill Hansen on the financial report, but their technical nature had Chair Miernicki suggesting the two of them meet one-on-one. Member Johnston said he’d like to hear these questions, and suggested they save some time by having the discussion at a committee meeting; without really coming to a conclusion on that front, the Board moved on. Member Johnston had a question on why district enrollment figures varied by 700 between the weighted number used by the state (WADM) and a number in a District report on special education; in a tedious exchange, Mr. Hansen attempted to explain that this was due to weighting, as WADM uses lots of fractions to account for part-time or lower-grade students, thus making the number of raw, enrolled students seem smaller than it really is. Despite his continued confusion, Member Johnston voted in favor of the Business Committee report for a second straight meeting, and it passed unanimously.

The closing comments involved further confusion from Member Johnston; he wondered why he hadn’t heard anything about graduation rates and learned about them from the newspaper, but was eventually informed by Member Harala that an email had indeed gone out the previous week. Student Member Manning informed the District that he’ll be bringing together a forum of students to allow them to dialogue with the Board, and Member Johnston invited him to use any connections he has with the school papers (which Member Johnston reads) to comment on District affairs. Member Johnston also asked that the busing issues mentioned by the citizen speaker be put on the agenda, and also repeated his request to do something about the plight of the paraprofessionals.

That brought an end to a long but fairly agreeable night with the Board. The meeting was bogged down by some procedural issues and a few questions probably better suited for different venues, but I’d rather see the Board err on the side of meticulous tedium than glib rushes to approval. Everyone more or less agreed on everything, but there were still some good questions, and the Board did a good job of keeping the concerns of a variety of groups on its radar. The proponents of the Ojibwe language program reaped the results of that tonight, and while it’s just one small issue in front of a Board with countless things on its plate, it means the world to one particular constituency. As long as it keeps the big picture in mind and asks the right questions, these sorts of programs can be real winners for the District.

Loose Ends and Old Debates: Duluth City Council Notes, 2/24/14

After two weeks of drama following its last regular meeting, the Duluth City Council had a tame night on Monday. The agenda was short, the crowd was light, and Councilor Sipress was happily settled into his new seat on the far end of the dais. The meeting opened with some mundane announcements, as President Krug plugged the State of the City address this coming Monday (6 PM, Spirit Mountain Chalet), and there were mentions of snow removal and the need to fill vacancies on the Human Rights Committee.

After the speakers (all repeat appearances) and the passage of the consent agenda, the Council moved on to a resolution of intent to amend the city charter in order to address Council vacancies. The resolution had no specifics, and simply established the four Councilors (Gardner, Hanson, Julsrud, Larson) who will take the lead on the effort to work with the charter commission. Councilor Russ had some issues with the vague language, but Councilor Gardner reassured her that there will be plenty of time to explore all options; she also suggested that, if feasible, any elections in off years should be held concurrent to state and national elections in November. Councilor Gardner reminded her colleagues that they needed nine votes to amend the charter, and invited everyone to bring forward ideas, while Councilor Filipovich urged caution and patience. Councilor Larson asked for a Committee of the Whole meeting on the process before the proposal is finalized, and Councilor Sipress reiterated the emphasis on the non-binding nature of the proposal. It passed 9-0, which Councilor Gardner called a “good start.”

Next up was a resolution for the purchase of a hydro-excavator, which is a machine that uses hot water to clear dirt around natural gas pipes without risking damage to the pipes. Councilor Fosle had pulled it because he figured the new Councilors hadn’t heard his spiel on vehicle purchases yet; as he has several times during his time on the Council, he cited his 30 years as a mechanic in declaring the repair costs of machines far too high, though he also added some cautious optimism about a new plan by the administration to review these costs. Councilors Julsrud and Filipovich talked up the job done by the city’s Public Works Department, while Councilor Gardner explained that all the depth of the frost this winter is part of the reason behind the number of breaks this year. President Krug asked CAO Montgomery for an update on Councilor Fosle’s request for a more thorough inventory, and was told that a fleet consulting firm will do an assessment on the city. An exchange between Councilor Russ and CAO Montgomery had CAO Montgomery explaining the criteria the city uses when deciding whether to repair a vehicle or purchase a new one. The resolution ultimately passed 8-1, with Councilor Fosle providing the dissent.

The Council moved on to a resolution applying for a grant for the cross-city bike trail; as Councilor Larson explained, they had not received a grant they’d applied for last fall, which would have funded the trail through the lower parts of Enger Park. Councilor Fosle, maintaining his stance against trail funding, was the lone ‘no’ vote there. Two ordinances selling city property passed unanimously, as did a pair of permits for the new Duluth Transit Authority center on Michigan Street, though Councilor Hanson abstained from those two votes due to his business relationship with the DTA. The permits created a ramp and a skywalk, Councilor Gardner explained, and were unanimously approved by the Planning Commission.

Councilor Russ celebrated Duluth’s snow removal when compared to Minneapolis in the closing remarks, but most of that period was devoted to discussion of the Lakewalk extension plan that was on the table two meetings ago. CAO Montgomery explained that engineers were working on plans for both the paved Lakewalk along Water Street and a path along the lakefront, behind the Ledges and Beacon Pointe developments, as requested by the Council. Councilor Gardner shared her suspicions that the plan they produced would be cost-prohibitive, but figured the city would hammer out a more sensible plan in time. Councilor Hanson then had a lengthy back-and-forth with CAO Montgomery as he sorted out the details; he asked if there was a funding source, and was told that there was one in place, but the funds had been diverted during a budget crunch in 2007 and 2008, and restoring that funding would mean taking money from something else. There were also questions about some fencing in that area that may be on city property, though CAO Montgomery couldn’t provide a definitive answer on that front, and promised further updates in time.

It wasn’t a terribly exciting night, but the Council did take a much-needed first step toward cleaning up the process for filling Council vacancies, and tonight’s resolution laid the groundwork for a lot of debate in coming weeks. It was also good to see the Lakewalk issue revisited in a substantive way. After a brief departure, Duluth is back to Don Ness’s favorite type of government—boring government—and while I don’t always endorse that, it was a blessed relief this time around.

Sipress Retains Seat

The Duluth City Council held a special meeting Thursday night to review the confused appointment of Joel Sipress to the 2nd District City Council seat. (See my notes on the meeting here, and my questions after the meeting here.) President Krug opened the meeting with a lengthy monologue, saying she had “never seen something quite as unseemly as this past week,” both in her time on the Council and during her work with University of Minnesota-Duluth faculty union.

