A confident alpha who has “no problem with the News publishing his letter” doesn’t write so many defensive words. Having experienced first hand the “different rules for different people” policies of the News in the 2002 and 2004 elections (plus personally having been the subject of defamation so blatant the News’ attorney said it made him cringe), yes, Ray Cox doth protest too much. Publicity stunts in the dump and threatening letters from the Speaker that are contrary to black letter law are something he should be held accountable for, and yet the News bought into it. And we all remember who did the remodeling job of the paper’s office during campaign season. Editors and reporters in Ray Cox’s district just might have some interesting stories to share. And then there’s Doug Jones’ Rovian tendencies…

We’ll see how Seesz will sieze the reins this season! Unfortunately, it’s a “been there, done that” race… yawn…
In the Northfield News today:

Debunking allegations

To the editor:

A letter writer in last Saturday’s Northfield News (“Questioning the News, Saturday/Sunday, July 15-16, 5A) took the News to task over various operational issues. In doing so the writer implied that I have some sort of nebulous, controlling association with the News. None of those accusations have so much as a smattering of truth to them. While the writer has a lengthy litany of complaints, I have no problem with the News publishing his letter, nor should I or anyone else who believes in true freedom of the press.

The writer first complains that the News endorsed me in the 2004 election. He attempts to find fault with that endorsement, calling into question the ethics of the News. He doesn’t mention it, but they also endorsed me in 2002, and every time I stood for election to the Northfield school board for the previous 15 years. I thank the News for the dedicated work they put forward in evaluating candidates for office but that is the extent of my comment to them. In fact, I have always been amazed at the amount of time and resources the News allocated to the candidate review and endorsement process. I suspect their decision not to endorse candidates any longer will free up a substantial amount of time for their staff to provide additional general political coverage in all elections.

The News, like any good newspaper, separates editorial and news decisions from advertising decisions. For the writer to imply otherwise is simply uncalled for. While the writer may not be able to separate business and political functions, I know most people can, and do so on a regular basis. It may also interest the writer to know that the StarTribune endorsed me in 2004, as well as the Sierra Club and the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce. And yes, I subscribe to the StarTribune and have been a member of the Sierra Club and the Chamber of Commerce for decades. But to think those financial and support transactions have anything to do with a political endorsement is wrong. And it is just as wrong and unfair to imply that the News endorsed me because of an advertising account.

The writer also asserts that I am behind some covert plan to control news coverage. Again, this couldn’t be further from the truth. What the News elects to cover on the pages of their paper is their business and theirs alone. If the News determines an action or incident is worthy of press coverage, then they are free to report on it. The writer is correct that this country scrupulously defends it right to freedom of the press, as I do. The News, like any quality newspaper, also protects its business assets from slander and libel by rejecting letters and articles that contain such material. If the writer or his associates submit libelous letters to the News, I trust the News will make careful editorial decisions regarding publishing such letters. And if there was incorrect school district information contained in an earlier letter perhaps the writer would send in a correction rather than making unfair allegations against others.

The writer goes on to completely miss the distinction between serving as an elected State Representative and being a political candidate. As the State Representative from Northfield, the News has asked me from time to time to submit a legislative report during the legislative session. Earlier this year Louie Seesz, the Editor of the Northfield News, clearly stated the guest opinion policy in a column. He said anyone can contact him with an idea for a column but he retains the decision to publish. When I report on action in the Minnesota House of Representatives it is to inform my constituents. It has nothing to do with running for office. This is just another example of the writer not understanding the separation of duties and actions between serving as an elected state representative and running for a political office. There is a time, after the close of the filing period, when I do both jobs and I must carefully keep them separated. But to find fault with the News because they won’t politicize their guest columns is not a valid complaint.

Finally, the letter writer proposes that the News initiate some type of loosely organized “sounding board” to review their news content during the election period. I believe that is the job of the editor and his staff. I’m sure they would be open to discussing such a plan. But I also suspect that the News is quite comfortable using the clearly identified policies and procedures they already have in place to run their newspaper.

