Hi Folks: This weekend, the mayor sent the following message to the Minneapolis Issues list. (I appreciate Mayor Rybak using the list to communicate. I wish more council members would follow his example.)
"I just checked my email and saw the inaccurate statement that I called on Natalie Johnson Lee to apologize. That is incorrect. I did not and the statements I have made have not referenced her email and letter. The last thing this community needs right now is people raising more heat based on inaccurate facts. This is a great time for people to find ways to come together." =============================== and David Brauer writes: According to the KSTP.com website: "In a written statement, Mayor RT Rybak said 'While it is appropriate to express sympathy to any family member that has lost a loved one, it is not appropriate to equate these two deaths. Responsibility matters.'" ======== EY: I just called the mayor's office and requested that they send a copy of the complete statement to the Minneapolis Issues list. Unfortunately, I could not find a copy of this statement on the Mayor's website. (Personally I think the mayor's website should include a section that has all press releases). David Brauer: I agree that the Mayor never asked for Johnson Lee to apologize. I think it was a little unfair for critics to "ask" whether he did - a disingenuous way, in my opinion, to keep a divisive rumor alive. EY: The only reason people asked is because of the following post by Shawn Lewis which said that "Some have rejected Mayor R.T. Rybaks Call For Natalie To Apologize." http://www.mnforum.org/pipermail/mpls/2002-August/015398.html I took people's questions to the list, just to be asking if this post was true. To his credit, Rybak also answered directly. Brauer continues: That said, I find the mayor's last sentence above disingenuous, too. His written statement (at least the part quoted by KSTP) does not mention Johnson Lee by name, but it is clearly - in the context of the controversy during which it was released - a rebuke of her (calling the equating of two deaths "not appropriate.") ============================================= EY: Brauer put things very well here. I agree totally. I hope the mayor's office posts his complete statement to the list (and puts it on his website) so that readers may decide for themselves. Rosalind Nelson wrote: According to Grow, Johnson Lee got advice from a couple of other council members on the "two fellow citizens -- two fellow human beings" part before releasing the letter. "They said it was fine, but they're being silent now," she said, mild disgust in her voice. I wonder who the less-than-courageous council members were. ============================= EY: Actually Doug Grow said: "Johnson Lee said that she bounced the statement off a couple of her council colleagues before releasing it. She won't say which ones gave her the thumbs up." Bouncing the whole statement off fellow council critters is a bit different than asking them what they thought of the "two fellow citizens - two fellow human beings" part of the letter. All right, come on, Council Members, fess up. Or should it be left to the rest of us to speculate? Doug Grow also states: "On Tuesday, the day of Schmidt's funeral, Johnson Lee wrote a letter to her north Minneapolis constituents. The distinction of her intended audience is important. Johnson Lee is the only black member of the City Council. The majority of her constituency is black. It appears that Schmidt, a white officer, was shot by Martha Donald, a 60-year-old black woman. Schmidt and another white, female officer returned fire, killing Donald." As I understand it, (from the report of a city employee calling Jason Lewis), Johnson Lee sent this message to the "allcityemployees" alias. If she was really sending it just to the north side block club leaders, why did it go out on bulk mail like this? Was this an accident, or was it intentional? (And I think that many Mpls issues folks can understand how such "accidents" happen). Also, does the city just allow any employee to use the "allusers" email address -- that is, do messages sent this way automatically get sent -- or is there an approval process? When this story first broke, Tom Lyden of channel 9, mentioned other emails that went over the bulk mail on the city. So my guess is this thing went out there to "allusers", then a number of people reacted angrily -- and sent the things off -- again to allusers -- because they just used the reply all function. Is this what happened? Michelle Mensing writes: Isn't it possible that reasonable people can all behave and react differently to a situation? This dialogue sheds light on the very tenuous balance in the relationship between public figures and consituents when we are talking about personal feelings and statements, not public policy discussions. It is a lot easier to say I disagree with somebody's tax policy than it is to say I don't like how they personally responded (in a very public manner) to the shooting of a police officer. EY: In the case of the Mayor, part of his power is through the "bully pulpit" of the Mayor's office. It's the same for higher offices. So yes, how an office holder uses the "Bully Pulpit" is a legitimate issue for constituents to use when deciding whether to vote for that person or another. Eva Eva Young Near North Minneapolis _______________________________________ 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
