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.
mncoalgasplant.com’s Mesaba Rebuttal Testimony
October 11th, 2006
.
The Power Purchase Agreement docket for Excelsior’s Mesaba Project is ramping up to a delightfully warm level. Yesterday, our Rebuttal Testimony was due, and I got it done with a couple hours to spare, finally managed to get in on the discount rate at the local copy shop, left for the airport Post Office before dark, and got a couple hours of sleep the night before even — hey, life is good!
mncoalgasplant.com has been blessed with two great witnesses, Ed Anderson, M.D., and Ronald R. Rich, and here’s what they have to say:
Ed Anderson, M.D.
anderson-exhibit-2-price-of-pollution.pdf
anderson-exhibit-3-environmentalcostsofdiseasesdisabilities-davies.pdf
anderson-exhibit-4-environmental-pollutants-and-disease-in-american-children.PDF
Ronald R. Rich
Exhibits are too big — will link to them
Ex. 6 – The Economics of CO2 Storage
Ed and Ron are a treat to work with, and it means so much more when they not only are the perfect witnesses in their areas, but they literally have a stake in the geographical area in question. This community means a lot to them and they are playing an important part of making sure the record is built about the impacts of this proposed project. Ed is one of the Co-Presidents of CAMP, Citizens Against the Mesaba Project, and Ron, of Atmosphere Recovery, Inc. fame, is an active member of the Swan Lake Association. Both have contributed comments and testimony for the DOE Scoping process and the “agency formerly known as the EQB” (maybe a glyph contest is in order here, this mutant agency needs it!), and Ed was on the Citizens Advisory Task Force, as perverted a public process as I’ve ever seen. Those who were part of real task forces in the past wouldn’t recognize it as a Task Force! Anyway, they’re both actively part of this PPA docket, and will be testifying in November’s hearing. We’re so fortunate to have them drop out of the sky, the right people at the right time.
As for the rest of the testimony, I’ll get that posted next. It is real kick-ass stuff, Xcel and Minnesota Power and even Commerce — NO Ed Garvey testimony this time! Given where it’s at now, I cannot imagine a scenario where this would be approved. Yeah, yesterday a good time was had by all, except Excelsior, I imagine. Great Testimony. So sit there on the edge of your chairs… naaaaaah, get comfortable, because it may be a while. And if you’re looking for the latest testimony in the enviro’s case, well, don’t hold your breath, MCEA, Fresh Energy, and the Waltons didn’t file any. And they didn’t file any Dispositive Motion, didn’t file any response to either of our Summary Judgment Miotions that were made, and didn’t bother to show up at the hearing to argue them. So next time you see them, ask them what they’re doing to STOP Mesaba…
I guess the best we can hope for is that they keep out of the way. I mean really, we’re the ones who entered “The Price of Pollution” into the record — this is a cost docket after all, an appropriate place for it! Is something wrong with this picture?
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.
Big Stone Public Hearings this week!
October 10th, 2006
AAARGH! I forgot to post these!
The Big Stone Information Meetings and Public Hearings are being held this week around western Minnesota. Here’s the poop:
Yesterday – oh well, missed that…
Today, Tuesday October 10 at 1 p.m. & 6 p.m.
Morris, UofM,
600 E. 4th St., Science Auditorium
Room 2950 Science Bldg.
Wednesday, October 11 @ 1 p.m. & 6 p.m.
Ortonville
Matador Supper Club
778 US Hwy 75
Thursday, October 12 @ 1 p.m. & 6 p.m.
Canby
Canby Community Center, City Hall
110 Oscar Ave North
Friday, October 13, 2006 @ 1 p.m. & 6 p.m.
Granite FAlls
Kilowatt Center, Rm. 107
600 Kilowatt Dr.
Monday, October 16 @ 1 p.m. & 6 p.m.
St. Paul – MPUC Large Hearing Room
121 – 7th Place E., Third Floor
To look at what’s been filed in the Big Stone II docket, go to www.puc.state.mn.us and click on eDockets, and plug in the docket number 05-619.
The purpose of this is to allow public comment on whether this is needed or not — it’s a Certificate of Need proceeding, not a siting proceeding, so NEED and lack thereof is the issue. Witnesses should be there so you can ask questions. Ask your questions on the record, and get good answers! In particular, check out how this plant will satisfy not some generic “need” but how it will satisfy the particular need of those specific utilities asking for the permit.
For the Company’s application, check the Big Stone site, there’s one site for the BSII power plant, and another for the Minnesota Transmission docket. One thing you should look at CRITICALLY is the MISO Big Stone transmission interconnection report. Make sure this gets in the record in the proceeding.