Minneapolis says disclosure law 'does not cover' top appointees

  • Article by: ERIC ROPER , Star Tribune
  • Updated: October 27, 2012 - 7:38 AM

Appointee doesn't fit definition of public official, Minneapolis says.

  • 19
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
webfootOct. 26, 1210:11 PM

Oh please...a department head for the city isn't a public official? That's B.S. and everyone knows it.

34
1
rshacklefordOct. 26, 1210:33 PM

"Minneapolis City Attorney Susan Segal said regardless of the author's intent, they are bound to follow the letter of the law." ---- Susan lost all credibility when she was RT's pocketed attorney who argued that the city's ordinance regarding stadiums, which was voted on and approved by its citizens, was not applicable to the New Jersey football team owner's stadium. Thanks Susan! P.S. The U of M's law school does offer an ethics course for lawyers (hint hint).

27
0
sharkysharkOct. 26, 1210:37 PM

Minneapolis looks more like Chicago every day.

25
2
MicheOct. 26, 1210:46 PM

"They report instead to the city's executive committee, which consists of four council members and the mayor." These are the people that need to be accountable and responsible. The City Council and the Mayor continue to appoint people that have no business being in these positions, then fail, and the taxpayers are left holding the bag and are the real losers in all of this. It is getting really old!

26
0
minn12Oct. 27, 12 2:35 AM

It's simple. Take the city to court, and a judge will quickly order them to disclose all the info. The city is clearly stonewalling and refusing to follow the law. It couldn't be any more clear, when the legislative authors state that it was their intent to cover this type of situation.

16
1
SeaSharkOct. 27, 12 3:31 AM

REP. PAM MYHRA should introduce a bill in the 2013 Legislature amending her original amendment, and expand the definition of a "public official" to cover individuals in a management capacity no matter who they report to.

21
0
lynnschacherOct. 27, 12 5:01 AM

Why do people in Minneapolis vote democratic ? We need to get these people out. Bite the bullet and vote Republican and say goodbye to rybak and tuthill.

16
5
karendavid816Oct. 27, 12 6:08 AM

Just because this State law may subject to interpretation, it does not mean that the City is unable, on its own, to explain to its citizens what happened with Stubbs. RT has been spending way too much time in Obama land. This is not Chicago, this is Minneapolis. Maybe the Stubbs severance package was the result of a spontaneous demonstration that got out of hand. Yeah, that's it.

14
2
murphydogOct. 27, 12 6:31 AM

Again, why hasn't anyone sued the city for bypassing the required referendum on stadium construction? Wake up Mpls. voters.

14
3
drfranktOct. 27, 12 7:32 AM

Not unlike Chicago and the current state of affairs with our current administration. Democrats, the party of "transparency" is anything but transparent, and that, apparently is what the great unwashed prefer. As long as the dems promise everything to everyone, people will believe it. The Blue Collar Comedy Tour is right...You can't fix stupid!

12
4

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT