Ri-verfront Re-dux: Re-envisioning the Re-Imagining

100+ years ago: now that was a river

“It’s just another asset we could potentially bring to the table...”

A few re-marks


This "...re-envisioning the Riverfront Re-Imagine site..." is worth a re-ad. As is the slide deck re-plete with a sketch with which the mayor re- cently re-turned. (Note how the public "just another asset" library is already commodified for leveraging shiny land swaps and foot traffic. It's all good. Just talking the talk.)

So let's see who is interested before we figure out who's qualified before we ask them to propose the re-vised re-do. Consultants at every step stand re-ady to assist, advise, and re-commend. Meanwhile, supplies of foam core are being laid in anticipation of much re-engagement with the re-sidents.

(Wonder what we'll end up thinking we want that's different from the last time(s) we were asked.)

This ain't bad:

"...Even with this amount of housing activity, the supply of affordable housing units has not met demand.  To alleviate the affordable housing shortage, the City has been working diligently with developers to promote housing developments that offer units for a range of income levels. Although the city needs a variety of workforce and affordable options, the biggest push is for the development of 50% AMI and lower."

But dibs instead on the next luxury hotel with a brewery (!) and a so two years ago food thing from the coast (either one). Be re-assured that whatever comes will come awash in art and green and bike racks and a "rapid transit" stop. And parking.

Better be good because we're building for the next century now - and beyond.

"The community vision for Riverfront Re-Imaged is for an innovative, unique and enduring development. The expectation is to create an architectural and culturally significant amenity that will serve this community for 100+ years."

Hope they saved the receipts on the foam core. Looks like we've had our say. (Note to all those who have said that some of us are too old to have an opinion or say in what happens next - most of you aren't young enough for this next new thing. Neither are your kids, but they'll be the ones stuck with answering "What were you thinking?!" crouched around the blasted skyway drumfires as they look up at the twinkling passage of Mayo Clinic in near earth orbit.)

Anyway these are critical:

"CRITICAL ELEMENTS • Transformative one-of-a-kind project • Land & environment are renewed and sustained • Welcoming to all and diverse community appeal • Vibrant public spaces & natural integration • Connected physically & socially • Year round use, with easy riverfront access • Natural integration of neighborhood characteristics • Encompass Rochester’s past as well as future"

And an unobstructed view of the backside of the Government Center

We'll see. Well, maybe not us, but surely someone will.

Oh, almost forgot. Here's my Post-It (TM) note:

• Affordable, accessible housing at 50% AMI and lower.
• A public library.
• A center for health, innovation, and culture.
• A better view.
• A river.

#rochnxt: where should we make a place for the next museum in Rochester?

…[C]ultural institutions in general and museums in particular play a significant role in the future of cities.  They are part of the key infrastructure to keep our cities, where so much of us live, healthy, livable, safe and successful in the 21st Century. 

- Eric Visser, “Museums in the City of the Future”

The next museum in Rochester is about the next Rochester. The Rochester we are creating, in the city we are inventing, for a world we are discovering.

The next museum in Rochester is about learning how to learn, how to create, how we become who we are becoming.

The next museum in Rochester is for our many vocations of making and doing and creating. Invoking an aspiring present. Evoking the global implications of our doing and making and creating. Convocations of doers and makers and creators. Participating. Observing. Learning from the lived experience of living next now.

There are no better emissaries of the next Rochester than Rochester’s children. Any purpose laying claim to what is next that is not a place where children are present does not understand where next is. The next museum in Rochester is a museum where children are embraced by opportunities to be children at play discovering their world and inventing all the ways they might become who they may aspire to be.

There are no better emissaries of the next Rochester than Rochester’s adults. Any purpose laying claim to what is next that is not a place where adults are present does not understand where next is. The next museum in Rochester is a museum where adults are embraced by opportunities to be adults at play discovering their world and inventing all the ways they might become who they may aspire to be.

There are no better emissaries of the next Rochester than Rochester’s seniors. Any purpose laying claim to what is next that is not a place where seniors are present does not understand where next is. The next museum in Rochester is a museum where seniors are embraced by opportunities to be seniors at play discovering their world and inventing all the ways they might become who they may aspire to be.

