In the current climate, not one decision by the Board, not a single piece of advice from Rice, can be trusted for their integrity. Behind every deliberation and decision lies a personal and professional conflict removing the public interest from them.
Most revealing is Rice’s attempts at shifting the criticism of him and the board members he buys with his contributions, fundraiser hosting and bundling of monies from his colleagues and clients to suggest that criticism is ascribing evil. Then again, he may be right: evil lies at the heart of this utterly unethical arrangement between a board and their lawyer. Evil exploitation of this relatively invisible body controlling open spaces in Minneapolis for power and personal enrichment is the result of these unholy alliances.
For one thing, the Park Board’s legal issues are sufficiently numerous that it should either have a staff lawyer of its own at one quarter or less of the cost of an outsourced vendor or it should be assigned an assistant city attorney for exclusive work on Park Board legal matters. There is much precedent for both, the latter being stickier if a legal conflict occurs between the City of Minneapolis and the Park Board.
Further, the Park Board should have a code of ethics in place preventing conflicts of interest among its members and employees as many cities and other public institutions do. This not only increases the public trust, it gives the commissioners and others an out from the possible coercion arising out of the ethical vacuum in the absence of a controlling code.
The necessary changes in this and in adherence to the Open Meeting law are long overdue and should be imposed as quickly impossible by voters and/or the courts.
Responding to Greg Abbott, the notion that structural changes always relieve the cancer is misplaced hope. Humans find a way around all structural restriction to be self-serving. The balance between districts and at-large members could be tighter – say, 5 districts and 4 at-large members (note that almost always one district rep will dissent from other district reps creating a 5-member majority on most issues). But, generally, this is never the remedy for legal and ethical transgressions. Create laws and codes first, enforce them well and and defend them in the courts.
Andy Driscoll
Saint Paul
--------
From: Annie Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2004 22:09:04 -0600
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Mpls] Fwd: Who owns the Park Board? follow the money
Since it came up last night - here goes!
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Annie Young
Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2003 22:50:26 EST
Subject: Who owns the Park Board? follow the money
Thanks to the issues list archive, I was able to reread some interesting articles and posts about who gets funded by whom at the Park Board.
Brain Rice is the Attorney for the Park Board and his law firm received $439,000 in 2001 from the Park Board. But in some very significant way he gets to pick his employers.
He is a Kingmaker for the campaigns of most of the Park Board Commissioners.
These same Commissioners are now asking his legal opinions about their conduct concerning the backroom deal to pick a superintendent.
This is old news from a Southwest Journal July 8. 02 article-but it has relevance-the article is at:
http://www.southwestjournal.com/archives/index.inn?loc=detail&doc=/2002/July/08-3020-news01.txt <http://www.southwestjournal.com/archives/index.inn?loc=detail&doc=/2002/July/08-3020-news01.txt>
Excerpts from the article by Scott Russell in quotes concerning Brian Rice:
"He, his wife, his law firm and its members gave more than $5,000 to candidates in the 2001 Park Board races, campaign finance records show. Two groups that Rice represents as a lobbyist, the Minneapolis Police Relief Association and the Minneapolis Fire Relief Association, contributed another $3,600 to Park Board races. In addition to his donations, Rice said he helped organize a fundraisers for Park Board candidates."
(He recently Dec. 17 '03 gave legal advice about the appropriateness of the Park Board's actions concerning the hiring of a new superintendent.)
"Six of nine sitting Park Board members received 13 percent or more of their 2001 fundraising from Rice and his connections. One, Ed Solomon, received 40 percent of his fundraising from Rice's group"
Park Board Commissioner Vivian Mason has declined contributions from Rice, saying they are inappropriate.
"I feel anybody who is a contracted employee of the Park Board should not be involved in the political campaigns of any candidates," she said.
"Yeah, I'm active. I contribute," Rice said. "When I got hired the first time, I hadn't contributed anything to anyone. If a commissioner has asked for my help, since I have been (with) the board, I've helped them out. Or if I have offered and they have accepted, I've helped them out."
He or his firm gave to all incumbent commissioners and he hosted fundraisers for them during the last election - except Mason and Annie Young, who did not want the donations, Rice said. He would put together a fundraising memo and send it to his friends and clients, like the Minneapolis Police Relief Association and the Minneapolis Fire Relief Association.
"If they want to come, they come," he said. "It's tough running a race. Politicians don't like asking for money. It is not a fun task."
Unlike the contributions to state legislative races, where Rice may hope to influence future legislation, the contributions to the Park Board are essentially going to his employers.
Rice, his wife and his law firm and the city police and fire relief associations he lobbies each gave Fine a maximum $300 donation, a total of $1,500, according to campaign finance reports. It represented 15 percent of Fine's 2001 fundraising.
John Belfry of Tangletown isn't alleging wrongdoing, but he does have questions about the connections between Rice's firm, the Minnesota Recreation and Park Association (MRPA) and Park Board decisions.
MRPA rents the Superintendent's House, 3954 Bryant Ave. S., from the Park Board for $750 a month and does not pay utilities, a deal that has recently drawn criticism.
Rice, the MRPA and Park Board members and staff say nothing inappropriate has happened behind the scenes.
Rice's firm has worked with MRPA lobbying on bleacher safety and after-school grants, Rice said. In all, the lobbying contracts were worth roughly $3,000.
Rice said working with MRPA has strengthened the Park Board's lobbying position at the Capitol; MRPA is a statewide organization and gives park funding requests greater relevance to more legislators.
"They must be absolutely nuts," Rice said, of people speculating on a conflict.
For anyone to impugn the MRPA in such a way was "despicable," he said.
Rice said he had reviewed the issue with the superintendent, including a reminder that his firm lobbied for MRPA, and said memberships did not violate the gift ban. He believes an exception exists because the gifts were given broadly, not just to decision-makers.
Fine said that accepting a campaign contribution from the Park Board's attorney is no different than accepting one from a union - or anyone else with a special interest before the Park Board.
"What is the problem?" he asked. . . . Do we vote on union contracts or things that affect contracts? Of course. Does that mean people who belong to unions can't donate to campaigns?"
Brian Rice has Posted briefly on the list from Aug.16 to the 27th. 2002 about the new headquarters. They are worth reading again, a sample:
"I'm am truly shocked as to the
willingness of some members to ascribe evil motives to people. I'm more
bothered by the blatant disregard for people and in some cases the truth. I
told a fellow lawyer that I think a found a treasure trove for libel and
defamation lawsuits earlier this week. This was after I'd seen some of the
assertions put out on this Forum. I know that some member will now accuse me
of being a bully and threatening lawsuits, but I'm not. I'm simply saying
that our rights to free speech are predicated on it being truthful speech,
unless of course we are the press."
What does this all mean? I don't know. It just doesn't seem right that the person telling Bob Fine what he can and can't do legally concerning how the backroom hiring process was done is the same person who had such a large role in getting him elected.
Thanks,
Scott Vreeland Seward
Looking at hope more hopefully!
