Chair Forsman, Commissioners.  My name is Kevin Skwira-Brown. I live in Duluth. 

I joined you yesterday as you selected a finalist for the Interim County Administrator position. Over the opposition of Commissioners O’neil and Sweney you chose to select an interim Administrator from a pool of candidates generated without even posting the position.  By not posting the position or soliciting applicants, you did as Commissioner Fink warned, heighten the perception that there was a preselected person for the job.   This perception becomes even more solidified with the announcement that Alan Mitchell is that finalist.

Yesterday Commissioner Forsman made it clear that the finalist was a former County employee and his first choice.  I sat there mindful that the Messabi Daily Tribune and WDIO raised the name of Alan Mitchell, former County Attorney as a potential candidate several days ago.  I come before you today with the hope that you will not stoop still further in hiring as the interim Administrator the man who lost election as the County Attorney, failed to address the complaints of sexual harassment against a County Commissioner when he was County Attorney, and represented that County Commissioner when complaints of sexual harassment were responded to and investigated under the current County Attorney. 

When I heard Commissioner Rauker say that the finalist was someone who had proven accountability to elected officials I hoped he wasn’t referring to Mitchell’s inaction when sexual harassment complaints were made during his watch as County Attorney or the legal services rendered when Commissioner Rauker was investigated for sexual harassment.  I was reminded of the attempted $75,000 per year parting contract for Mitchell that was nearly slid under the radar following his defeat.

Commissioner Forsman described the process of selecting a finalist as non political.  Given the history of baggage that accompanies Mr. Mitchell, I find that claim to be difficult to accept.  If you are serious about valuing transparency and accountability you will either open the process beyond the unsolicited four or move as a finalist one of the other applicants.  Failure to do so can not help but further diminish morale among employees and confidence among the people of St. Louis County.

In yesterdays selection process in the First and Second rounds four commissioners rated Candidate A, identified by one of you as an internal candidate as preferred to candadate D, now known to be Alan Mitchell.

Given that despite yesterdays activity this board is in the position today to take its first, final and formal action on this issue.  

I urge you to revisit those last two candidates and act in a manner that will serve administrative continuity, fiscal responsiblity, employee morale and public confidence.

While several appointments were made at the first meeting of the new year, one was quietly announced during that meeting, Keith Nelson states that he will be appointed to the citizens advisory group that will have voting authority with regard to the OHV Park/Scramble Area expansion planned to be in the works by the fall of 08.   Public Hearings will be in the spring.   The Park is proposed to boarder the Mesabi Bike Trail The maps and details are available here :  OHV PARK

Commissioner Raukar Discusses His Preferred Interim Administrator 1 14 08

Commissioner Fink lays out the process on 1 8 08

Video of the entire meeting may be found here : VIDEO

JANUARY 2008

We are Watching campaign to continue to monitor County Board

The WAW campaign applauds the recent adoption of a Code of Conduct for elected officials of St. Louis County.  We wish to acknowledge Commissioner Bill Kron’s leadership in his role as board chair during the past year.

The members of the We are Watching campaign are announcing an update regarding progress toward our goals and our plan to continue monitoring the St. Louis County Board consistent with our goals, which are:

 

1.    Our first goal is to ensure that commissioners operate in a manner that reflects the goodness of the people of St. Louis County; that commissioners are Accountable; that commissioners are Fair and that their actions are Just and Transparent.

Much of what has troubled us over the course of the last four months has been the way in which some Commissioners have conducted themselves, as well as the lack of transparency in the actions of some County Commissioners.  Specific examples are documented on our web site www.northernmnnews.com.  These examples illustrate the need to continue to monitor the Board meetings. It is our hope that increased public awareness will result in greater accountability and civility in the work of the County Board.

Specific examples include:

·    Repeated discounting of findings of sexual harassment, even after having been warned by the County Attorney to stop discussing these findings.

County Attorney warns board in September  HERE   

The issues, analysis, findings of investigation are minimized 12 18 07  HERE

County Attorney

·    Throwing a copy of the bound County budget toward a Commissioner during a Board workshop and then refusing to apologize at a subsequent meeting.

