I really wanted to be at the council hearing, but as my son didn't have school yesterday and could not possibly have sat through that, I watched the rebroadcast on MTN. Here are some highly opinionated observations.
I wanted McManus to get the job and appreciated the votes of the council members who voted for him, never the less, I have to start with some of those who voted for him reluctantly. I seriously busted a gut laughing as Barb Johnson mentioned John Laux as one of the great examples of "leadership" within the MPD. Perhaps she should ask her mother, Alice Rainville, why even she was unwilling to support Laux for another term. Never the less, since it's obvious that I have sharp ideological differences with CM Johnson, I highly respect the decision she came to, although I hope McManus DOES turn the department upside down. CM Schiff's speech. Though I disagreed with nearly all of it, (obviously I support his vote) specifically because I don't want Rybak to be as conciliatory as I sometimes feel he is, this was probably the best oratory I have ever heard from a Minneapolis politician, or for that matter anyone from Minnesota. The problem is that Rybak's process was open, transparent and a direct contrast to and probably in some ways because of the processes used by the Park and School boards. Schiff started talking about how the Mayor was creating the impression that police were out of control. Well, if you're a person of color, or economically disadvantaged, then yes, the police are out of control and and you're not going to trust an insider. As good as Sharon Lubinsky might have been, she would have started with the immediate problem of trying to build bridges with people who were already predisposed not to trust her. Whether you believe the latest allegations or not, (unless your one of those people who sort of supports police brutality)we can all agree that there is at least perception issue with the MPD. Schiff's speech invalidated those very real issues. Also when these processes are attacked, unintentionally or not, it comes off as an attack on citizen participation. CM Lilligren's back handed attack on CUAPB and his comment about the "tyranny of the majority, or the most well organized..." I'm wondering if this is the same Robert Lilligren who was willing to take on Brian Herron and challenge the establishment when everyone assumed that Herron would win easily and wondered why Lilligren would try. The same Lilligren to whom people (including me) rallied when told by the political establishment that "he wasn't ready for prime time." No, this was Vice President Lilligren. One of the leaders of the establishment and the comment was reminiscent of the last Vice President, Joe Biernat. As a mental exercise, I tried to imagine Brian Herron in this situation confronted with the same vote. I concluded that one of Herron's strengths was his willingness to listen to people. When he didn't agree, he at least kept it respectful. He would never have ridiculed people who disagreed with him on some issues, especially the issue of police brutality, as a "tyrannical majority." Wouldn't it be ironic if Lilligren found himself a one term council member because of the democratic whims of a "tyrannical majority." Natalie Johnson Lee's exchanges with Dan Niziolek. I too have been wondering why affirmative action hasn't been brought up when there are other department heads needed, especially a mostly white civil rights department. CM Johnson Lee made a reference to "crossing a line," and decided not to do it. I really wanted her to cross that line and expose a lot of this for what it was. A lot of these politicians don't really believe in affirmative action, but will use it when it serves their purposes. That so much of McManus' support came from communities of color actually says a lot about the council members who voted against him. I've always felt that CM Johnson Lee was probably the best council member in the lot. One of the things that impresses me about her is that she almost never uses the word "leadership." She listens, has a more or less open door policy, and goes the extra mile for all of her constituents. She came so close to exposing the motivations of her colleagues, but stopped short. When she did that, however, I felt that I understood so much more about the debate than I had previously. CM Goodman didn't really say anything during the debate, she just voted. I've actually always respected her honesty and her willingness to get into a good political fight when it had to be done. She didn't do that this time, she just voted. Since I strongly disagreed with her vote, I respected her conduct during the vote. CM Colvin Roy also attacked the process and also came off as if she was attacking citizen participation. I wonder what Wade Russell (her opponent in 2001) was thinking as she talked about being receptive to her constituents. There's so much more, but I was imagining a Saturday Night Live Sketch like this and how it would look. The caricatures would be funny, with McManus standing there looking serious as he did during the session. Well, it's over now, but I'll be laughing for a long, long time. Tamir Nolley Holland __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