Ray Cox
Northfield

What’s all the fuss about? Here’s a link to Paul Fried’s letter:

Questioning the NewsÂ

When I spoke with the County Attorney, Steve Betcher, today, he said that a number of papers, radio stations and even a TV crew were following this. He’s been digging through election law, and has advanced the investigation of my formal Complaint against the City by assigning it to the County Sheriff’s Office’s investigators. I can’t find a statute that forbids collection of information, but I’m betting there is a lot of choice case law about setting standards for candidacy, or intimidation of candidates, or… or… or…

And if I ever get it figured out how to upload, I’ll post the City of Red Wing’s press release that is outright lying. If I ruled the city, heads would roll. I’d want the named writer of the press release in the park on the main drag with a sandwich sign on the days the peaceniks aren’t there, the sign saying, “This is what happens when a City employee lies.” And as for her boss? Because the false press release probably wasn’t the employee’s idea, I have to come up with something appropriate. Manana…

Here’s the City’s original form.

Here’s the City’s new form.

Here’s KSTP’s report — they were running around town trying to find a candidate who would talk to them. I wonder if they had a chat with my girls, who probably told them a thing or two!

Red Wing candidate checks controversial

Updated: 07/18/2006 10:11:39 PM

A new policy in Red Wing to perform background checks on city council candidates is causing controversy among many residents and city officials.

The city says it asked candidates for city council positions to sign a two page form which authorizes the city to hire a private firm to research a personâ??s criminal, driving, educational, employment and credit records.

Red Wing officials say the city did not intend to include any request for financial information, so it issued a revised form that does not include that request.

City Clerk Kathy Johnson says she just wanted to make sure candidates were eligible to run, although state law only requires their signature on a different form, promising that they meet all the requirements. Cities must then place them on the ballot, and let voters decide.

“It’s in the best interest of the city just to be doubly sure,” says Johnson.

Minnesotaâ??s top election official says that what Red Wing is doing goes beyond the law and could possibly open itself up to a lawsuit.

â??You uphold the law as it is written,” Kiffmeyer says. â??When you’re in the middle of a game being played, you don’t change the rules.”

“Stick with what the law requires,” she adds. “That is your safest place to be.”

Former councilman and now candidate Joe Krueger not only refused to sign both the original and revised petitions, but he says it is an invasion of privacy and may intimidate some people from running.

“This does not belong in a democracy,” Krueger says. “We’re not talking national security. We’re talking a city council in Red Wing.”

Candidate Dean Hove, though, says he has no problem signing up for the background checks.

Johnson adds that the very personal information will not be made public.

This is the text of the City’s Press Release:

July 14, 2006, Red Wing, Minn.

Recently, there have been media stories which have created misconceptions about the City of Red Wingâ??s practices in accepting affidavits of candidacy from individuals who wish to file for public office. These misconceptions have been based on inaccurate information. The purpose of this news release is to clarify these practices and prevent further reports based on inaccurate information.

The City of Red Wing does not run credit checks on candidates, nor does the City require that candidates consent to credit checks. The City does not refuse affidavits of candidacy, nor does the City intend to refuse to place an individual on the ballot, for any reason other than the proper execution of the affidavit of candidacy and related filing documents. The City does not require candidates to sign consents for background checks as a prerequisite for filing.

The City does ask candidates to sign a consent to run a criminal background check for the sole purpose of determining whether the candidate has a felony conviction, without the restoration of civil rights, and is therefore ineligible to run for office. However, even if a candidate opts not to sign the consent form, the City accepts the affidavit of candidacy and places the candidate on the ballot. The City of Red Wing has never instituted policies or practices which prevent an individual from filing for election to public office.

