My tin fish post had many questions - questions about the business case behind the Tin Fish, but more importantly questions about long term planning, policy and openness. Most of the simple questions I raised were answered, which I appreciate. The most meaningful and more challenging questions were skipped, though.
As a reminder, those questions were: Will all park concessions be privatized? Where does the Park Board draw the line with privatizing operations to make a buck? What questions does the Board ask itself before privatizing a public asset? What policy guides the Board's decisions in this regard? What's next? Information is not forthcoming from the Park Board, hence the need to beat the bushes and see what flies out. As a matter of course, it�s the simple questions that get answered. Probing questions meet significant resistance. For example, on March 10, I initiated an e-mail thread with the park superintendent, asking him how much MPRB plans to spend on establishing three satellite offices. On March 14, 16, 23, 28 and April 1st I sent follow-up e-mails to the superintendent seeking an answer. He replied on each occassion, but without answering the question, instead providing evasive responses such as "Enough to operate them effectively" and "The information is contained in our budget." The published budget document, of course, does not provide such detail. The budget buckets are large and difficult to interpret. The budget for office space doesn't break out by location. It is nearly impossible to scrutinize Park Board spending. When I hit a dead end on this issue with the superintendent, I turned to my commissioner for assistance and was told, "We hire people to take care of that level of detail" and "I can't imagine why you care." Other commissioners, who DID care about an increase in overhead costs during a budget crisis, shared my concerns and raised their own questions on this same issue during the next board meeting. The answer is pending. A second example. For many months now, there has been clamoring about the Neiman Sports Complex. Most Commissioners and Managers of the Park Board read or hear about every significant List post on park issues, especially during campaign season. Why don't incumbent Commissioners address this issue proactively instead of waiting for it to blow up? Why do they limit their response on this issue to small group settings where they say "there is disinformation being circulated about the Neiman Sports Complex" and nobody can prove otherwise? What kind of leadership is this? Go public if there are inaccuracies. Set the record straight or take your lumps. Either way is fine by me. I don't mind being proven wrong if it gets the truth out. I appreciated Commissioner Kummer correcting the one apparent inaccuracy in my post (about the 'significant improvements'), although the characterization of the whole post as a 'disappointingly inaccurate and misinformed attack on the Tin Fish' is kind of harsh. Responding to pressure on the issue of NSC, Commissioner Kummer requested a report on the Neiman Sports Complex at a Board meeting. The report was requested two months ago and is still pending. A thorough report would likely be damaging to several incumbents. Will this report surface before the DFL City Convention? The data about the Tin Fish and the historical revenue of park concessions was dug up quickly. Why not the data on NSC? It concerns me that any commissioner would not be familiar with the financial status of the development at Fort Snelling, since it is siphoning needed funds from the rest of the park system. Other commissioners, who are not in the majority faction, request reports and those requests are simply ignored. How does my park commissioner expect me, a lone constituent on a quest for good government, to get the answers with �a few minutes of research� - when several of our elected Park Commissioners can�t get answers they demand? I encourage Commissioner Kummer to take a step in the right direction. Introduce a few simple measures that will help me, and others, get our facts straight, by moving the following at the next Board meeting: * complete the NSC Report no later than one week prior to 5/14 * create an online archive of board meeting minutes, agendas, budgets and financial statements * publish meeting minutes within two weeks instead of two months * record commissioners' votes in meeting minutes * eliminate the rule that prevents the public from speaking in Open Time about topics on the agenda * complete the 2004 Superintendent's Report and begin using a consistent format for reporting financial data from year to year * move Board meetings from 5p to 6pm * keep the webcast videos of Board meetings online for a year instead of 30 days As Chair of the Standards and Conduct Committee, Commissioner Kummer is uniquely positioned to drive initiatives that improve the transparency of the Park Board. There is a lot of political capital to be spent on building better process. It's not a real sexy campaign issue, but it's meaningful. Regards, Jason Stone Diamond Lake Candidate for Park District 5 --- CAROL KUMMER <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: If Mr. Stone had spent a few minutes researching the issue REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact 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 Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[email protected] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
