August 25 Special Rochester Edition

 

Lots of unhappy things happening in Rochester city government recently. There is definitely a lot of backroom dealing that needs to be brought into the light, and lots to pray for. A few references:

Handling of how to use "the Castle" (former Senior Center/Armory):

Here is a FB entry from Dave Beal on 8/25/16. Unfortunately, the screenshots that are referenced here just don't seem to work, but I am still posting as much as I can from the thread.

Look:
1. The council president waited months after the deadline to finally bring the proposals for the re-use of the Armory before the Committee of the Whole
2. Then, after those presentations, the council president attempted to include another proposal 16 weeks after the deadline.
3. Then, after raising their questions and concerns during the presentation of the proposals, the majority of the council declined offers from proponents to meet with them to answer their questions and address their concerns. The one council member who was not present at the proposal presentations and was later concern by his "unanswered questions" also refused the opportunity to meet with proponents.
4. Then, some council members complained in their discussion of the proposals that they did not have sufficient information or answers to questions they admitted they had not asked.
5. Now we learn today that information favorable to the RACC/ACI proposal was withheld from the council by the city administrator and the mayor during COW deliberations that included the RACC/ACI proposal.
At this point, one wonders if it is enough for the council to say they'll need to review their process and do better next time. Sure it would be nice if once they set down a process they would respect it. What would be even nicer is if they treated the people they have been elected to serve with some respect as well. A great deal more respect.
Or, maybe they have in place exactly the process they want and it is working just as they intend it to work.
As for the interminable, solemn invocation of "due diligence"...well, if you can't manage it in a year maybe you can't manage it. And you certainly can't manage it by making it up as you go along and hiding important data.
"Due diligence" does mean research and analysis of a company or organization done in preparation for a business transaction. But you know what it also means: the care that a reasonable person exercises to avoid harm to other persons or their property. That sort of due diligence is overdue.
No surprise city/county planning is a broken system. We're struggling with basic good government, simple decency, and fair play. There is not an ox in this city that hasn't been gored. Bloody hell.

Top of Form

Comments

Raymond Schmitz To repeat, why did they not refer to proposals to administrators for evaluation and comment! That would be due diligence in any other transaction with the city. Had they done so perhaps they would have the information to base a decision on. Incidentally what were the grounds for the motion to reject the proposals?

Bottom of Form

Unlike · Reply · 3 · 9 hrs
Dave Beal Raymond, no joke, these were the grounds: There's stuff we don't know that we didn't ask about and there's stuff we didn't ask about that we didn't find out.
Unlike · Reply · 2 · 8 hrs
Raymond Schmitz Beginning to wonder if this and planning, and library and senior center new building, are surfacing serious and deep issues in city administration? That is if the top officials are not monitoring and helping council avoid these issues why not?
Unlike · Reply · 1 · 6 hrs
Dave Beal It is a wonder that's for sure.
Like · Reply · 2 hrs
Jessica Schmitt Raymond Schmitz Bingo!
Like · Reply · 1 hr
Donny Rowles What if it's not a failed process - but forces behind the scenes already know what they want to be done with the Armory, and the Library - and under their direction the council is being told to remain "impotent" on these issues?
Like · Reply · 36 mins
Raymond Schmitz Mr. Beal, is it time to move to your discussion group for this. Sounds to me as though there is public support to be stoked?
Like · Reply · 27 mins

And yet another Dave Beal FB entry:

Dave Beal

(entered on 8/25, around 8 am)  

It it now clear that Webb Management Services, the consultant contracted by the Chateau Theatre Re-use Task Force, has issued a report. That report contains at least three recommendations. #3 was read at the recent COW meeting. #2 was made public yesterday.

It's time we see the whole report with the data and research supporting those recommendations. This 2nd recommendation has a direct bearing on a matter currently before the council and needs to become part of that deliberative process. Those council members from whom it was withheld should see it. The public whose interests it addresses should see it. Any claims that it cannot yet be made public were rendered invalid when with the cherry picking of recommendations to share at COW.

The report needs to be released today.

Report from outside consultants on city/county planning department/process:

http://www.postbulletin.com/news/local/report-planning-department-in-need-of-major-changes/article_ed36409e-97c6-5d92-9d79-b8046cd095a6.html

Compass Report findings:

(Note that this is only a draft at this point)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7nggK9ME5VKZHBHX1BjR0xiaGc/view

http://www.votewojcik.org/blog/2016/08/24/what-we-were-not-told-about-the-racc-proposal/

What we were not told about the RACC Proposal.

City Council

This just makes my blood boil. I though the Rochester Arts and Culture Collaborative (link included so you can like their Facebook page) did an great job preparing and presenting a proposal to keep the local arts scene vibrant in Downtown Rochester. It seemed a number of times there were games being played behind the scenes to attempt to derail the proposal.
This was a great project, not only for the Arts community, but also for the numerous cultural groups that were looking for a home. I am saddened by any vision of Rochester or DMC that does not keep our vibrant arts & cultures downtown, I am saddened for the politics that are clearly going on behind the scenes.
I find it particularly interesting that no staff person ever evaluated or make recommendations on the 2 proposals. As it turns out the Mayor and city administrator withheld some pretty important information from the council.
First here is what the city administrator read, at first I thought that someone had told him, but he claims he did this on his own.

More importantly here is what was withheld by the Mayor and Administrator:

Does this change the discussion? I think so.
I received verification from the city administrator that both he and the Mayor were aware of this. The city administrator acknowledged he should have shared Recommendation #2. Mark Bilderback who had the report, had not yet read it. I think he was also irritated.
So basically arts community, I think Nick & I are pretty supportive, Sandra seemed willing to consider this… Get 4 votes, 5 if the mayor vetoes this. I know many of you in the RACC are disappointed of angry, so take action, write letters, contact elected officials. Don’t lose this opportunity. You have assembled an incredible team. I have been and will continue to be there for you.
Posted by mwojcik @ 5:16 pm


Another development that is not acceptable to the neighborhood:
http://www.postbulletin.com/news/local/planning-commission-torn-on-alatus-development/article_e7492ab8-145a-52da-84de-746ef05a7e33.html

More Dave Beal:

http://alifeandthetimes.blogspot.com/2016/08/dark-data-what-you-dont-know-cant-hurt.html

More on the Armory:

http://kimt.com/2016/08/25/armory-building-decision-sparks-online-petition/

Discovery Square Announcement:

Here is a map of the area that is being proposed to be developed by Mortenson and Mayo. Interesting that Mayo only owns about a third or so of the land and that there is at least one church in the area shown to be developed into a major biomedical center. More to come I'm sure.

http://dmc.mn/maps/#discoverySquare