After this opening, President Krug was at pains to insist she did not have any conflicts of interest in the vote, as some rumors had suggested since the initial meeting. (Kathy Heltzer is married to Krug’s spouse’s aunt.) She said that sort of tie was no different from the professional relationships several of the Councilors enjoyed with other candidates for the open seat, and said that, since the marriages were relatively recent—both couples in question are gay, and thus were not legally recognized as married until this past year—she hadn’t even thought of things in that way.

This explanation complete, President Krug then said that she called the meeting because the Council “did not follow established rules” and “filled the vacancy on a tie; integrity demanded a revisit. She went on to explain that the city charter does not allow for a special election, and that while Councilor Gardner will push a change to the charter at the next meeting, it “cannot be done in time.” She finished by suggesting that keeping the result would “silence” the voices of four members of the Council, and moved to reconsider the resolution appointing Sipress.

A tense pause followed before Councilor Julsrud moved the motion, and after a longer pause, Councilor Larson seconded it “for the sake of conversation.”

Councilor Fosle began the conversation by disagreeing with President Krug’s premises. He said that the Council should respect the initial ruling of Clerk Cox and Attorney Johnson, and that there were alternative ways to count votes via ranked choice voting. Echoing a point I made in my last post, he noted that Sipress had taken the oath, and asked Atty. Johnson if they could really unseat a Councilor in this manner. Atty. Johnson replied that they indeed could.

Councilor Julsrud then repeated many of President Krug’s points. She took care to explain her vote had nothing to do with Sipress, but was instead a “matter of justice” and wondered if half of the council was “comfortable with silencing the other half.” She also decried how political the whole process was behind the scenes, and said she had received “arm-twisting phone calls” by people trying to influence her vote.

Councilor Larson offered somewhat more tentative support for re-opening the vote, while Councilor Filipovich, after detailing his lengthy consultations with local politicians and citizens, came out against revisiting the resolution. “Why overturn a unanimous vote?” he asked, referring to the resolution to approve Sipress once he had been declared the winner via RCV, and listed several other challenges he would rather move on to face.

With no more comments, President Krug moved the reconsideration to a roll-call vote. The four Councilors who had supported Sipress (Filipovich, Fosle, Gardner, Hanson) voted against reconsideration, while the four who had supported Heltzer (Julsrud, Krug, Larson, Russ) voted for it; Councilor Sipress, for obvious reasons, abstained. The move to reconsider thus failed to achieve the necessary five-vote majority, and Councilor Sipress will retain his seat.

***

The even margin confirms my concern heading into this meeting: nobody had budged, and it is very easy to construe the motives on both sides as being political. I don’t fault President Krug for at least raising the question; this was an instance in which the Council was damned if it did and damned if it didn’t. Still, the result was predictable, and we can only hope that grudges don’t linger.

If I may repeat an earlier criticism, I’m still bothered by the complete lack of comment by the Councilors over their initial votes. Some said the candidates were all lovely, but never went any further. On a certain level, this is true; both Sipress and Heltzer are well-qualified, and there are few, if any, ideological differences between them (or between them and the rest of the Councilors, save Councilor Fosle). But reading between the lines, it was pretty clear there were large gaps between the Sipress camp and the Heltzer camp, and that each group was hardened into their voting bloc. No one ever explained why, which leaves the rest of us guessing or relying on rumors. This makes everything seem rather catty; a case of Minnesota Nice at its worst. There’s a fine balance to be found here, of course; we don’t want open warfare on the Council either. But there is plenty of room for tactful comments that might help lessen the claims of politics somewhat. If there were deeper divisions here than were obvious, the public deserves at least some knowledge of them.

With some reservations, I can accept the results of the meeting. This conclusion is more a practical one than anything; I don’t see how any effort to open it back up again would bring about any sort of resolution. Four Councilors were not going to budge from their support for Sipress even if the Council had re-opened debate, and dragging this out any longer only would have opened up further opportunities for ugliness. It’s a crude tiebreaking method, and I agree that some of the arguments for moving on are a bit thin, but I do worry about the precedent of removing a Councilor appointed via resolution by reconsideration of said resolution. For good or ill, the Council sealed its fate when no one objected to the initial interpretation of RCV, and once they’d seated Sipress, going back to remove him would have only compounded the issue. It was important to acknowledge the error, but sometimes one has to cut one’s losses rather than carry on with an obviously flawed process in the desperate hope that things might somehow work out.

At any rate, Councilor Sipress is now safely ensconced in the Council, and can go about his work. It’s time for Duluth to get to know him; ultimately, it will be up to his constituents to judge him. It is time to move forward, beginning with the much-needed push to amend the city charter to allow for a special election in future circumstances such as this one.

Questions on the Duluth’s 2nd District City Council Appointment

The Duluth City Council’s 2nd District vacancy drama took another twist on Wednesday night. It turns out that, according to FairVote Minnesota, the Council erred when it declared Joel Sipress the winner of the vote to fill the seat. The News-Tribune has the details here. I have a bunch of questions.

Joel Sipress took an oath of office. Isn’t that a binding action?

This is a procedural question, but it’s worth asking. Sipress said the right thing in the News Tribune article, and said he’d let the other eight Councilors decide his fate. But now that he’s actually part of the Council, can they legally do that? Without consulting the Charter, I would think that he’d need to resign his post for that to move forward. If this isn’t the case, that is a weird loophole: conceivably, the Council could revisit the appointment of a Councilor at any time, and on a whim. This isn’t like a decision to revisit some random resolution; it’s about a man who is, rightly or wrongly, a member of their Council now, and that leads into my next question.

Might not “revisiting the matter” only politicize it?

The two Councilors quoted in the DNT, it is worth noting, did not support Sipress. I trust their motives, and I would think most people would agree there was something deeply flawed with what happened on Monday. Still, if some of the Sipress supporters don’t think the matter should be revisited, it would be very easy for both sides to claim the other side is playing politics, rightly or wrongly. While it only takes a simple majority to revisit the issue, I would argue the Council needs at least 7 votes in favor of revisiting the appointment to legitimize the process. If there is concerted opposition to revisiting the matter, it will only make an ugly process look uglier.

If the Council revisits the appointment, how does it avoid ending up with the exact same deadlock?

In the DNT piece, Councilor Julsrud said the Council should vote anew on its three finalists. Does anyone actually think that anyone will change their mind? Won’t we just end up in the exact same place we were on Monday night? Unless they all know that one of their number has had a change of heart, I don’t see this ending well at all.

The alternative that might—possibly—break the deadlock would be to start the process anew and take applications and conduct interviews again. Even that would carry the threat of a similar outcome, though.

How quickly can the Council change the City Charter to allow for a special election?