There is no place more necessary for the next Rochester than one where the next Rochester is its purpose. Where then and now open horizons to next. Where we come to appreciate and comprehend the arc of the city that frames our living here.

The next museum in Rochester is a museum that places us where we live and places where we live in the world.

The next museum in Rochester anticipates a changing world in a city where changing the world happens.

The next museum in Rochester erupts in the lively and lived experience of communities that comprise a city life whose livelihoods call others to us. The world comes for what we offer: wellness, work, and what comes next.

The next museum in Rochester is a museum that welcomes all for whom the city is a destination, where thousands of destinies come to reside and come to visit.

The next museum in Rochester invites the city and the world to be next to each other.

The next museum in Rochester is thoroughly about Rochester: who we are, where we live, what we do and make and create.

The next museum in Rochester is about coming to Rochester and knowing it thoroughly: who we are, where we live, what we do and make and create.

The next museum in Rochester is about what we can come to be by being here.

__________

Notes on #rochnxt: where should we make a place for next museum in Rochester?

Secular prayer is usually called "word magic" by those who think they can propose contrivances for its elimination. We have always been impressed with the feeling that these contrivances are examples of prayer albeit in disguise. - Kenneth Burke, Attitudes Towards History

I drafted most of the above a bit over a year ago - a visioning exercise of sorts, a secular prayer if you will. Since the summer of 2016 I have been working off and on with the children's museum on its next iteration. What it might be. What it needs to be. And the where and how it can be in Rochester at all. Its current location was ever transitional. A place to see if there is a place for it here and if so to move from to a better place. What ever is next - if there is a next - will be the next museum in Rochester. 

I came across this piece above coincidentally as I was downloading the slide deck for the DMC Discovery Walk presentation at the upcoming city council committee of the whole. (Along with foam core fairs, these presentations are a familiar part of our civic liturgy.) More than coincidence, there was an element of serendipity. 

Though I do not speak on behalf of the children's museum planning process, that process already acknowledged this sub-district of the medical development district as among its "five candidates for possible future homes." Is there a better place for a proposed center for "innovation, health, and well being and cultural exchange"? 

Though writing of his home, Jasper Visser could have been writing here of ours and of Rochester's next museum:

Like many cities in the world, the one I call home – Amsterdam – is experiencing growing pains: The balance or lack thereof between tourists and citizens, the growing gap between the rich and poor, the collision between the city’s transnational outlook and my country’s growing nationalism… Cities all over the world explore how to thrive in the 21st century without falling apart. Museums find that as they transform from government institutions into civic institutions, they take on new roles and responsibilities and they are expected to play an active part in the future of the cities they are based in, and the communities they are part of.

Save for contrivances to the contrary, the best purpose for the next museum in Rochester is discovered where it can serve that purpose best.

DMC: everywhere but here or here or god forbid there!

But there is cause to believe in banishing the term, far from banishing its functions one merely conceals them. - Kenneth Burke, A Grammar of Motives

There's an emerging school of DMC commentary that might be described as "strict constructionist." Its proponents endeavor to insulate DMC from criticism and controversy by trying to enforce narrow semantic limits upon the proper use of the emblematic acronym and all that it implies - which, according to this school, isn't really all that much. Though sometimes there is cause to wonder if these proponents have recently reviewed the DMC legislation passed in 2013 or the DMC master plan approved in 2015, it does seem apparent they probably have not reviewed the DMC marketing efforts of 2017.

It's not to far from "In the middle of EVERYWHERE" to in the middle of everything. And my the stories they tell. If there is ground breaking research being pursued at Mayo Clinic - that's DMC. If it exists or is planned within the medical development district - that's DMC. If it exists or happens in Rochester - that's DMC. If it's innovation, investment, medicine, growth, community, recreation, health, culture, or education - that's DMC.

Whatever it is, wherever it is, if it is in or about Rochester, spins positive, and can wear a happy face - that's DMC.

