[Mpls] Aug. 17 Park Board Meeting report, part 2 of 3

[Chris Johnson]

Part 2

6:30 -- Regular meeting Reconvened by Olson

Young has questions regarding the DeLaSalle Public Hearing and discussion of a 
resolution.

Olson tries to recess to go to the Planning Committee.

Young says they need a motion to amend the agenda to do so.

Olson asks for a motion

Commissioner John Erwin makes the motion.  Passes and agenda is amended.

Dziedzic takes this moment for a point of personal privilege to say he did not 
say what he was quoted as saying in the Star Tribune about the size of 
Nicollet Island and how much land was used by residents.

* Reports of Standing Committees

Planning Committee

Fine moves item 4.1, That the Board authorize staff to enter into a Reciprocal 
Agreement with DeLaSalle High School.  Seconded by Hauser.

Erwin offers a Substitute Motion as a Resolution as a Compromise.  Seconded by 
Young.  [I do not have a copy of the Resolution.  Perhaps John Erwin or 
someone else who does have a copy will post it.]

Roll call vote:  Fine votes NO, others all vote YES.  Passes 8 to 1.

The Compromise Resolution was worked out between Nicollet Island resident 
Barry Clegg, DeLaSalle and the Park Board.  They are thanked for their hard work.

Dziedzic wants to make a friendly amendment.  Olson does not want to mess with 
the agreement at this point, or everything will come undone.

6:41pm -- Public Hearing on DeLaSalle Proposal

* Barry Clegg states the compromise resolution is not perfect from the 
Islanders point of view and surmises it is likewise not perfect from 
DeLaSalle's point of view, either.  That's the nature of compromises.  But he 
hopes that each side, instead of repeating the same arguments they made 2 
weeks ago at the "public forum," are willing to hold their comments until the 
public hearing(s) that will be part of the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) 
process.

* Brother Michael Collins, president of DeLaSalle, says that he agrees with 
Clegg completely, that the resolution is a great solution for now, and 
likewise urges the numerous people who have come to testify to keep their 
comments for the next hearing and let the meeting proceed tonight.

Olson calls for anybody else who wants to speak.

* Arlene Fried of Bryn Mawr says the compromise Resolution calling for a CAC 
is a good solution, but that it was very unfortunate that it had to come to 
this point before the CAC was planned.  It should have been planned back in 
January, and a lot of hostility could have been avoided.

* August Berkshire[?] of Minnesota Atheists says they want a separation of 
church and state person on the CAC, e.g. someone from MN Atheists or the ACLU.

Dziedzic wants to amend point #6 in the resolution[?] regarding a performance 
bond.

Hauser still believes the 1983 agreement between the Park Board and the City 
requires the Park Board to provide this land to DeLaSalle [contrary to legal 
opinions to the contrary].  She supports the motion.  [what motion?]

Mason asks does the Archdiocese own DeLaSalle?  Will they make DeLaSalle an agent?

Michael Collins answers at board request:  Yes, Archdiocese owns DeLaSalle, 
and DeLaSalle is already an agent and can make its own contracts.

Mason does not see a need for a reciprocal agreement to be mentioned in the 
resolution and is uncomfortable with it.  She asks if the Environment 
Assessment Worksheet (EAW) has to be done before the CAC meets, so that they 
don't waste their time.  She wants proper representation on the CAC, as it is 
important.  She was asked to name her CAC member today, but is unprepared to 
do so and wants more time.

Olson says the reciprocal agreement mention was part of the compromise.

Counsel Rice does not know about the EAW before the CAC meets.  The City 
controls the EAW and the Park Board controls the CAC.  It will require 
coordination.

Olson gives Mason (and other commissioners) until noon on Friday to have their 
CAC appointments in [in reality, it ends up being the following week Monday or 
so].

Young is in agreement with Mason.  She is not ready to name her appointment 
and does not like the CAC structure.  She says they can give the CAC any 
charge they want.  She thinks the arrangement of the Whereas clauses in the 
Resolution is confusing and suggests rearrangement.  She makes a friendly 
amendment or substitute motion on composition and structure of CAC.

Erwin does not accept Young's motion as a friendly amendment.

Olson does not want to alter the agreement.

Kummer applauds the work people did on it, etc.

Someone says call the question.  [but I'm wondering what was passed before and 
what the motion is on the floor now -- and are any of the commissioners 
including Olson likewise confused?]

Whatever it was they were voting on, the Compromise Resolution for a second 
time, or the first time, or something else, passes 9 to 0 on a roll call vote.

7:02pm

Fine moves item 4.2 That the board direct staff to initiate a Citizen Advisory 
Committee (CAC) for the proposed DeLaSalle High School Athletic Field Project 
to meet as soon after September 1 as possible with the intention of having at 
least 3 meetings with 1.5 months of its inception.  It's seconded.

