Ron, I did suggest only a one year contract not only for that reason, but because we also might want to see if Olson would deliver on his promises. But I was shot down by both PS & RS committee members and the city's legal staff. In the end only myself, Goodman and Niland voted against his reappointment.
----- Original Message -----
From: LISCHEID ,RONALD
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 5:13 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Mpls] Chief Olson's Contract
I understand and fully appreciate the fact that Chief Olson's old contract expired in 2001 and if he was to continue as the head of the police department, it needed to be renewed. I would also speculate that at the time it was renewed, those members of the city council that voted on the contract extension knew or reasonably should have known that there was the very real possibility that Minneapolis voters might be electing a different mayor and several new members of the City Council.
So my question is, why wasn't his contract only offered as a one-year contract? Is it required that it only be offered in 3 or 4 year increments? By offering a one-year contract in 2001, wouldn't that have solved the problem of the Chief's term and the Mayor's term not coinciding with one another and afforded the opportunity for a new mayor and new council members the ability to address the contract issue and choice of who heads the police department earlier than 2004 without the risk of an expensive buy-out or potential lawsuits?
I would appreciate some insight from current members of the council that were on the council when the last contract was renewed as to why another 3-year contract was offered (regardless of how they voted). I would also like to hear from some of the former council members that voted on that contract (for or against) that are no longer on the council.
Hopefully we have used this as a learning experience so that we will not be asking the same types of questions in another decade.
Ron Lischeid
Windom (the one without the park)