XXX

Here’s the paper’s editorial, and I think it’s too generous with the City — they should have used the word “lie” more often:

Editorial: City Hall balks
R-E Editorial Board
The Republican Eagle – 07/18/2006

Red Wing has backed off from requiring City Council candidates to authorize background checks. That’s good news.

Authorization is now strictly voluntary. We wish the same thing could be said about people who want to serve in a non-elected capacity, but those who want to help at the Sheldon Theatre or Public Library, for instance, can volunteer elsewhere if they don’t want to sign.

The bad news is that City Hall isn’t being entirely truthful about said background checks. Spin doctors are attempting to make it look as if the checks have been voluntary all along.

The city issued a press release Saturday afternoon stating “there have been media stories which have created misconceptions about the City of Red Wingâ??s practices in accepting affidavits of candidacy from individuals who wish to file for public office. These misconceptions have been based on inaccurate information.”

What misconceptions?

City Hall issued an updated candidate list Friday that bore nine names. Behind one candidateâ??s name it reads: (filed 7/7/06, but still in the process of submitting necessary paperwork). The only paperwork missing is the background check form.

What inaccurate information?

Saturday’s press release states: The City of Red Wing does not run credit checks on candidates, nor does the City require that candidates consent to credit checks.

Fact: The original form said, “the City may desire to request reports from one or more consumer reporting agencies which may include, but not be limited to, criminal records checks, court records, driving records, credit reports and summary of educational or employment data and histories.”

City officials say they do not run credit checks, but the initial authorization form allowed them to do so.

Saturday’s press release states: The City of Red Wing has never instituted policies or practices which prevent an individual from filing for election to public office.

Fact: Most candidates tell us they were told they had to sign, and at least six people did. If they didn’t sign, they were led to believe their names would not be on the ballot.

The newspaper questioned this practice. Two candidates challenged its legality: one crossed out major portions of the release before signing and one refused to sign.

City Attorney Jay Squires told the latter candidate on Wednesday that he needed to sign, but by late Thursday concurred that it wasn’t necessary and a rough draft of a revised form would be forthcoming.

Saturday’s press release states: The City does ask candidates to sign a consent to run a criminal background check for the sole purpose of determining whether the candidate has a felony conviction, without the restoration of civil rights, and is therefore ineligible to run for office. However, even if a candidate opts not to sign the consent form, the City accepts the affidavit of candidacy and places the candidate on the ballot.

Fact: The original form was in place from July 5, the day filing opened, until Friday, when officials amended the form. The form is now voluntary, and still reads that candidates release the city “from any and all liability for its receipt and use of any data received pursuant to this Authorization.”

The truth is that city officials overstepped their bounds. They should admit it, acknowledge that the form was required and never should have been and, if they still believe candidate background checks are critical, then bring the matter to the City Charter Commission.

For people who hesitated to seek office because of the background check, we encourage you to file. You have until 5 p.m. today. We also encourage candidates who signed the original form to rescind it in writing. Candidates can decide for themselves whether to sign the new form. (We wouldn’t.)

Voters have the duty of quizzing candidates and deciding who should serve. The new council members in turn can decide who they want working at City Hall, not the other way around.

… this is a “family .org” so I won’t start off with the greeting I used every time I had to call VanHecke when he was overseeing House Campaigns in 2004, but in short, why does this not suprise me? And I’ll readily admit I’d sent an email to them both to resign, quit, withdraw, whatever they want to call it, just give it up now before they do more damage. They both get a couple points for doing the right thing… finally… That and $0.50… The good news is that after watching Steve Kelley rip Excelsior for their Mesaba bait and switch, hey, I’ll vote for him! He’s got class, and a deadly aim! To listen, go HERE and scroll down to March 20 Jobs, Energy & Community Development.
Lots is happening on Mesaba, Comments were due today, requested by the Public Utilities Commission because it wants to assure costs are properly considered in all its decisions regarding this project, and it’s specifically looking at amending a prior Order when it shipped the case off to the Office of Administrative Hearings. What does that mean? It means we’re making progress. How? How much??? GRRRRRRRRRRR… I’m gonna take a few and see if I can figure out this upload routine and upload it all for you to read and chuckle about. This is just too funny!

