[Winona Online Democracy]
I believe some of the confusion and misunderstanding regarding my comments
about city committees comes from a lack of understanding about the
historical record of how Winona committee members could be seated. As I
understand it from an explanation offered to me a few years ago by the city
manager, some of the long established city committees were part of the
original city charter. As such, only those living within the city limits
could participate in serving on them. Other committees, such as the Human
Rights Commission, were established long after the city was chartered.
Those committees formed after the charter was established, and not included
in the charter, could and did have non-city residents appointed to serve on
them.
The question of why this practice was suddenly changed I cannot answer.
Neither can I answer why after it was changed, some select members living
outside the city limits still serve, while others received letters stating
they are now excluded from serving because of the new ordinance. You'll
have to ask that question to your city council.
It is curious that no one has attempted to defend why it is acceptable for
the city government to allow some non-residents to serve on city committees
and yet other non-residents are excluded because of the new ordinance. Why
have the ordinance?
Mike Kirschmann
----- Original Message -----
From: "David" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Winona Online Democracy" <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2005 10:27 AM
Subject: Re: [Winona] community/city
[Winona Online Democracy]
I fail to see how allowing someone who had a legitimate interest to speak
at a regular meeting is a relevant to the issue that you had brought up of
the City of Winona not allowing persons from outside the city limits to
have a role in committees. These are completely different circumstances.
I would further add that I agree with the context the messages of Terry,
Janice and Linda; however, I believe in disagreement of Linda and Janice
that there is no way to draw the line for participation in committees that
would satisfy everyone. I have laid a map of the county down on the floor
and have looked at it periodically over the last three days and observed
many competing interests to those of Winona. The issue of working together
has been addressed, but the aspect of competing interests has not. While
we all benefit from each other, there are other competing aspects, ie
Minneapolis benefits from Saint Paul whereas they also compete with each
other for economic development among other things and that is why these
two have different representatives just like Winona should have its
interests considered first with its own representatives on its committees.
Terry and I have addressed the issue of reciprocity, however, those
advocating opening Winona's committees up have not admitted to being open
to the same. This is critical as this is also a source of "distrust,
division, and suspicion."
Business interests were brought up several times as a reason for opening
up committees. I disagree. Business interests have the Chamber of Commerce
among others as a means to advocate and Winona is not that large of a city
where a business leader, not to mention anyone else, would not be easily
able to contact the entire city council to advocate a cause.
The bottom line is any wall to participation, even from outside the city,
is self-imposed because while committees may not be open there are other
ways of participating.
//..\\
David Dittmann
Caveat Emptor.
On Aug 13, 2005, at 19:09, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[Winona Online Democracy]
Thank you Mr. Finn for asking your questions in an undemanding fashion.
While I don't have the documents in front of me, I will try and answer
your questions as accurately as memory allows.
The petitioner wanted to build a house on 4 acres adjacent to their
aging parents home so that they could be available to attend some of the
needs that can come with aging. The parcel has no public road frontage
as required by the ordinance but is within a few hundred feet of a public
road and an easement/access by means of a cartway to the parcel does
exist. Mrs. Miller owns a nearby parcel of 150 acres which is accessed
by the same easement/cartway. She must pass by the existing home (there
is currently one home and would be two had the variance been granted) on
the cartway to access her 150 acres which currently contains a newer
retreat/cabin.
The board recommended that the petitioner could approach a neighboring
land owner and attempt to buy enough land to meet the size/width standard
of a township road, improve it to township standards, and then offer to
dedicate it to the township as a public road. This is not an uncommon or
unlawful practice. The same solution was offered to Mrs. Miller has she
had in the past requested a permit to build a home on her land. The same
public road standard had prevented her from doing so. It seems that lots
of people want to live in beautiful Wilson Township because of the
esthetics rural Wilson living has to offer ;>) I think the board
provided a potential solution that both property owners could benefit
from.
The conflict you speak of relates to a Miller's owned parcel existing on
the Homer side of Pleasant Valley/County Road 17 and was not an issue in
this variance petiton.
Mike Kirschmann
----- Original Message ----- From: "John N. Finn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, August 13, 2005 7:09 AM
Subject: Re: [Winona] community/city
[Winona Online Democracy]
I know this is besides the point you were making. But now I'm curious
about
what the variance mentioned in your example would have been for, what
Mrs.
Miller's concerns were, and what the townships residents' interests
were. As
you are probably aware, during the annexation process our Mayor was said
by
some to have had a conflict of interest due to owning land in the area.
John N. Finn
[Winona Online Democracy]
Terri, Janice, and Linda,
I appreciate the healthy exchange of ideas regarding "community".
Their are some recent local examples of what I think we might all
agree are good examples of the greater community working together and
"outsiders" being invited in, regardless of turf wars;
While our county government has no authority in the decision making
processes that take place within the municipalities (or their
committees/boards) located within Winona County, our county
commissioners recently invited all city governments within the county
to participate in the county wide EDA, even though most of the
municipalities have their own EDA's. Judy Bodway, Winona's Economic
Development Director and head of the Port Authority (Winona's EDA) was
given a seat on the board as an advisor. This is an example of
"community".
If news reports (and my memory) are correct, some members of the GRSF
participate on a city board/committee, even though they are not
resident/registered voters. There is also at least one other city
board that has a non-city resident on it even though it is against the
city's own ordinance. These types of contradictions create distrust,
division, and suspicion.
A little closer to home for me, at a very recent Wilson Township
Variance Hearing, the First Lady of Winona was guest in attendance. A
township resident/registered voter was requesting a variance from the
township zoning ordinance, as is their right. Mrs. Miller, while not a
resident/registered voter of the township, is a neighboring property
owner of the variance requestor, and was invited to and did attend the
hearing. During the Public Hearing portion of the meeting Mrs. Miller
was given the floor and spoke of her concerns regarding the variance
request. The Variance Board listened closely and tried to address and
answer her questions. They had merit but were not conclusive enough to
deny the variance. However, because of her concerns, the board
recommended that the petitioner withdraw their request until certain of
her concerns were addressed and the petitioner graciously agreed to do
so.
Considering recent Wilson/Winona history it would have been easy for
the board to place the township residents' interests ahead of Mrs.
Miller's and go ahead and grant the variance. The board did not.
I was proud and pleased in how that board responded. I thought it was
a moment when we all recognized what was best for the greater
community.
Inclusion creates community, trust, and harmony. Exclusion creates
division, suspicion, and strife.
Mike Kirschmann
_______________________________________________
This message was posted to Winona Online Democracy
All messages must be signed by the senders actual name.
No commercial solicitations are allowed on this list.
To manage your subscription or view the message archives, please visit
http://mapnp.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/winona
Any problems or suggestions can be directed to
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] If you want help on how to contact elected
officials, go to the Contact page at
http://www.winonaonlinedemocracy.org
_______________________________________________
This message was posted to Winona Online Democracy
All messages must be signed by the senders actual name.
No commercial solicitations are allowed on this list.
To manage your subscription or view the message archives, please visit
http://mapnp.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/winona
Any problems or suggestions can be directed to
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
If you want help on how to contact elected officials, go to the Contact page at
http://www.winonaonlinedemocracy.org