If we’ve learned anything from the past few months, it’s this: the Council’s attempts to appoint replacement Councilors have been unqualified disasters. An otherwise thoroughly competent and professional Council has been made to look silly twice. No amount of fine-tuning the process will fix this. The problem isn’t with the process. It’s with the very premise. Eight people should not be deciding who represents a district of over 15,000. The people of District 2 need to elect their own Councilors.

The obvious long-term solution here—as several Councilors readily acknowledged on Monday night—is a change to the City Charter to allow for a special election. They need to make it happen, and as quickly as possible. If they are worried about making a post hoc change, Councilor Sipress could conceivably remain on the Council (while ideally abstaining from everything) before resigning once the changes have been made. That would require his cooperation, but I think it’s the most sensible way forward.

What is FairVote Minnesota’s role here, and where’s the accountability?

This is a bit of an aside, but it should be mentioned: the statement from Jeanne Massey of FairVote Minnesota in the News Tribune claims that “the Duluth City Council deviated from the prescribed process” for ranked choice (IRV) elections. The Council arrived at its process, however, after consultation with people at FairVote Minnesota. This would seem to suggest that someone at FairVote Minnesota erred, and the organization should probably own that mistake.

FairVote Minnesota also claims it is “not attached to the outcome” of the vote. If this is the case, why were the City Clerk and the City Attorney calling them? The city needs to figure out what its relationship with this organization is, and should obviously not be relying on them for legal opinions if the organization does not purport to offer them.

That’s enough for now. I welcome comments, replies, and further questions…we need to sort out this mess as quickly as possible.

The Delights of Instant Runoff Voting, Plus Minimum Wage Debate: Duluth City Council Notes, 2/10/14

The Duluth City Council kicked off its business two hours early on Monday night, as it sought to fill the 2nd District seat vacated by Patrick Boyle, now of the St. Louis County Board. The Council had narrowed a field of ten applicants down to three, and brought those three before them for a second interview. Councilor Gardner, the chair of the Personnel Committee, oversaw the proceedings.

The three finalists were Ms. Kathy Heltzer, Ms. Angie Miller, and Mr. Joel Sipress. The results from the first round suggested it would be a tight race, with three first-place votes for Ms. Heltzer and Mr. Sipress, plus one for Ms. Miller, who is probably the best-known of the group; she recently completed a four-month interim term on the County Board in the stead of her late husband, Steve O’Neil. All three appeared reliably liberal, which—worries about Council uniformity aside—seemed in keeping with the intentions of the voters of District 2, who had re-elected the unopposed liberal Councilor Boyle last November.

The process was messy from the start, as the Councilors invited the three candidates up to the table to take a few questions. Four Councilors asked questions relating to the role of councilors, dealing with land use disputes, availability to constituents, and the most pressing issue facing the city (along with a solution). Instead of asking the candidates the same questions at once and rotating the person to first take the questions, they asked each individual all four questions in succession. Predictably, the first candidate to answer, Ms. Miller, was somewhat vague and stumbled through the questions, while Mr. Sipress, who went last, had plenty of time to think up precise answers and build off of what the first two had said. He was exacting and meticulous, citing the city charter in his responses on Councilor roles, and did not dither with multiple issues facing the city as the other two did. Still, it wasn’t hard to see the appeal in Ms. Heltzer, who also had very clear and sensible answers, and all three appeared thoroughly competent and had fairly similar answers. It appeared the vote would come down to the two who hadn’t supported Sipress or Heltzer in the first round, Councilors Fosle and Julsrud.

Without bothering to explain their choices, the Councilors went into the voting. The City Clerk, Mr. Cox claimed the form was “a little zealous” with its many columns for votes, but in the end, the form was rather sensible. The first vote failed to achieve a 5-vote majority, with 4 votes for Sipress (Filipovich, Fosle, Gardner, Hanson), 3 for Heltzer (Krug, Larson, Russ), and 1 for Miller (Julsrud). And so there was a second round, in which Councilor Julsrud switched her vote to Heltzer, leaving the Council deadlocked.

The Council then proceeded through two more rounds of voting, but no one blinked. It was a tedious process, with the Councilors finding humorous ways to fill the time as Mr. Cox tabulated the votes. Councilor Hanson told a bad joke, while President Krug plugged a few press conferences she’d attended; the Olympics got a mention, as did the anniversary of the Beatles appearing on the Ed Sullivan show, which had Councilor Russ reminiscing on the time she went to see them in Milwaukee in 1964, when she was 14. (She couldn’t hear a thing.) Councilor Garnder had everyone running for cover when she threatened to give a history of the councilor appointment process.

With no decision in four rounds of simple majority vote, the Council moved to an instant runoff vote (IRV; also known as ranked-choice voting, or RCV). This is a process in which voters rank candidates in accordance to their preference; the lowest vote-getter is eliminated, and people who voted for that person have their votes transferred to their second choice, and so on until the process produces a winner with the majority. The immediate question is why the Council didn’t just use IRV to begin with; the first round would have produced the same result as a majority vote, and would have spared us several rounds of electoral games of chicken. Moreover, now that the Councilors had been through four rounds of voting and knew where everyone else stood, they predictably voted strategically, as everyone who ranked all three put their top choice at #1, Ms. Miller at #2, and the other contender tied for first at #3. Once again, Sipress and Heltzer each had 4 votes. Of course, this could have happened had they done IRV at the start of the process (as I think would have been more logical–why use it only as a backup?), but there’s at least a chance that the second-place votes might have been a bit less strategic and more reflective of the actual order in each person’s mind. (Forgive my cynicism, but I doubt that every single one of them thought Miller should have been #2.)

But wait! There was more confusion. Despite Mr. Cox’s insistence that everyone should rank all three, not everyone did: Councilors Fosle, Hanson, and Julsrud only ranked their top choice, and left the rest of their ballots blank. This meant that Sipress had three third-place votes, while Heltzer only had two. There was some confusion over whether this apparent technicality really could swing the vote, so Mr. Cox and Attorney Johnson retreated to a back office and called an IRV expert at Fair Vote Minnesota for a ruling. (This is where I slip in my obnoxiously pompous comment to say that there was someone in the room who learned the details of IRV as a political science undergrad and knew what the correct interpretation was, but I suppose I’m not exactly qualified to issue a ruling on this sort of thing.)

At this point, President Krug suspended the special meeting so that the poor men from the steam plant, patiently waiting in back, could come forward for their Committee of the Whole report. The Council plowed straight on into the regular meeting, and was halfway through the citizen speakers when Mr. Cox finally emerged with a verdict: Mr. Sipress’s extra third-place vote was enough to get him the last spot on the Council. (Under standard IRV this is not correct…see the follow-up posts for more.) He took his oath and assumed Councilor Boyle’s empty seat.

