Text of A.G. Opinion
October 11th, 2006
Here it is, in living black and white!
This directly addresses my concerns — that the City has no authority to request background checks, and that it’s contrary to public policy:
We are aware of no authorized government program under which it would be necessary or appropriate for city officials to delve into the backgrounds of persons seeking election to city offices for purposes of obtaining information that would reflect negatively on their eligibility or qualifications for office.
Pretty straightforward, DUH!
State official denounces City Hall actions
October 11th, 2006
Hot off the press, in today’s Beagle.
Note how the attorney representing the City tries to say it’s political! Oh, give me a break, both SoS candidates Kiffmeyer and Ritchie said it was beyond the pale!
State official denounces City Hall actions
Mike Longaecker
The Republican Eagle – 10/11/2006In a critical analysis of City Hall procedure, Attorney General Mike Hatchâ??s office said Friday that the city of Red Wing had no authority to collect background data on City Council candidates.
In addition, the latest opinion on the matter found that information collected by the city on candidates must be made public.
The report, issued by Chief Deputy Attorney General Kristine Eiden, is condemns measures taken by the city in July during the filing period for council candidates.
â??We are aware of no authorized program,â? Eiden wrote, â??under which it would be necessary or appropriate for city officials to delve into the backgrounds of persons seeking election to city offices for purposes of obtaining information that would reflect negatively on their eligibility or qualifications for office.â?
Her analysis takes a converse approach from a Sept. 27 report, in which a Dakota County official stated he could find no laws prohibiting city officials from asking candidates to sign release forms.
But that report, issued by Dakota County Attorney Chief Deputy Phillip Prokopowicz, also stated there was no law requiring candidates to sign release forms.
The drill
Candidates were asked â?? some said required â?? to sign a release because, as the form stated, â??I want to be considered for employment or volunteer service … .â? That document was supplemental to the affidavit of candidacy mandated by law. The authorization form â?? amended days later in a less-binding second draft â?? allowed the city to perform criminal, courts, driving and credit checks.
Public domain
According to Eidenâ??s opinion, that data can be made public. Government data is presumptively public under state statutes, she wrote, unless itâ??s classified as private under another law.
â??We are unable to identify any other applicable statutory classification because we are not aware of any source of authority for collection of criminal history data in the circumstances given,â? Eiden wrote.
Michael Waldspurger, an attorney for the city, said he disagrees â??very sharplyâ? with the opinion, saying it is inconsistent with a July opinion issued by Hatchâ??s office on a similar matter in Rochester.
Political undertones?
Fridayâ??s four-page opinion was filed in response to a request from Waldspurger and Kimberly Sobieck, who represent the city through a Minneapolis law firm. The Red Wing Republican Eagle back in July asked the city to release the background information, which prompted the attorneys to seek a formal opinion on whether data on candidates for public office is private.
Waldspurger also wondered whether political motivations may have played a part.
Hatch is locked in a close gubernatorial race with Gov. Tim Pawlenty.
Itâ??s unusual, Waldspurger said, for such sweeping analysis when a specific legal question is posed.
â??One has to question when or why they decided to go out on that,â? he said of the criticism lain on the background checks. â??They usually donâ??t stray.â?
In the report, Eiden said candidates for public office canâ??t be reasonably viewed as applicants for employment. Election candidates donâ??t apply to â?? nor are they chosen by â?? city officials acting as an â??appointing authority,â? she stated.
â??They are instead elected by the voters, and all persons who meet basic qualifications specified … are eligible to seek election,â? Eiden wrote.
Waldspurger said he hadnâ??t yet conferred with city officials on the opinion and couldnâ??t comment on the cityâ??s position. Council Administrator Kay Kuhlmann didnâ??t return a message seeking comment on Tuesday.
For former council candidate Carol Overland, the opinion is â??very validating.â?
She opposed the background checks and filed an election law complaint against the city in July.
Though Overland, an advocacy attorney, said she was shocked that the attorney general called for disclosure of the data, she welcomed the opinion and applauded the critical tack taken.
â??Itâ??s just what Iâ??ve been saying all along,â? she said.
Chief Deputy A.G. slaps up City of Red Wing!
October 10th, 2006
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEHAAAAAAAAA!