As marketing campaigns go, this is a nice one. Upbeat stories full of promise and truthiness. Sincere people radiant with optimism and competence. Good production values. Better than "Let's Build This!" to be sure. All in all, it is much more credible than the "DMC - Everywhere, but Here or Here or God Forbid There" strategy being applied elsewhere by the strict constructionists.

Recently the strict constructionists have decried those who would link DMC to broader city and regional concerns - saying DMC was never meant to be this or that or some other thing. Oddest of all, they even attempt to distance DMC from Mayo Clinic - as if the later has nothing at all to do with the former. Their argument: the public money goes to the city of Rochester not to Mayo Clinic. OK, but upon what is this half a billion public dollars to be spent? Public infrastructure "to support the medical business entity's development plans, as identified in the DMCC development plan." And what does "medical business entity" mean? From the 2013 DMC legislation this:

"Medical business entity" means a medical business entity with its principal place of business in the city that, as of the effective date of this section, together with all business entities of which it is the sole member or sole shareholder, collectively employs more than 30,000 persons in the state.

In other words: Mayo Clinic. It's almost embarrassing to have to point this out.

As to the broader regional impacts that are quickly disavowed when they bring disruption, disappointment, or disfavor - from the 2015 DMC development plan, among its "guiding principles," this:

Sustain Rochester and Southeast MN as a Destination Medical Center and Economic Engine for the State 

Rochester and its largest employer, Mayo Clinic, are critical components of the regional and State economy. Rochester, particularly its downtown core, needs to maintain an economic concentration, expand its business base and enhance the diversity of its economy. The DMC Development Plan promotes strategies that are focused on a broad range of opportunities, giving special consideration to strategies that support and leverage Mayo Clinic’s growth to enhance and expand the economy of Rochester and Southeast Minnesota. These strategies will promote the growth of new businesses, investment, entrepreneurship, and targeted businesses locally and within the region.

This sort of claim is "everywhere" throughout the 2015 development plan. The whole rationale for state, county, and city public funding is based upon state, county, and city impacts. To embrace these impacts when they are positive, but deny them when they are not, undermines the economic rationale of the whole project, interferes with the necessary policy deliberations required to sustain it, and, in the end, is politically untenable.

But this is what the strict constructionists now endeavor to do: if it's good, it's DMC; if it's not, hey the city gets the money talk to them! And Mayo Clinic - what do they have to do with it?

If "DMC has made Mayo Clinic a political pinata," it is only because Mayo Clinic stuffed DMC with candy and hung it in the middle of state capitol rotunda.

"DMC" on the Wheel of Fortune

Detail from the painting "The Sacrificial Lamb" by Josefa de Ayala, ca. 1670-1684. (Wikipedia)

Rhetorically, a scapegoat functions as a synecdoche in that it substitutes a whole for a part. Consistent with the employment of a scapegoat as a synecdochic representative, an effect can be made to stand in stead of a cause, or vice versa. - Beth Eddy, The Rites of Identity: The Religious Naturalism and Cultural Criticism of Kenneth Burke and Ralph Ellison

One needn't worry too much about the cost projections for either the Chateau Theatre or the Heart of the City. Not likely either will unfold as planned - if planning is even the right word anymore for what has been going on.

We'll get through to the other side of the Great Downtown Placemaking Scare of the Twenty-Teens soon enough. It will have cost us several millions in foam core fairs to be sure, but nothing near the tens of millions on display. Discovery Square is much more likely to rise as expected. It's familiar territory that follows a trend of siting corporate parks back into the city core. This one rendered even more trendy with an overlay of the rhetoric of social physics. None of this takes away anything from the honest to God remarkable work that might very well happen there.

"DMC" is the Wheel of Fortune answer to "Three letters that stand for 'growth' in Rochester, MN." Perhaps that's "scapegoating" if it's used as a shorthand for the growth someone doesn't like it, change someone resists, or inequity someone abhors. But, it may turn out that it's only the scapegoating that is keeping DMC at all relevant. We wouldn't have much to say about it otherwise, finally understanding it has so very little in the end to say about us.