Despite the bizarre tiebreaker, no one protested much; everyone just seemed relieved to arrive at a resolution. Councilor Hanson was all for violating the charter and having a special election to fill the seat; Councilor Gardner told him they couldn’t do that, and worried it might come to a coin toss at one point. This idea repulsed President Krug, though there was consensus that, after two straight messy Council appointments, a change to the city charter appears necessary. In a case such as this one, with nearly two full years until the next Council election, a special election seems by far the most sensible choice; as frustrating as it may be to constituents, in short-term cases such as the one this past fall, it may make more sense just to leave seats vacant. This is one case in which the stakes are high enough that no process at all may be better than a bad process. At any rate, this process did—stumblingly, haltingly—deliver the candidate I considered most qualified, based on the brief interview I saw.

***

The meeting itself breezed by. Among the citizen speakers, Ms. Alison Clark was back to again demand the construction of the Lakewalk around Beacon Pointe, while a man told a long story of bureaucratic red tape surrounding his fire-damaged home, which Councilor Gardner and CAO Montgomery offered to look into, if only to find some resolution. Former Councilor Boyle came forward to reflect a bit on his four-plus years on the Council, talked about how far the city had come since 2009, and offered continued support from his new position across the way in the St. Louis County Building.

The only issue on the agenda to generate any debate at all was a resolution supporting a statewide push to raise the minimum wage. There were single speakers for and against the resolution, and Councilor Gardner mustered a reply to the critic of the measure. She cited polls suggesting 70 percent support for an increase and explained that giving poor people money was a sure way to get the money back into the economy, as they’d spend it on fairly basic needs. She noted that wages have been stagnant despite increased productivity over the past thirty years, and said the measure was important despite its symbolic nature, as it started a conversation and showed the Council’s priorities. Most of the rest of the Council, flexing its liberal muscles, repeated her points, with a few additions: Councilor Larson explained that the proposal would index the minimum wage to inflation so as to prevent drastic shifts, and Councilor Sipress suggested that higher a minimum wage would help taxpayers, as it would lessen stress on government safety nets.

As expected, Councilor Fosle was the lone dissenter; he proudly claimed the conservative mantel and worried that the measure would backfire, and have an especially heavy effect on people on fixed income who might not be getting more money relative to inflation. Councilor Gardner countered this claim, saying people on fixed income have seen more adjustments for inflation over the past 30 years than people working minimum wage jobs. After President Krug’s endorsement of the resolution as a judicious use of symbolic resolutions, it passed, 8-1. The Council wrapped up its business with a few minor ordinances that passed unanimously, and everyone welcomed Councilor Sipress to the fold. He will, hopefully, be the last Duluth City Councilor appointed by his peers, and not chosen by voters.

Lurching Toward a Lakewalk: Duluth City Council Notes, 1/27/14

While much of the city shut down in the bitter cold, the beat went on in the Council Chamber this week. The crowd was fairly sparse but spirited—the clerk deputized me to close the doors on people chattering in the hall at one point—and there was also an empty seat at one end of the dais, as Councilor Boyle had tendered his resignation following his victory in the special election for a seat on the County Board. Boyle was suffering from a case of the flu and thus unable to say a proper goodbye, though President Krug said she’d invite him to do so at a later date.

In the opening comments, Councilor Gardner talked of her resolution to streamline the process to find his appointment, a necessary step following last fall’s botched effort to fill the seat of outgoing Councilor Garry Krause. She established a timeline: the deadline for applications is this Friday (Jan. 31) at 4:30; there will be interviews of February 6; Councilors will choose three finalists by February 7; the Council will interview them on the 10th; and they will then vote on the Councilor at a special meeting that same day. She also informed the public that no one has applied for the spot yet, so if you live in Congdon, around the UMD campus, or in Kenwood, your odds might be pretty good if you’re interested.

The consent agenda passed unanimously. The next three votes, all involving smallish sums of money for such items as the Sister Cities program and the Minneapolis-Duluth/Superior Rail Alliance, and an office design, passed without debate. Councilor Fosle opposed all three, and Councilor Julsrud joined him on the rail alliance. Councilor Gardner’s process to fill the vacant 2nd District seat passed unanimously after a few minor procedural questions, and a move to bestow landmark status on the Chester Park United Methodist Church, planned for reuse as a dance studio, passed unanimously.

Next up was the main event of the evening, a resolution authorizing a grant application for the completion of the Lakewalk between 21st and 23rd Aves. East. (This is the stretch between the parking lot at the east end of the Lakewalk and its resumption at the corner of 23rd and Water St., in front of the Beacon Pointe development.) The measure, pushed by the administration, would create a Lakewalk on the north side of Water Street opposite Beacon Pointe. There were four citizen speakers, two for and two against. The supporters were with the Friends of the Lakewalk organization, and cited safety concerns with heavy trail-use traffic on Water St. and a survey of their twenty members that indicated widespread support. The two opponents reminded Councilors that the plan for the cross-city trail had insisted upon a trail along the lakefront, not a street separated from the lake by a row of condos, and suspected a bait-and-switch. They recommended the tabling of the measure.

CAO Montgomery opened the discussion by saying that tabling would effectively kill the bill, as the city would miss the grant application deadline. This was enough to sway Councilor Julsrud toward support, and she said the city could always reject the grant if it later decided it didn’t like the plan. Councilor Gardner, on the other hand, was not at all swayed. She was especially worried by the Second District vacancy on the Council; as this part of the Lakewalk goes that district, residents’ voices were perhaps unheard. Councilor Russ agreed, saying “something went terribly wrong” in the process; she complained of the developers’ apparent encroachment on the lakefront, the lack of quality signage, and said the new proposal was “really just widening the sidewalk,” and would do nothing to keep bicyclists off the road. Councilor Filipovich echoed these general sentiments and added that there would be more opportunities to ask for money later; CAO Montgomery said the city couldn’t rely on future federal grants, while Councilor Gardner said there certainly would be future opportunities.

Councilor Larson and President Krug, on the other hand, expressed support. They thought any safety-improving measure was commendable and cited the Lakeside neighborhood Lakewalk as an example of a successful path away from the lakeshore. Councilor Gardner, after pausing to stare down the whispering Councilors Hanson and Julsrud, reiterated many of her critiques, called the whole process “very disturbing,” and questioned the current composition of the Friends of the Lakewalk. Councilor Fosle, meanwhile, shared some history with the rest of the Council, digging up resolutions from 2007 and 2008 establishing the initial intent to both widen the Water St. sidewalk and build a trail along the lakefront. Councilor Filipovich worried about a possible loss of political will for the lakefront trail if the Council were to pass only the sidewalk portion. “There’s a lot of despair already,” Councilor Gardner agreed, and both she and Councilor Filipovich wondered why the administration was pushing this during the week of the deadline.