OK, now I’ve got the photo upload from the web figured out, but what about PDFs???

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!

It sure ought to be necessary for employment with the City (HELP, how do I upload stuff here?? Still haven’t a clue). Today a City of Red Wing “Press Release” arrived in the inbasket, and suddenly I’m off in this alternate reality:

City of Red Wing Policy on Candidate Background Checks

Recently, there have been media stories which have created misconceptions about the City of Red Wing’s practices in accepting affidavits of candidacy from individuals who wish to file for public office. These misconceptions have been based on inaccurate information. The purpose of this news release is to clarify these practices and prevent further reports based on inaccurate information.

The City of Red Wing does not run credit checks on candidates, nor does the City require that candidates consent to credit checks. The City does not refuse affidavits of candidacy, nor does the City intend to refuse to place an individual on the ballot, for an reason other than the proper execution of the affidavit of candidacy and related filing documents. The city does not require candidates to sign consents for background checks as a prerequisite for filing.

The City does ask candidates to sign a consent to run a criminal background check for the sole purpose of determining whether the candidate has a felony conviction, wtihout the restoration of civil rights, and is therefore ineligible to run for office. However, even if a candidate opts not to sign the consent form, the City accepts the affidavit of candidcy and places the candidate on the ballot. The City has never instituted policies or practices which prevent an individual from filing for election to public office.

####

This is a test. HOW MANY LIES CAN YOU COUNT ON THIS PAGE? I have the background check form, I don’t think it takes 3 years of student loans and a JD to understand that signing a “General Authorization and Release” that says that the bearer is “authorized to release any and all private data” to a handful of entities including a private corporation, where it specifically says that there will be a credit check… anyway, it doesn’t take much to figure out that this is NOT authorization “for the sole purpose of determining whether the candidate has a felony conviction.” PUHLEEEZE, don’t waste your breath. Tell it to the County Attorney who is investigating. This is utter bullshit, and as I told the City Clerk (who called this a.m. to tell me there was a new form), the County Attorney, the newspaper, “I’m not ready to admit that this is a police state… yet…” Take that paper and don’t ask me what to do with it. Haven’t heard back from ACLU or Minnesota LWV. But the County Attorney is on it.

Against the backdrop of John VanHecke doing Matt Entenza’s dirty work (“Morons!” says a guy with ties — I couldn’t agree more. If I had more pocket change, I would have registered for A.G. yesterday when I was at the S.O.B.), the City of Red Wing was caught with its papers down.

What’s the deal? For those filing for City Council, the City wants a signed “General Authorization and Release” where candidates list everywhere they’ve ever lived, and agree to release “any and all private data which relates to me,” and checks with “one or more consumer reporting agencies, which may include, but not be limited to, criminal records checks, court records, driving records, credit reports, and summaries of educational or employment data and histories” by “City of Red Wing and its Agency’s(sic), Verified Credentials, Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, and all City and County Law Enforcement Agencies in which I have lived.” This is in the filing packet, REALLY! And this note in the middle of it, “I am not legally required to sign this Authorization; I am voluntarily choosing to do so because I want to be considered for employment or volunteer service with the City of Red Wing.” Just a little extortion between friends, right? … sigh… I don’t think so.
So of course I filed this a.m. $5, that I can handle. Just don’t have the resources to put Sen. (from Xcel) Steve Murphy out of a job.
Check this article in the Red Wing Republican Beagle:

City Hall screening council candidates

Mike Longaecker

The Republican Eagle

Joe Krueger is mulling whether heâ??ll complete his filing for Red Wing City Council.

After signing the necessary paperwork and paying the $5 fee, the former council member is hedging on one last document to which heâ??s just not comfortable laying ink.

