Let me see if I've got this right. 1) Commissioner Erwin thinks Superintendent Gurban is not to be blamed for siccing the cops on Jason Stone because he was merely following park board policy. 2) Commissioner Erwin himself has never read the park board policy in question. 3) When Commissioner Erwin ran for election four years ago, he saw many candidates for office apparently violated the park board policy by distributing literature much as Jason Stone was doing last week. 4) Commissioner Erwin did not himself have any hand in formulating this policy, implying that it was either implemented before his tenure and allowed to be violated frequently in the past, or was recently implemented behind his back. When he first heard about it last month, he and another commissioner "raised eyebrows" about it, and apparently are still studying it to see if it is lawful. Pardon me if I feel that's a rather tepid response that hardly compels accountability.
As Commissioner Erwin is an at-large member of the Park Board and thus directly represents me, I want to why this situation has been allowed to happen on his watch. I want to know why he feels the political motivations of Superintendent Gurban should be blameless, even as he highlights the political motivations of Jason Stone. Commissioner Erwin is either very naive or derelict in his duties, or both. I'm sorry I voted for him. And like many many many others, I am really tired of the sleazy dysfunction that incredibly continues to characterize the Minneapolis Park Board. Britt Robson Lyndale ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Erwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 10:21 AM Subject: [Mpls] RE: Campaigning in Parks > There has been a lot of discussion of the incident at Pearl Park related to > Jason Stone's passing out literature and the Superintendent's response. > There is also a noticeable hush from Commissioners. . . First, I would like > to say that I was not at the Park and did not witness the event. However, I > would like to make a few comments: > > The issue of a review of our own policy regarding politicing in the > recreation centers was requested by Comm. Young at our last meeting. I > assume because she had concerns about what she can or can not do herself in > her own campaign. At that time, our District Manager Mr Hokeness stated our > policy - I have not seen this policy in written form. My recollection of > the policy presented at that meeting as it relates to this issue is as > follows: > > 1) Political Parties/Campaigns/Candidates may use rooms in > Recreation Centers other than the gyms free of charge and may pass lit > within the room but no fundraising (fee if room is used outside of regular > center hours or for gym). The candidate must reserve the room for that > purpose. > > 2) At festivals and celebrations the candidates may purchase a > booth or table and can distribute literature but may not freely wander the > crowd handing out campaign materials. > > To be honest, I was a little surprised at the policy myself as I regularly > saw campaigning occurring during neighborhood meetings when I ran for office > 4 years ago in Rec Centers myself as well as in festivals. People (City > Council and Board candidates) routinely passed out buttons, sign up sheets > for lawn signs and so forth in parks. So the policy raised a couple eye > brows among sitting Commissioners. During the meeting, I recall that Comm. > Young was surprised as well and I leaned over to her and suggested that > she/we consider changing the policy. . . I believe this would have happened > over the next month or so anyway. > > Personally, as Recreation Centers/parks are public buildings/facilities, I > believe that campaigning should be allowed to occur as long as it does not > disrupt the scheduled activity that is occurring, i.e. ball games, > neighborhood meetings, etc. This is what occurred in the past, and there > did not seem to be any problem then. Imagine that would be the case now. > > The Commissioners/Board are responding to concerns over this policy and yes, > the Board's Council, is studying whether the policy is in conflict with > established law. To think that we are not concerned is wrong. Regardless, > I imagine there are at least two Commissioners (me included) who think the > policy should be rewritten and is not appropriate. > > With respect to Mr. Gurban, the Superintendent has responded to concerns > over his actions and gives an account of the incident on the Minneapolis > Observer. It is the Superintendent's role to carry out Board policy. In > this he should not be blamed. The policy was reviewed just 7 days before at > a Board meeting. Part of the outrage over this should be directed at the > current Board although many of us were not aware of this policy ourselves > and were surprised last week when we heard it! What Board wrote this thing? > Not the current one. > > But I do have three comments related to the incident at hand aside from the > fact that the policy should be reviewed and rewritten ASAP: > > 1) Mr. Stone knew this policy as he was at the last meeting and heard the > discussion and proceeded to violate the policy anyway. Suggests that this > may have been an effort to use the policy as a campaign issue to gain > political visibility. Valid tactic. But he was aware of the policy and > people should not think that he was completely surprised. > > 2) The whole incident could and should have been handled differently. Three > officers was excessive. There are plenty of other things for three officers > to do than to all respond to a lit drop violation! In addition, I did not > hear of anyone talking with Mr. Stone as to who to call or how to change the > policy if he did not agree with it or to address the current incident > immediately - i.e. call other Commissioners. > > 3) There is the perception that all these officials raced to the site to > harass Mr. Stone. Not the case. They were all there for a scheduled > meeting that they were going to attend anyway. From what I know, Mr. Stone > was asked to comply with the policy no less than three times by Park > representatives. I also note that he was not ticketed. > > Bottom line is that the policy needs to be rewritten, the situation could > have been and should have been handled differently, and the candidate knew > of the policy prior to the incident but proceeded to violate the policy > anyway. > > Sincerely, > > John Erwin > MPRB At-Large Commissioner > > 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 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
