According to Burnsville’s website, City Councilmember Dan Gustafson is involved in numerous commissions, committees, community initiatives and regional agencies related to economic development and growth. But as we know from his own admissions, Dan Gustafson is not exactly the right man for that job.
We’ve been talking about this topic for months but did you realize that Dan Gustafson was accused of not paying previous employees of the company he ran in Eagan and he has numerous civil judgments levied against him which, as of today, have gone largely unpaid? When the man told Thisweek that he has no money, he wasn’t lying.
According to data (which has a lengthy waiver you must accept stating that the data might not be accurate) provided by the Minnesota Trial Court Public Access website, Dan Gustafson and the company/ies he own(s) owe hundreds of thousands of dollars in outstanding civil judgments. I’ll just give you the first three and you can search for “gustafson dan” and “gustafson daniel” for the rest yourselves (please note that not all of those records are tied to him, you have to pay close attention but these seem to be):
click for a larger view
Now, we have been suggesting to the individuals who have posted to this site, such as this poor woman owed money from one of the failed businesses Dan Gustafson “consulted” for–you know, like he would for the city on the committees he’s on, that they seek restitution from civil conciliation court. As the particular commenter linked above states, it would do her no good which is clear from the evidence provided by the courts.
So at this point I want to know your thoughts on the situation. Not only do we have the words of random, near anonymous commenters to this site, but also the judgments provided by the state’s court system (thanks to the anonymous e-mail tipping me off that I should poke into this) which show that Burnsville City Councilmember Dan Gustafson owes people money but does not seem to want to pay them. “Kicking him while he’s down,” aside do you believe that Dan Gustafson should be permitted to represent your opinions on a variety of economics related topics through his Burnsville City Council seat?
Whatever you have to say about this one go ahead and comment on as I’d love to hear your thoughts.
Related posts:
Dakota Complaints Map
Dakota Inmate Dashboard
Loading ...
Lazy Lightning Gear
BPAC Financials Archive
March 10th, 2010 at 11:12 am
This is sad. Financial problems aren’t fun and I want to be sympathetic, but when you serve on the Economic Growth Committee and LMC Policy Committee-Improving Local Economics, shouldn’t you have a handle on your own finances? I think it’s time for Dan to step aside from worrying about the city and start getting personal matters in order.
March 10th, 2010 at 12:23 pm
First, its clear the guy certainly does not add value to the committees he is on. Its also clear that he has multiple conflicts of interest and should not be involved in any of these things. It would be impossible for him to put the people of this city first at this point.
March 10th, 2010 at 12:50 pm
In this particular case, yeah, I agree with Joey. He needs to work out his own problems first, whether he caused them or not.
In the more general sense, though, there’s a lot of people in Burnsville and elsewhere with financial issues right now. I don’t expect everyone who represents me to have a flawless financial record. I’d rather it not be someone with as many difficulties as him, yes, but I can see someone who’s hit a rough patch as possibly being better able to relate to consitutents as a result. It depends on the person.
March 10th, 2010 at 12:53 pm
Tim,
Do you believe that there’s a difference between someone who has financial troubles and is working on paying off the debts they owe or someone who at least appears to be doing nothing but accumulating more debts?
March 10th, 2010 at 1:25 pm
I agree, if he “hit a rough patch”, why doesn’t he sell one of his businesses, maybe even pay former employees he still owes. What bothers me is that this guy is probably still driving his Escalade to go out on his Yacht on Prior Lake in the summer. We all face financial difficulties, but some of us have enough personal responsibilities to make changes where they are needed.
March 10th, 2010 at 1:25 pm
I understand the initial reaction of: its the economy, “don’t kick me when I’m down” stuff. But lets look beyond that: Plenty of businesspeople were flush when the economy was soaring. I have no problem with that, whatsoever. BUT, some, (like the grasshopper in Aesop’s Fables), saved and planned for a possible downturn, knowing that economics have a pattern of ebbs and flows. Some business people did not save, like the ant in the story, and when winter came/bad economy hit, there was nothing stored up. The people in the latter category are having issues right now. The “savers”, while struggling too, have an available cushion to wait out the storm.