As it became clear the Council did not have the votes to pass the measure, the reason behind the whisperings of Councilors Julsrud and Hanson came out, as they introduced an amendment to reassert the intent behind the original 2007 and 2008 resolutions. There was then a very long stretch of confused but ultimately productive wrangling, as the Councilors offered different wordings for the amendment and even toyed with waiting until a later date to clarify their intent so as to not be too “sloppy,” in the words of Councilor Larson. Councilor Gardner expressed qualified support for the amendment, and they finally settled on three points, as laid out by Councilor Hanson: a reaffirmation of the 2007 and 2008 resolutions, a public meeting to discuss the plan, and a commitment to “concurrently” find solutions to the situation. “We’re finally going to vote on something!” President Krug celebrated, and the amendment passed, 7-1, with Councilor Fosle in opposition.

After that the Council moved to consider the resolution proper, and Councilor Fosle explained his opposition: these sorts of promises are easily forgotten—the 07 and 08 resolutions would have been, had he himself not gone and dug them up earlier that day—and may come to nothing. He was also the lone vote against the resolution, which passed, 7-1.

The rest of the agenda passed relatively quickly. Councilor Fosle was the lone vote against a change in street and sidewalk obstruction fees, and was joined by Councilor Julsrud in a protest vote against Armory culvert repair (see here for the original details on this debate). Councilor Fosle amended a resolution that accepted a grant for emerald ash borer testing in Duluth trees to clean up its misleading language, and also celebrated the timing of a water utility improvement project; both passed unanimously. Councilor Gardner got a good laugh with her shock at the fact that the city was paying for the added costs of the harsh winter with excess revenue (“We have excess revenue?!”), and Councilor Hanson was pleased to hear these measures would have no appreciable impact on the general fund. Finally, the Council pushed back the months for its sprinkling credit to May through September, with Councilor Russ laughing that the city may as well start the credit in June, what with the weather Duluth has had lately.

It was an efficient night for the Council outside of the Lakewalk debate, and even there, they got things done after some spirited debate. There were powerful criticisms, a decent defense, and, ultimately, a sensible compromise. Even Councilor Fosle, who was having none of the whole affair, deserves praise for dispassionately providing information for everyone else, and reiterating the worry about political will. The Councilors who opposed the resolution as initially written must keep up the pressure to make sure the lakefront path isn’t lost in the shuffle, but if they do, there is a good chance the initial vision for the Lakewalk will still come to fruition. As Councilor Hanson said, they need to roll up their sleeves and get to work.

Duluth Citizens in Action Forum

Yesterday, I had the pleasure of spending the day at the Citizens in Action 2014 forum in Duluth, an event put on by the League of Women Voters and a host of supporting organizations. I went on a whim, having received a flyer earlier this week; these sorts of events can be hit-or-miss, depending on the quality of the organizing effort, invited guests, and degree of political neutrality. In the end, it was a day well-spent: the planning committee did a thorough job and reeled in many local politicians, and while a majority of the attendees were certainly on the left side of the political spectrum (no surprise in Duluth), there was some variety, and a pleasant lack of harping on causes. The food was good, too.

The keynote speaker was Minnesota State Representative Rena Moran, who in her second term serving a St. Paul district in the State House. Rep. Moran’s story was a compelling one: in July of 2000, the single mother of seven decided she needed to leave Chicago and move to a state with good schools and a strong community for her children. So she told them to leave most of their possessions behind, piled them all into a van, and drove to Minneapolis. Her family spent a few months in a shelter, but before long she was on her feet, and eventually found a home in St. Paul’s historically black Rondo neighborhood. It all snowballed from there, as Moran became involved in local affairs. As a representative, she highlighted her legislative successes during her first term, when the Republicans held the majority in the House and she needed to build relationships across the aisle to get anything done, and told of bringing her colleagues with her to show them reality inside inner-city neighborhoods. Rep. Moran stayed for the entire conference, joining panels and sharing her experiences.

After that we broke into groups, and I attended a panel discussion entitled “Young Adults in Action.” The panel included Rep. Moran, two Duluth Denfeld students involved in the Native Youth Alliance of Minnesota; two 20-something members of the board of the Clayton-Jackson-McGhie Memorial, which aims to remember and continue dialogue about the 1920 Duluth lynching of three black men; and two Duluth East students and members of the group Students for the Future, which organized to give students a voice in Duluth schools during Red Plan restructuring talks some five years ago and lives on today. (Full disclosure: I was out of high school when the group was founded, but know a number of its original members, and played a minor consulting role in its formation.) A couple of moderators guided them through a series of questions, and while the forum could have benefitted from a somewhat looser format, it delivered the goods.

Two candidates for the soon-to-be-vacant Minnesota House 7A seat on the east side of Duluth were in the room, and one of them asked the panel perhaps the most pressing question: just how do we get people involved? With young people, getting them through the door often seems to be half the battle. It’s an especially big problem nowadays, when college and high school students are bombarded with daily information on countless groups they can join; it can be easy to miss the best options, and many are reluctant to take a leap and join something unless they have a group of friends with them. A single cause or candidate might inspire some excitement, but it can be hard to inculcate a sense of civic responsibility in those who weren’t raised in that sort of environment to begin with. And, as one of the Denfeld students explained, sometimes they quite simply don’t have enough time to take on anything else.

What is undeniable, however, are the potential benefits for those involved. The two East students, when asked what they’d gained from their experience, succinctly said two things that, while not unknown, took me four years of college to fully internalize. (I paraphrase. Student One: “I wanted to study international relations, but now I’ve realized how easy it is to have an immediate and lasting impact just by working in my community.” Student Two: “I don’t know what I’m going to do yet, but I know I can do other things in life but still be very involved in politics.”)

After lunch, we were sent to rooms in small groups to meet with local politicians, who rotated through to meet us in groups of two or three. There were sixteen on hand, including two state representatives, two county commissioners, the St. Louis County Attorney, and a whole bunch of the city council and school board members whose names often grace this blog. We got brief but productive opportunities to share our stories and most pressing concerns, and the officials took diligent notes and replied as time allowed. There was a pleasant diversity of topics brought forward by the other citizens in attendance. Being a big picture person, I settled for telling my own story and some shameless blog plugging, and was pleasantly surprised by the response. (Thanks, readers!)

I’m afraid I did run off when we got to the singing at the end, but for the most part, it was a quality event. In the grand scheme of things, it probably didn’t change much—the people who came are mostly the sorts who would have made their voices heard in some way anyway—but face-to-face contact never hurts, and getting people together to talk about political engagement can be rejuvenating. And while I make a big deal out of the stories of people who are not usually vocal in politics being overlooked, not everyone can be constantly engaged, and it’s up to those who can to be aware of them and pick up the slack. A healthy community needs its activists and campaigners, but it also needs its caretakers and critics; those who can step out of the hectic world of politics from time to time. Reality tells us there are plenty who simply don’t have the interest, whatever their reason. As long as they aren’t forgotten, it all works out in the end.

