Dakota County Commissioners: Hypocrites?

January 12th, 2010 in Lakeville, South Metro

According to Thisweek, the Dakota County Commissioners have a lot of negative things to say about the Met Council and how they conduct business. While what the Dakota County Commissioners say might be true, I have a bigger problem with that group of elected officials than I do with the appointed ones who sit on the Met Council.

Thisweek provides this bit of insight into the Commissioners complaints (emphasis mine):

“As a former member of the Met Council, we were actually indoctrinated in … who is our stakeholder. The first stakeholder is the governor. The second stakeholder is the Legislature,” Egan said, adding that accountability to the people ranks dead last.

Now, that’s an interesting argument coming from one of the members of a group which again closed their legislative meetings to public view (more on this from back in March of 2009) in a manner which is borderline criminal. Now, this isn’t to say that Board Chair Tom Egan did not fight to keep those meetings open, in fact, he was one of the three that argued that the public should be permitted to see the goings on. Unfortunately, guilt by association rules and if he really had that strong of an opinion against it, he would have done more than offer lukewarm words of disappointment. Perhaps he would have gone the extra mile and called for the resignations of Joe Harris, Paul Krause and Liz Workman being that they are ranking the accountability to the people dead last…

Now, from what I have seen, the Met Council is by no means perfect but at least they were appointed by someone else and not placed into office by the public. I would think that those who were elected should be held to a much higher standard–am I right? Well, I have a real problem with elected official Liz Workman’s comments that she favors closed meetings because if they were open she would not be able to “rip” on legislation or legislators nor would she feel like she could speak freely when the super scary press or an interested member of the public was watching. If the Dakota County Commissioners would operate by looking at their actions as if they were impacting everyone, say via a general law–maybe at the State level in this case–then perhaps they would have a different view of how to proceed. But that would make too much sense, you know, looking at the larger picture. After all, the importance of being able to feel the ability to openly rip the governor or a legislator is far more important than being accountable to the public who elected you into office in the first place, right Liz?

Now, to be fair, Liz Workman was not quoted in the Thisweek article regarding the Met Council but fellow detractors Joe Harris and Paul Krause were and they were happy to offer their dislike of the entire Met Council affair. These three are disgusting and the members of District 6 (Lakeville) should think twice about letting Krause run unopposed again in 2010. Why don’t we have term limits again, can someone please explain that one to me?

So what do you think about the Dakota County Commissioners’ comments regarding the Met Council? Hypocritical or fair? Do you think that the actions of the Dakota County Commissioners to circumvent the open meeting law is acceptable or do you believe that Joe Harris, Paul Krause and Liz Workman should have to step down for publicly admitting their attempts to hide information from the public? Whatever you think about the despicable/hypocritical actions of the Dakota County Commissioners, go ahead and comment on as I’d love to hear what you have to say.

2 Tweets

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

6 Responses to “ Dakota County Commissioners: Hypocrites? ”

# 1 Nils (342 comments) Says:
January 12th, 2010 at 10:41 am
I think it’s easy for anyone to point out that the Met Council isn’t accountable to the public. He who lives in a glass house shouldn’t throw stones.

Then again, since there are county commissioners running unopposed, they probably feel they aren’t accountable either. No matter what they do, they will get elected again. Term limits are a great idea for every public office in the country, it’s easy for the incumbents to get complacent and not care about the people who elected them in the first place.

Sorry if my comment is all over the place.

0 0
# 2 dakotanews (3 comments) Says:
January 12th, 2010 at 10:46 am
Dakota County Commissioners: Hypocrites? | Bill Roehl http://bit.ly/4PCKfp

This comment was originally posted on Twitter

0 0
# 3 SouthMetroNews (129 comments) Says:
January 12th, 2010 at 10:47 am
Dakota County Commissioners: Hypocrites? http://tinyurl.com/yez7apr

This comment was originally posted on Twitter

0 0
# 4 UpWithTheMooses (296 comments) Says:
January 13th, 2010 at 10:29 am
Why don’t we have term limits again, can someone please explain that one to me?

We *do* have term limits and we get to impose them every four years in the case of county commissioners (or school board members, to be fair). But to hold our elected officials accountable, we have to pay attention. And we have to vote.

0 0
# 5 Bill (6988 comments) Says:
January 13th, 2010 at 10:33 am
Art, we have election cycles but when people are running unopposed, it’s hard not reelect the incumbent. People who do actually make it to the polls are probably going to select the person that appears there because of the voting public only a small percentage are actually informed.
# 6 Wendy (78 comments) Says:
January 26th, 2010 at 7:18 am
Lakeville City Administrator Steve Meilke responded to some of the misinformation over transit service to Lakeville in a letter to the editor:
http://www.thisweeklive.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=14784&Itemid=1787

To the editor:

In a recent column Tad Johnson expressed concerns about the Metropolitan Council’s decisions on transit in Lakeville and the encroachment of the Metropolitan Council into the Minnesota Valley Transit Authority service area.

It’s important that readers understand that MVTA is a joint powers organization of cities that have opted out of having the Metropolitan Council provide transit services to their member communities. The MVTA has a specific territory which includes its member cities and it provides services in those communities. Lakeville is not a member of the Minnesota Valley Transit Authority and Lakeville’s transit services are under the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Council. It would be more accurate to state that MVTA wants to provide services outside of its service territory. The City of Lakeville negotiated with the Metropolitan Council for transit services and thus far the Metropolitan Council has been a good service provider and has met the needs and expectations of the city of Lakeville.

Mr. Johnson’s contention that the Metropolitan Council is encroaching on MVTA territory is simply wrong and misleading. He also fails to acknowledge in his article that in deciding which service provider should provide service in Lakeville, the Metropolitan Council did contract with MVTA to provide service in Lakeville along Cedar Avenue. It was the cost effective thing to do, and MVTA has provided very good service on this route.

In its decision to bid out the service on I-35 the Metropolitan Council invited the city of Lakeville and Dakota County to participate in the selection process. Those from Lakeville that participated believe the process was fair and impartial. The city of Lakeville is satisfied with the service it is receiving from both Met Transit and Minnesota Valley Transit Authority.

Steven C. Mielke
Lakeville City Administrator

0 0