Itâ??s a release form that authorizes the city to run background checks on City Council applicants through a private firm.

City Hall officials said the check â?? instituted during last yearâ??s council appointment process â?? merely searches for felony convictions by sifting through criminal and driving records.

The form Krueger and every other council applicant has been asked to sign reads differently.

â??… the City may desire to request reports from one or more consumer reporting agencies which may include, but not be limited to, criminal records checks, court records, driving records, credit reports, and summaries of educational or employment data and histories,â? the document states.

Krueger said he wonders whether the language will cause other applicants to shy away from candidacy.

â??To me, it has a chilling effect on the whole democratic process,â? Krueger said, noting that heâ??s scrutinizing the document on philosophical grounds, not because of anything in his past. â??People see this â?? theyâ??re going to get intimidated.â?

â??Good policyâ??

The background checks were initiated last year on recommendation by City Attorney Jay Squires, he confirmed Wednesday. City Clerk Kathy Johnson said this week that background search records of last yearâ??s at-large candidates remain on file with the city, though she said state law prohibits her from disclosing the contents.

The screening, as Squires sees it, â??seems to be good policy,â? he said, though he admitted the language listed in the document is â??a little bit of a misnomer.â?

â??Itâ??s incorrect to list that the city is conducting that type of an inquiry,â? Squires said, adding that the searches will apply to â??only that which pertains to eligibility to hold office.

â??The intent isnâ??t to inhibit anyone from filing for office.â?

But at least one incumbent isnâ??t balking at the background check. Council member Dean Hove, who filed for re-election last week, said he supports the search since it could potentially snare ineligible runners sooner than later.

â??To me, thatâ??s the right thing to do,â? Hove said. â??It doesnâ??t bother me at all.â?

Squires and Johnson said city officials may review the document to clarify what the search entails. The form given to council candidates states that it also applies to new city employees and volunteers.

â??We might be changing that a bit,â? Johnson said Wednesday.

A unique approach?

Still, some in local political circles are questioning why the checks are necessary at all. While Squires defended the screening as â??an independent means to be able to verifyâ? candidate eligibility, the new process is a break from local and state requirements.

Candidates for Goodhue County Board sign an application that includes an affidavit at the bottom, according to the Recorderâ??s Office. The sworn affidavit promises that the signee isnâ??t a convicted felon and fulfills residency requirements.

The same goes for the Red Wing School Board. Supt. Stan Slessor said School Board hopefuls only sign an affidavit of candidacy when filing for that elected office. By doing so, they declare they are eligible under state law to run.

â??We do not do criminal background checks,â? Slessor said.

Candidates vying for state lawmaker posts also arenâ??t facing background checks, the Secretary of Stateâ??s Office said. If someone were to question the legitimacy of a legislative hopefulâ??s sworn affidavit, a challenge could be filed through the courts system, said Secretary of State Communications Director Kent Kaiser.

And according to Red Wing City Charter, the affidavit of candidacy is all thatâ??s required. But, Squires pointed out, charter doesnâ??t preclude a background investigation.

â??Itâ??s good to be thorough these days,â? he said. â??Iâ??m comfortable we have a right to do this to be proactive rather than reactive.â?

Squires, who also represents other cities around the state, said that while he hadnâ??t researched other municipalitiesâ?? practices, he wasnâ??t aware of other cities initiating similar searches.

National

search included

According to Johnson, Red Wingâ??s check includes a search of each county the applicant attests on the form to have lived. A driving record search is also to be conducted, she said, as is a search of a national criminal database.

Johnson said the national search was added as a catch-all if some former addresses arenâ??t listed.

She said last yearâ??s screenings were administered by Verified Credentials, a Lakeville, Minn., background screening business.

This yearâ??s checks are scheduled to go through the same service.

Clare Larsen, a marketing copywriter for the firm, declined to share what information the city has requested for investigation.

Staff Writer Scott Wente contributed to this story