Drug Testing Debate and Unity All Around: Duluth School Board Notes, 1/21/14

The ISD 709 held its first monthly meeting on Tuesday night, and the Board members all looked pleasantly dapper and fresh as they opened the new term. (No silly tiffs about illegal campaign t-shirts when everyone goes formal!) Chair Miernicki began by welcoming everyone and introducing the two student Members of the Board, Paul Manning of East and Kobi Tremble of Denfeld. (Manning, in addition to having a rather awesome name plate introducing him as ‘P. Manning,’ spoke more in this meeting than his two student predecessors on the Board combined across every meeting I attended last year.) The Board congratulated Mr. Ken Williams, who had recently won a national award for his work in District transportation, and celebrated US Sen. Al Franken’s visit with the East Robotics Team on Monday.

Of the five community speakers, three were members of AFSCME Local 66, and demanded answers over why the District cut out two days—the MLK Day holiday and Tuesday’s staff training day—for paraprofessionals. They complained of the late notice of the cuts and about decreases in training, and worried the District budget was being balanced on the backs of its lowest-paid workers. They presented the Board with a petition demanding further action. Two other speakers confronted familiar District budget complaints, with one taking some time to chide the Board for oppressing him with its uncivil eye rolls.

After Superintendent Gronseth plugged the “Think Kids” informational meetings on the District budget, the Board delved into a lengthy Education Committee report. Member Harala delivered it, and did a superb job of actually explaining the items on the report in a concise and helpful manner. (I’ve complained about the opaqueness of these items in the past, so this really was a laudable development.) In turn, the informational items presented to the Board prompted plenty of good discussion.

The first was a progress report on the new Unity High School design, which is a blended program that uses online curriculum. Everyone was happy to hear positive reviews and see its numbers on the rise, and Member Welty asked a number of questions that gave the program some context. He was especially curious about the idea, floated by Asst. Supt. Crawford, that the District could eventually enroll students online from outside the Duluth area, thereby boosting District enrollment. Member Johnston praised Unity, and also highlighted its role in a substantial decline in out-of-school suspensions in the District. Member Seliga-Punyko asked about its staffing, which led to explanations of the individualized teaching methods used to meet each student’s level.

The next discussion was perhaps the most anticipated of the evening, as the Board took up a committee report on a possible design for random drug tests in Duluth schools. There was some confusion over whether the District actually was on this, likely exacerbated by media coverage that included ACLU plans to fight the measure. Supt. Gronseth tried to explain that it was just a “conversation about chemical health issues” and “not a formal proposal.” Chair Miernicki added that they had simply sat down with the Superior District—which does have a random testing program in place—and had a conversation.

Member Westholm thought the idea was “worth looking into,” though he had reservations over cost, implementation, and legal challenges, saying there is “nothing worse than an unenforceable policy.” Member Johnston echoed these qualified concerns, and commented on the murky conclusions of studies done on the issue; “we do have to talk about drugs,” he said, “but I’m not sure this is the best way to do it.” Member Harala added that the District should compare itself to other districts with unique drug prevention methods beyond Superior, citing Deer River as a good example, and worried that the program might single out certain populations. Member Johnston later repeated this concern, and said he felt this approach likely missed the most at-risk students, who are often not involved in extracurricular activities. (The Supreme Court only allows testing on students who are involved in such activities or have otherwise consented to tests.) Student Member Manning demanded to know where student input might come in on the proposal.

While the critiques were all carefully measured and not unequivocally opposed, Supt. Gronseth did push back on a few of the points, saying people “shouldn’t make assumptions” about people with chemical health issues, and that any look at the research “had to be objective.” He said further action would only come about after a lengthy review that would include considerable community input. Member Seliga-Punyko also expressed some support for testing, saying it would give students a way out of peer pressure and help them to say ‘no.’ Member Loeffler-Kemp jumped in to insist that mental health concerns had to play a role in this discussion as well. Though the testing proposal is still on the table, it appears it will have to jump through a substantial number of hoops to get anywhere. (I’ll save my own comments on random tests for a later date, if this does eventually get off the ground.)

Next up was a discussion of course offerings, in which District Curriculum Coordinator Kevin Abrahamson fielded questions. (His title was the subject of jokes all night long after he was introduced as the “Curriculator.”) Student Member Manning had some questions about a music-related course, and Member Seliga-Punyko made her frustration with the middle school six-period day very clear, saying it forced students to choose between music and foreign languages, which had lasting impacts as students went into high school. Member Welty had a few small questions as well, and after that, the Education Committee report passed unanimously.

The very brief Human Resources report quickly followed suit, and the Board moved on to the Business Committee, where Members Welty and Johnston pulled several items for discussion. The longest discussion involved projected enrollments; while there was the predictable back-and-forth between Member Johnston and Supt. Gronseth and Chair Miernicki on declining enrollment, it had none of the Red Plan-related overtones it normally has, and this time around Member Johnston dug a bit deeper and added some useful nuance to the debate. There was some complaining by Members Seliga-Punyko and Welty about the state’s revised weighting of students by grade, though Business Services Director Bill Hansen pointed out some of its benefits. Member Harala asked for a presentation on the effects of treatment programs such as Woodland Hills on District enrollment numbers, and was promised one.

The Members rounded out the Business Committee report with some minor discussions on declining state grants (related largely to AmeriCorps funding), school board compensation, loading dock issues, cracking chairs at Denfeld, and an unclear discussion on retirement funds that was worth watching but out of the District’s hands. It then moved to a vote, and for the first time in two and a half years, Member Johnston supported a Business Committee report. It passed unanimously.

In the closing comments, Members Harala and Loeffler-Kemp both talked up MLK Day events in which students had participated, and Member Johnston asked that the Board discuss the plight of the paraprofessionals in a committee meeting. Most of the discussion was about Minnesota School Boards Association conference that all seven had attended the previous week (a drastic improvement in attendance since his previous stint on the Board, said Member Welty). While the meeting wasn’t perfect (too few people of color and too many lawyer talks, complained Member Johnston and Chair Miernicki), they all had some positive takeaways. Member Johnston especially liked the discussions on alternatives to suspensions that break the pipeline to prison, and an intriguing one on “character education” as an alternate measure of success, and also (unsurprisingly) one on respecting the opinion of the minority view on the Board. The Board, he explained, needed to be “unified, not uniform.”

