Although the dollar amount wasn't that big, I think the lapse in ethics is still relevant. Why can't we expect our elected officials to know better than receiving even one free dollar worth of services from somebody, especially someone who might then do business with the city or potentially be appointed to a board. This is the kind of issue that is so difficult to sort out - was there intention when the free service was received and the board appointment made or not - that elected officials just need to take the high road. Joe Biernat should have been in a position when making the board appointment to not have to think twice about who gave him a free service and who didn't. I think it is reasonable to expect elected officials to behave this way, and the way we enforce how people behave is through our laws. Therefore, it seems reasonable to me that the kind of behavior Joe Biernat engaged in should be looked at by our justice system.
Michelle Mensing Armatage > Speaking as one who did not support Joe Biernat for reelection, I have > not been overly impressed so far by the seriousness of the charges > against Joe Biernat. $2,700 in free services? Let's see, some stores > triple the cost of the products they sell. If such a markup prevailed > here it would be $900 of service, marked up to retail value of $2,700. > $900. Is this in the felony range? (I'm asking. I don't know.) > > And then the article in the Stribe today talks about mail fraud, because > a union official sent a false invoice through the mails. (Memo to > padded-billers: use FedEx.) Seems like a stretch to me, like making a > robbery a federal case if Tom Thumb robber fled on federal highway > I-35. (Hummm. Maybe if US currency is involved in a payoff then it is > automatically a federal case. Memo to politicians--take payoffs in > liras or fracs.) > > Anyway, this case, at least as it pertains to Joe Biernat, hasn't seemed > too strong. Can they show the appointment to the Examining Board was a > quid pro quo? It's probably as likely Joe was pro-union and felt this > guy fit the bill for the Board job. Did Joe know anyone was being paid > for the work done on his house--or could it have been friends helping > friends, or doing each other favors. > > I know people who help each other out, giving services at cost or for > free. For free I helped a friend two days ago explore job postings on > the Internet, and I raked my wife's aunt's front yard a couple weeks ago > in Superior. I know of people with trucks who plow their neighbors' > drives every time it snows. I hate to see the criminalization of > friends helping friends (and acquientances). I prefer to presume > innocence instead of guilt in an ambigious case. > > Maybe the feds have more on Joe than I am aware of. But this case seems > to be limping. > > I don't like it when the state has so many laws governing so many facets > of our lives that, in effect, all of us are guilty of something or > other, so it becomes the perogative of the people in power to decide who > they will prosecute and who they will leave alone (for now). > > Alan Shilepsky > Downtown > libertarian statement--a country with too many laws is like a country > with no laws--in both cases those in power can decide the rules. > _______________________________________ > Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy > Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: > http://e-democracy.org/mpls _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