I expect a city official to have the thought process of the grasshopper, not the ant. Here, Mr. Gustafson’s personal business decisions and their repercussions do parallel those economic decisions (with associated negative impacts) which he made for the City.
On the personal side, he clearly did not plan for the economic downturn, and could not weather the storm on a number of different fronts/business entities. Now he has judgments against him, and likely many debtors to whom he owes smaller amounts who cannot afford the legal process to collect. On the City side, he voted to blow a $5,000,000+ cash reserve and incur more debt, not seeing the economic downturn that was already happening at the time of the vote. As a result, essential services had to be cut, budgets had to be slashed and taxes and fees raised.
On the personal side, he incurred debt he was unable to pay, and despite this economic reality staring him in the face, he incurred more debt, which again, he is unable to pay. On the City side, he had people with experience advising him of the economic ramifications of his vote, and yet, refused to listen.
Another similarity between the two is that the City has taxpayers as guarantors to bail them out via taxes. Mr. Gustafson, on a personal level, should he declare bankruptcy, the citizenship as a whole bails him out, in a indirect manner, through increased prices of goods and services where those companies have “built in” bad debt as a cost of doing business.
One final analogy: I’m horrible at matching colors and selecting furniture. As a result, I would be the last person in the world to advise someone else on these matters. Perhaps someone with an extensive track record of poor financial judgment in personal matters should not be making economic decisions that impact the operation of a city and its economic development.
March 10th, 2010 at 2:03 pm
My opinion is that he should step aside as I don’t feel you can avoid a conflict of interests when involved in deciding where taxpayer funds are going. If you are having financial trouble, you shouldn’t be responsible for taxpayer finances.
Heck, many companies take a second look at anyone with poor quality credit.
March 10th, 2010 at 4:11 pm
Let’s see he sends a previous employee a W2 for wages that were never paid. He owes other employees wages. He owes creditors close to 500 thousand dollars. He owes the state of Minnesota taxes on the now defunct Applewood Grill…… WOW, he should NOT be aloud to make any city economic decisions what so ever!!!! When do questionable business ethics become criminal behavior?
March 10th, 2010 at 7:44 pm
Bill, yes, I certainly think there’s a difference. That’s what I was trying to get at with my “as many difficulties as him” comment.
Whit, while I generally agree with the spirit of your post, I disagree with the grasshopper analogy and businesses (not as it pertains to Gustafson’s businesses, but in general). Obviously reserves are important, but very few companies (and certainly no major companies) can sustain a year and a half of operations with reserves alone, because they would burn through the money too quickly. Most companies are done for if they don’t have access to credit, and that’s what has killed many of them off due to the frozen capital markets. Plus, if you are a public company with healthy cash reserves and unused debt capacity, you can potentially become a hostile takeover target. So, in short, corporate finance = complicated. :)
March 11th, 2010 at 11:02 am
Tim: I agree that corporate finance is complicated. However, if you are a lender and have the option of lending to (a) a small local business owner who made smart financial decisions during upturns (i.e. continue to watch for wasteful spending; plan for the future; operate a thoughtful business plan; pay taxes, etc.) or to (b) a small local business owner with Dan Gustafson’s financial history, and you HAVE to pick one of these people to lend to, to whom would you extend credit?
I’d pick (a). I also don’t like the fact that as the “citizen bank”, I don’t have a choice but to have Mr. Gustafson make decisions about where/how my money is spent, based upon his track record.
Frankly, I’d like to hear an explanation from city hall, and not just the “don’t kick me when I’m down” stuff. We deserve more than that. As an elected official, his practices should be subject to greater scrutiny than the local small business owner who is struggling through the recession. Further, how can he, as a council member, scold or take a stance against businesses such as the local Hooter’s restaurant for not paying its property taxes (in arrears about $50,000), when Mr. Gustafson’s businesses are in arrears on taxes, have unpaid employees, etc.?
I’d be interested to hear what Mr. Gustafson or the Mayor have to say.
April 22nd, 2010 at 10:32 am
[...] Dan Gustafson lied and said he was ill but was seen at a local restaurant, and most recently when I asked whether Gustafson should be able to lead the city on economic related matters when he’s hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt. You would like to think that a Burnsville [...]