On Tuesday night, the Board met that ideal with flying colors. Every single person on the Board contributed something of substance, a feat that the previous Board never came close to matching in the meetings I attended. I’ve flamed Member Johnston on this blog many times over the past few months, but tonight he was not a bitter Member beholden to a Manichean worldview, but a thoughtful critic who raised careful, legitimate critiques in good faith. I can get behind anyone who does that, whatever his past. The newly seated Member Harala also consistently impressed me with her questions and insights, and it was refreshing to hear from a Student Member who was willing to push others on the Board. Member Miernicki makes for an affable Chair, and once he and Member Welty figure out the microphone system, the meetings should run smoothly. It was about as encouraging a first meeting as possible.

Notes on a Wintry Weekend in Duluth

While Duluthians are quick to laugh at the weather plights of the rest of the country (psh, ten below is nothing), enduring a Duluth winter for so many months can be an ordeal. There are weekly battles with icy roads and blankets of snow and constant rescheduling due to weather. Endless conversations about the weather can also grow tiresome. These winters remind me of why I was so driven to study international affairs when I left for college: I find myself running to find books about adventures in the Brazilian Amazon or along the Silk Road to amuse myself. Anything to live vicariously and escape to a warmer climate, if only for a few hours while huddling beneath one’s blankets.

Of course, there are ways to embrace the weather, too. I’ve been skiing often, and there’s plenty of hockey to entertain every night. Last night’s Vancouver-Calgary brawl two seconds into the game was the sort of incident that makes hockey fans both laugh in delight and cringe as we think about how those not caught up in the hockey world will judge this sport. It’s funny that we northern Minnesotans and Canadians, among the most docile people on the planet, have so embraced the one sport that tolerates fighting for the sake of fighting. But we all need our outlets, I suppose, and once the broken teeth have been picked up off the ice, no sport can match hockey’s persistent flow of action and improbable grace.

Winter in Duluth also has its moments of sheer, unquestioned beauty. Take this past week, when low temperatures made the Lake Superior ice caves near Cornucopia, Wisconsin, accessible by foot for the first time in a few years. My camera literally froze, leaving me to take pictures with a blurry cell phone camera, but here are some of the fruits of a long slog through the snow along the South Shore:

 Image

Image

 

Image

Image

Image

It was worth the cold hike, and despite the crowds, some of those icy halls between the rocks were awe-inspiring. It made me want to go back there…in summer, and in a kayak.

Still, things go on. Here’s a rundown of some significant events over the past week:

Boyle Cruises to County Board Duluth City Councilor Patrick Boyle defeated his former colleague Jim Stauber by a 65-35 margin in a special election to fill a vacant seat on the St. Louis County Board. Boyle’s big win over the well-known Stauber showed off the power of the Duluth DFL, and keeps the Board’s liberal bloc within one vote of the conservatives. It also means the Council will have to appoint a new representative to serve the 2nd District over the next two years. That won’t lead to a substantial change in the composition of the Council, but it will be interesting to see who comes forward to replace him. Stay tuned for news on that front.

PolyMet Hearing A packed house was on hand for the first of three informational meetings on the Environmental Impact Statement issued to assess possible copper and nickel mining on Minnesota’s Iron Range. It’s a contentious debate; mining jobs could make all of the difference in the world for the depressed northeastern Minnesota towns, where mining has been the lifeblood of so many communities for so many years. On the other hand, the specter of long-term environmental damage looms, most notably in water treatment that may be necessary for centuries. There will be more hearings, and they are only a small part of what will likely be a long, drawn-out process. For updates straight from the Range, I recommend the blog of Hibbing writer Aaron Brown, who gives a well-balanced overview of the debate here (complete with requisite Northern Minnesota Trampled by Turtles music video).

Maurices Headquarters Design The design for the planned Maurices Headquarters on the 400 block of West Superior Street came out. If I may play amateur architecture critic, I’ll say this: it blends well with that portion of downtown; there are hints of the modernist Radisson, Medical Arts, and Ordean Buildings in there, plus elements of the brutalist Holiday Center further to the east. It looks crisp and clean, and it’s an improvement on the dull former Channel 3 studio on that block. In the end, though, I find it rather sterile. It is very boxy and angular, all concrete and glass, with no hint of detail or nuance. Still, I won’t let my gripes with contemporary architecture weigh down the project too much: it’s a great addition to the downtown Duluth economy.

And, of Course, Hockey Yesterday was Hockey Day in Minnesota, and the day didn’t disappoint. Elk River hosted a pair of outdoor high school games, one including a local team in Cloquet; the Lumberjacks and the host Elks both won their games. The Gophers won, Elk River native Nate Prosser scored the game-winner for the Wild in overtime, and up here in Duluth, a record crowd watched the UMD Bulldogs pick up a shootout win over the University of Denver. In other local high school news, Duluth East tied Maple Grove to round out a very forgettable week, while Duluth Marshall, fresh off a big win over Class A frontrunner Breck, fell to a mediocre Roseville team. The young Hounds will look to right the ship after slipping out of the top ten when they visit section rival Forest Lake this week, while the inconsistent Hilltoppers will play Class A power Warroad on Friday. Both teams have potential, but need to catch some momentum as they head down the stretch run toward the playoffs, which are a month away.

Stay warm…

Homeless Rights, Duluth in the NYT, and a Lot of Fighting Over a Shed: Duluth City Council Notes, 1/13/14

A packed house was on hand for the first Duluth City Council meeting of the 2014 session, and Councilors Zack Filipovich and Barb Russ took their seats for the first time. The Council kicked off by electing its new officers, and as Councilor Krug was the only one up for President, she was elected unanimously. The two candidates for Vice President gave brief and rather pointless speeches on their qualifications, with Councilor Fosle saying he had seniority and could run things as well as anyone else, and Councilor Larson listing off a heap of committees and such on which she has served. The Councilor voted 8-1 in favor of Councilor Larson, leaving Councilor Fosle laughing wryly.

Councilor Boyle then recapped several of the Board’s accomplishments in 2013 before swapping seats with his successor. President Krug slowly got into the groove of reading through the various things she is required to read and opening and closing two public hearings. (There have been at least ten public hearings since I started doing this, and there has never been a public speaker at one of them.)

The first big issue of the night was a resolution recognizing a petition asking the city to establish a bill of rights for homeless persons. There were four citizen speakers, including three people who had once been homeless and the executive director of CHUM in Duluth, Ms. Lee Stuart. They spoke to the struggles of homelessness and thanked the many organizations that got behind their effort, asking them to stand as they read the names. (Most of the people in the room stood.) Ms. Stuart explained that, even though most of the points on the bill of rights were already included in law and Duluth has tended to treat its homeless people fairly well, this was a call for deeper conversation and would focus attention on big issues.