Erwin suggests lengthening the period to 2 months, versus 1.5.

Olson says it can start 9/1 and the chair of the CAC can ask for extensions if 
needed.

The CAC will have 21 members.  The board and Olson do not make it clear to the 
audience what that structure will be, but apparently the commissioners have 
something in writing that perhaps describes it.  From what was said, it seems 
to include the following appointees / members:

Each park commissioner:  1 x 9 = 9  (Olson's appointee will be chair)
Nic. Island Neighbor Assoc:      2
Other near neighbor Assoc:       3
Soccer player interests:         1
Football player interests:       1
Mayor R.T. Rybak:                1
Adjacent ward council members:   2?
Business:                        2?
County Board member:             1?

Young wants to add 4 people, 2 from DeLaSalle, 1 from special interest group 
and 1 from city park / environmental at large.

Olson thinks it's fine as is.  Says if it is too big, it's harder to operate.

Hauser support Young, thinks DeLaSalle should have representation.

Olson points out that DeLaSalle is the proposer of the project to which the 
CAC will be reacting, and will thus have plenty of say in the outcome.

Erwin points out that some commissioners will likely appoint DeLaSalle supporters.

Olson says "very good words, vice-president Erwin."

Roll call vote on 4.2:  Young No, 8 Ayes.  Passes 8 to 1.

7:12pm -- Olson Recesses the regular meeting.

There is lots of milling about and talking.  I notice that Crown Hydro 
continues their perfect attendance in the person of Rob Brown.  I notice 4th 
district candidate Christine Hansen attending her first-ever Park Board 
meeting.  Candidates Meg Forney (at large) and LuAnn Wilcox (1st district) are 
also present.

7:31pm -- Kummer reconvenes the Standards & Conduct committee.

Young wants to direct staff to investigate computer voice recognition or other 
technology which might help provide improved meeting minutes.

Kummer says "we meet our statutory requirements and I don't know why we need 
to do more than that" -- based on a legal opinion from counsel Rice.  [no 
point in doing more than the bare minimum versus trying to restore the public 
trust, I guess]

Young mentions that Dziedzic earlier stated if one recuses oneself, they 
should not speak on a subject or motion.

Dziedzic says Young is correct, that it is in Robert's Rules.

Young says she is opposed to that idea, and gives an example of how one 
discusses first and then recuses at the vote.

Kummer gets confused about the progress of her committee's meeting.

Hauser says Robert's Rules do say this.

Siggelkow says one recuses oneself for personal or financial interest in the 
outcome, and one's statements may influence others.

Rice says similar things.  He argues [I thought only the deliberating body 
should argue the motion or point] for commissioners to not recuse themselves 
except in the case of legal financial interest [again, let's not set the bar 
too high here, right?], otherwise one is not fulfilling the obligation to the 
people who sent one here to vote.

Fine brings up the obvious alternative of abstaining from a vote instead.

Erwin thinks it's wise to recuse or abstain when there is just an appearance 
of or potential for conflict.  One cannot know for sure how a vote may 
ultimately benefit someone financially.

Rice says [did he get called on again?] everyone has a bias, it's about balancing.

Kummer says we have fully explored this.

Dziedzic repeats his point about no speeches before voting [several audience 
members point out to me that they think Dziedzic is the biggest abuser himself 
of this rule].

Olson criticizes Young for her comment supporting the CAC after voting no on 
the structure laid out in 4.2

Young reads into the record the passage in Robert's Rules of Order regarding 
voting and conflict of interest.

Fine reads the passage regarding explaining one's vote.

Kummer says she remembers Siggelkow received an offer from Brian Melendez to 
review their process.

Siggelkow says it was 1.5 years ago, but maybe the offer still stands.  He 
believes the new commissioners elected this fall should review the process.

Kummer wants to get it done before then.

Mason agrees they need an outside process evaluation.  Tonight is a perfect 
example of process problems; TV coverage has ended before coming back to the 
substantive portion of the Standards & Conduct committee meeting.

Olson suggests starting regular meeting at 5pm, followed by committee 
meetings.  It would be easiest.

Kummer wants Mr. Melendez to take a look at it.

Young has a question about what they are asking Mr. Melendez to do, are they 
asking him to present his parliamentary procedure workshop?

Siggelkow suggests starting at 5pm with regular meeting for the next 4 months 
and then review.

Fine moves same (Olson/Siggelkow suggestion) and adjournment.  Passes.

7:52pm -- Adjourned

Olson reconvenes the regular meeting again.

End of part 2 of 3 parts.

--
Chris Johnson
Fulton