Just got back from the airport Post Office, mailing the Rebuttal Testimony in the Mesaba case and found some great news:
The City of Red Wing has been told very specifically that they have no authority to do background checks on people filing as candidates filing for municipal office. Not only that, the information they’ve collected on candidates is public data. That means it must be disclosed. That means we’ll find out what they’ve been up to!
DUH! There’s an echo in here… of course they have no authority. But this is good. Details tomorrow.
It hadn’t even occurred to me to make a Data Practices Act request… this puts a whole ‘nother spin on it.
Yes, a good and “interesting” day all around.
David Morris on Habeas Corpus
October 8th, 2006
In today’s STrib:
David Morris: What would Wellstone have done? He would have fought.
Four years ago this month Paul Wellstone was taken from us. Today, more than ever, American politics suffers from his absence.
Just days ago, Senate Democrats agreed not to filibuster a bill allowing the president to detain indefinitely, even for life, any alien, whether in the United States or abroad, whether a foreign resident or a lawful permanent resident. The bill denies prisoners the right to challenge their detention in court.
Why would Democrats allow 51 senators to eliminate one of the fundamental pillars of free societies? I imagine it was because their pollsters told them a vigorous opposition would lose them votes in the coming election as Republicans pummeled them for being soft on terrorism.
Paul would have filibustered. That would almost certainly have delayed a Senate vote until after the election, enabling Americans to more clearly demonstrate how they stand on the 800-year-old right of habeas corpus.
Three weeks before he died, Paul voted against war in Iraq. At the time, his opponent was aggressively accusing Paul of being weak on national security. Polls told Paul a vote against war would lose him the election. But as he told the Washington Post two days after the vote, “I think people want you to do what you think is right … .” And added, in typical Wellstone fashion, “how would I have had the enthusiasm and the fight if I had actually cast a vote I didn’t believe in? I couldn’t do that.”
A few days later Paul delighted in the fact that his vote resulted in a surge of support among Minnesotans, a surge that almost certainly would have led to his reelection.
Paul knew how to filibuster. Singlehandedly, his filibusters prevented a remarkably inequitable bankruptcy bill from being passed while he was in the Senate.
And he knew how to speak truth to power. When Exxon, the No. 1 oil company, gobbled up No. 2 Mobil, and the No. 1 grain company, Cargill, devoured runner-up Continental Grain, and the No. 1 bank, Citicorp, snapped up Travelers Insurance, the silence from Washington was deafening.
The New York Times, commenting about the Exxon-Mobil merger, observed, “scarcely a politician of any stripe headed for the cameras” to question “whether the $76 billion deal was good for the country, for workers or for consumers.” Except one: “Senator Paul Wellstone, the Minnesota Democrat who is among the few in Congress still exercised about the concentration of corporate power … .”
In 1996, Paul was among the very few who voted against the Telecommunications Act. He argued it would lead to concentrated ownership. He was right. Over the next 22 months, more than 1,000 radio stations were sold. Some 450 owners left the field. Single companies now dominate local radio broadcasting.
In 1996, Paul bravely voted against ending the nation’s commitment to the poor. Again, he was the only politician running for reelection who did so. “If you want to reduce poverty, stop scapegoating people,” he said. “Start focusing on a good education and a good job.”
Paul Wellstone proposed as well as opposed. For example, when the United States tried one more time to join the rest of the industrialized world in making access to medical care a right, not a privilege, Wellstone helped organize a grass-roots coalition that gained considerable support in Congress in favor of a system similar to Canada’s 30-year-old program: a single insurer, local control, and private suppliers.
But it was in his opposition that he most clearly demonstrated both his character and his uniqueness. Four years after his death, we sorely miss his courage and leadership.
David Morris is vice president of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, based in Minneapolis and Washington, D.C.
©2006 Star Tribune. All rights reserved.
Spot’s the word on Dissin’ da Writ
October 7th, 2006
I stole this from Spotty, sums up the state of our “rights” now:
Time for a reality check — Spot does a good job of walking, or dog trotting, through the Habeas insanity. Take a few and read and wonder how long we’ll be on the loose…
I’m trying to work up to writing my take on the Red Wing background checks but this is all just too depressing… I hope you’re all paying attention and don’t let this moment pass quietly…