"Apology" HERE

Chair Kron responds to throwing/apology issue  HERE

The audio of the tossing (video recording at workshops is not presently done)  HERE

·   The recent vote at their Dec 18th meeting to raise mileage reimbursement for elected officials to 72.6 cents/mile (well in excess of the federal mileage rate) effectively raising their salaries.  Note that this raise applies to elected officials and the legislative lobbyist, but not to others working for the County. Voting against this raise were Commissioner’s Kron and O’Neil.  Commissioner’s Kron, O’Neil, and Forsman, have sent official request not to be reimbursed at the inflated rate.  Brief Video of Vote
Longer Video of entire mileage issue with video of County Board Budget Workshop

First part of 12 18 07 Mileage Reimbursement Discussion

Second part of 12 18 07 Mileage Reimbursement Discussion

2.      Our second goal includes the adoption of a Code of Conduct for SLC Commissioners that is legally sound, ethically strong and externally enforceable.  We also advocate County based mandatory sexual harassment and diversity training for all commissioners.

We believe that the Code that passed is a good first step. While not as comprehensive as the Code drafted by the committee initially appointed by the Board, it does articulate standards of behavior and we will look forward to improved conduct as a result.  Our observations at meetings over the last four months indicate a clear need for such a code.

Specific examples include:

·        Minimizing the significance of lynching by referring to the We are Watching group as a “lynch mob”.  View  HERE

·        Discounting women who address the Board, whether they be other commissioners, citizens, county employees or elected officials.  HERE

·        Not including mandatory sexual harassment and diversity training as a provision of the Code.  See approved code HERE

3. Our third goal continues to be to provide an avenue for the people of St. Louis County to be more aware of the actions of their Commissioners.

We will continue with the following:

·        Regular attendance at Board meetings displaying “A” for Accountability

·        Providing analysis of Board actions

·        Maintaining our website with written and video updates of Board meetings and actions

         of commissioners 

For additional information contact:

 

Kathy Heltzer   kathy@northernmnnews.com

Kevin Skwira-Brown  ksb@northernmnnews.com

It is an elected official’s responsibility to do his/her work in a professional, respectful and lawful way. Each elected official is expected to assume personal responsibility for ensuring that his/her conduct is appropriate and legal. This Code of Conduct establishes standards for elected officials in St. Louis County.

1. Respect (definition: Oxford University Press)
1. a feeling of admiration for someone because of his/her qualities or achievements. 2. due regard for the feelings or rights of others. 3. (respects) polite greetings. 4. a particular aspect, point or detail. >verb 1. feel or have respect for. 2. avoid harming or interfering with. 3. agree to recognize and abide by.

2. Political Participation (See Minnesota Statute 383C.05 Political activity)
Elected officials shall not use county funds, equipment, supplies, employees, or facilities in support of candidates or political organizations.

3. Conflict of Interest (See County Board Resolution #104, February 20, 2007 for current policy)
Preserving the integrity of county government is a key concern of all elected officials. Elected officials must avoid any business, financial or other relationships where personal interests conflict or appear to conflict with the interest of the county.

4. Drug and Alcohol-Free Workplace (See County Board Resolution #512, June 13, 1989 for current policy)
Preserving the safety of employees and setting a good example for the public is an important goal for St. Louis County elected officials. Elected officials shall comply with all federal and state laws, as well as county policy.

5. Discrimination, Harassment, Retaliation, and Workplace Violence (See County Board Resolution #494, October 4, 2005 for current policy)
All St. Louis County elected officials have a responsibility to conduct themselves in a manner that contributes to a safe, accepting and supportive workplace environment. Violence in the workplace, in any form, will not be tolerated. It can be physical, psychological or behavioral.
It is the intent of the Code of Conduct to ensure that everyone associated with St. Louis County, including elected officials, employees, customers, contractors and visitors are not threatened by any actions or conduct.

6. Educational Programs
As part of its commitment to maintaining these standards of conduct, the county has established a menu of training programs for all elected officials and employees related to the County Code of Conduct. Each elected official is encouraged to attend one internal or external Code of Conduct training per year.

7. Reporting Suspected Violations
Upon receipt of complaint against an elected official, the Chair of the County Board must convene a meeting with the Chief Administrator and Affirmative Action Officer to review and investigate the complaint and determine a course of action in response to the complaint. The aforementioned officials shall be authorized to use a neutral third party to do so.

8. Consequences of Violating the Code of Conduct
If the investigation concludes that an elected official has violated the Code of Conduct, the St. Louis County Board of Commissioners shall take appropriate and immediate action.

Duluth News Tribune December 15 Opinion by Editor