Someone asked "where's the beef?" and others think, hey, no biggie, didn't involve too much money here in alleged fraud, theft, etc. Others have suggested that, since there has been no conviction or admission of guilt, what's the beef with asking CM Biernat to step down.
Here's my beef: When CM Biernat was indicted and quite smartly hired a very good attorney, the necessary shift of his focus became protection of himself. That is advisable, reasonable, and obviously warranted. BUT, it obviously shifts the equation as a public servant-- no longer should he have, in defending himself, the public's interest at heart. He should be defending himself zealously. Because the shift focuses on personal concerns and not on public concerns, there is a real conflict of interest (or, at the least, an appearance of conflict) in his participation as a public servant answerable to the public and LOYAL to the public. When defending himself, he is and should be loyal to himself and to his family. It is because of this shift to the personal as opposed to the public that I believe he should step down--or, at a minimum, take a leave of absence during the pendency of this case. I'm rather surprised very little has been raised publicly about this aspect of remaining in a public position. Finally, these are not criminal charges related to personal issues: e.g., DWI, expired tabs, domestic abuse, which would present a wholly different personal/public context. These are charges related to his position as a sitting CM. For that, I think something has to occur to protect the public while at the same time Biernat quite understandably protects himself. That's the tension here that remains unaddressed. _______________________________________ 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