The Councilors then took turns expressing their support for the bill of rights. Councilor Gardner echoed many of Ms. Stuart’s words and talked about the importance of organization for a constituency that often believes they have been left behind. Councilor Hanson expressed optimism about turning a corner, while Councilor Filipovich explained how the whole community benefits economically when people have roofs over their heads. Councilors Russ and Boyle emphasized related issues, such as the housing stock of the city, health care, and living wage jobs. The resolution passed unanimously, much to the delight of the crowd, and the Human Rights Commission will now set about making Duluth the first city in the country to have a bill of rights for homeless persons.

There was a mild flare-up over a point of order at this point, as Councilor Fosle asked President Krug if she intended to allow clapping and cheering in the Council Chamber when past Presidents had not. President Krug said she was in control of the room and cut off Councilor Fosle when he tried to respond, saying this would best be dealt with after the meeting. Councilor Hanson abstained from a vote on a contract to an oil company that advertises on his blog, but the rest of the consent agenda passed unanimously.

The resolution on the city’s intended bonding measures passed 8-1, with Councilor Fosle in opposition, and Councilor Filipovich was named to fill the outgoing Councilor Stauber’s seat on the Public Utilities Commission. Councilor Gardner then asked for an amendment to a resolution allocating federal community development grant money, shifting some from a housing program to a 3-year job education program for single mothers. Interim County Commissioner Angie Miller came forward to tout the job training program and emphasize its strong support network. Councilors Julsrud and Filipovich expressed their support, but Councilor Fosle got some good indignation out of the rest of the Council when he said that moving money out of the housing program would “throw three families out in the cold.” Councilors Gardner and Russ rushed to explain that this was not the case, and that there were other funding sources. President Krug, on the other hand, upheld her commitment to processes and said she didn’t think the Council should upend its vetting process for single projects. The amendment passed 6-2, and the whole resolution passed 7-1, with Councilor Fosle as the lone ‘no’ vote. (Councilor Larson recused herself from the vote due to her consulting work with some of the organizations involved.)

In one of those paradoxes of local politics, the most contentious issue of the night was an incredibly minor one. A Piedmont couple came before the Council to appeal a Planning Commission decision to deny them a variance that would have allowed them to build a storage shed on their property closer to a stream than is normally allowed by DNR standards. A neighbor came forward to speak against the variance. He complained about the size of the shed (at 12 by 20, it was practically a garage), and dismissed claims that the stream had dried up. He said he had long lobbied to keep houses away from the wetlands around the stream, and said the house had flooded during the June 2012 deluge. The couple countered this last claim, saying it was sewer-related and not caused by the stream, and thanked the city for paying for a sump pump that had resolved their flooding problems.

Councilor Julsrud spoke in support of the couple, saying there was no way this little creek that dried up in summer (of which there are many in Duluth) was actually a trout stream, and that the environmental expert on the Planning Commission had approved of the variance. Councilor Fosle had other ideas, rightly pointing out that the resolution needed to explain the hardship faced by the couple. Councilor Gardner furnished him with one, saying it was a practical difficulty for the couple; everyone else in the neighborhood could build such a shed if they so desired, but they could not. Councilor Fosle found this wanting, saying the couple should have known what they had when they bought the property, and said that the DNR’s standards existed for good reasons. The trout came up again, and Councilors Boyle and Fosle went back and forth on the quality of the couple’s runoff abatement efforts, with Councilor Fosle telling Boyle to “remember this” so that the neighbor could call him when all the runoff ends up in his yard. Councilor Larson came out against the variance, as did President Krug, who once again defended the process and worried about slippery slopes.

Councilor Fosle then decided to make the meeting even more exciting by saying that “everyone should follow rules no matter their affiliation to other people who have been elected,” thus implying that the change was a political favor for the couple, who apparently are related to a local politician. (I have no idea who this is.) Councilor Gardner lashed back, saying “I don’t normally like to respond to the things you say because I don’t want to draw attention to them,” but that she had no choice but to defend herself from a charge of association with someone who was not at all in her political circle. Councilor Hanson took “deep offense” at the charge, said he did not want to spend the next four years “being chastised” by Councilor Fosle, and added that “integrity is everything in my life.” (I here resist the very strong urge to make a comment about his hockey journalism. Onward.) Councilor Fosle sniffed that he hadn’t attacked anyone personally, and asked Councilor Hanson if he’d bothered to talk to the complaining neighbor, who did live in his district.

Councilor Gardner explained that the Council had the authority to overrule the Planning Commission, saying they were not restrained by the procedural dictates it must follow. Councilor Filipovich said the runoff prevention methods had been vetted by city staff, and Councilor Larson did what she could to celebrate everyone having different opinions and told the couple “enjoy your shed!” even though she was voting against it, since she saw how the votes would go. The variance passed, 6-3, with Councilors Fosle, Larson, and Krug in opposition.

The Council unanimously approved its priorities for state legislature lobbying this session, which include restoration projects of the NorShor Theater and Wade Stadium and a river water usage plant for Spirit Mountain. In the closing comments, Councilor Julsrud shared good news about new efficiencies in parking enforcement, Councilor Fosle and President Krug came to a vague resolution of their earlier spat about applause in the Council Chamber, and Councilor Larson tried to get everyone to schedule their summer recess.

***

Lastly, if you are a Duluthian who lives under a rock/has the good sense not to waste much of your time on social media and missed it, Duluth was on the front page of the New York Times on Monday. (And it wasn’t one of those articles that appear every year in which the national media covers winter weather in Duluth in shock and fright, while all of the interviewed Duluthians shrug and say “meh.”) The article plays off the tried-and-true journalism trope of taking two similar places (Duluth and Superior, Wisconsin) and showing how divergent state politics affects people on both sides of the St. Louis River. I don’t think there’s anything terribly insightful here for anyone with a basic knowledge of general political tendencies. (Breaking news: business owners prefer low taxes! Gay people want to live in states where their marriages have legal standing! Democrats like unions more than Republicans!) It also makes only passing mention of local politics and the particularities of the two cities, which I would have given more weight if I’d been asked to do this sort of piece. Sure, these cities could make interesting test cases—but for all of the cultural similarities, there are also large differences that would make a side-by-side comparison difficult. But it does an effective job of showing some of the effects of the different paths Minnesota and Wisconsin have followed over the past couple of election cycles, and there are some fun little shoutouts that locals will recognize. It will be interesting to chart any changes in economic and personal well-being indicators between the two states, though reality will inevitably be more nuanced than the partisans on either side will ever admit. If they further develop this series and do some follow-ups, it could wind up being a good study.