Odd that the defense of DMC is now reduced to: "It's not about you." Odd, but true. The issue is growth, the challenges are the economic and social challenges of growth. DMC is about a "medical business entity," as it was referred to in the legislation, that remains the main driver of that growth. Beyond that, whatever else DMC is is either real estate or bad pr.

All the rest - all that is not DMC properly so called - is a city being a city with all the problems a growing city has.There's hardly much comfort to be had in that, but it should at least direct one's attention more productively in the proper direction.

"..and yet, he persisted": querlous complaints, perilous art, and the common goad

Any performance is discussible either from the standpoint of what it attains or what it misses. Comprehensiveness can be discussed as superficiality, intensiveness as stricture, tolerance as uncertainty—and the poor pedestrian abilities of a fish are clearly explainable in terms of his excellence as a swimmer. A way of seeing is also a way of not seeing—a focus upon object A involves a neglect of object B. - Kenneth Burke, Permanence and Change

More than two years ago, the Greater Rochester Arts and Cultural Trust, a private and nonprofit corporation, announced they were intent upon developing a Public Art Master Plan for the city of Rochester. The GRACT board president sat down with the steering committee and other members of the Rochester Arts and Culture Collaborative to let them know of this intent. He explained that though local working artists might be given an opportunity for input, they would not be included in the group developing the plan. Oh yes, he let the them know that GRACT was raising $15,000 to hire a consultant to help develop the plan. RACC members expressed their concerns that once again local artists were being excluded, but in the end conceded, hey, GRACT was paying for it. GRACT could do what they wanted.

Except, it turned out, GRACT wasn't counting on paying for all of it. What the GRACT board president failed to mention (or, frankly maybe did not even know at the time) was that GRACT would soon be requesting an additional $15,000 from the city of Rochester to pay for the consultant.

This request for $15,000 from the city was submitted by the GRACT CEO via an email to the city administrator on a Monday. The request was forwarded by the city administrator to the city council via email the following Wednesday, along with his recommendation for approval, and a source within the city budget from which the funds might be drawn. The request was placed on the agenda for the subsequent Monday's Committee of the Whole meeting where the GRACT CEO and two board members would present the request.

In three days, a request for $15,000 from a private organization had been submitted to the city, recommended by staff for approval, and placed on the COW agenda.

When RACC learned of this request on Thursday in the midst of that whirlwind week, it was of the opinion that if half of the money for this Public Art Master Plan was now coming from the public, there needed to be a bit more of the "public" in the planning of a "public" art master plan.

That was the issue then. And it is the same issue that is at the core of the current ethics complaint finding leveled against a member of the city council. A council member who supported this position from the beginning: a public art master plan funded with public dollars should be public. It is a view in which he has persisted. And now we know he has done so at his peril.

The council person is in peril, not because he was wrong: there is good reason to hold that the public status of that plan was at the time an open question. The question is now moot, but there was sufficient warrant to hold it was public as he did at the time when it was disputable. The proper status of that document prior to its release via a Data Practices Act request had not been resolved. It remains unresolved.

The council person is not in peril because he was wrong. The council person is in peril because he persisted.

The position the council person held, was the position of the majority of the council at the time of the initial request. When RACC learned of the request it spent the next few days prior to the COW meeting lobbying the council. RACC supported the fashioning of a public art master plan, but held that with public funding should come public accountability, transparency, and participation. The majority of the council agreed. Some with serious reservations. As of that COW meeting the request for $15,000 was going nowhere.

How is it then that GRACT was finally allocated $15,000 to pay for half the cost of developing a pubic art master plan? Because steps were taken to attempt to insure that the conditions of the planning and the plan would be public.

Immediately following the cratering of the request before COW, members of the GRACT and RACC gathered outside Conference Room 104 in City Hall. There they began to consider how they might jointly proceed. The following Friday GRACT and RACC representatives met in the RCVB conference room on the second floor of the Mayo Civic Center where GRACT is provided free office space. The size and shape of a joint proposal to the council in support of funding was determined. The details would be worked out, but the conditions were these: (1) To address the issue of public participation, both RACC and GRACT would appoint members to the public art planning group; (2) To address the issues of public accountability and public transparency, though not required to by law to do so, the GRACT public art planning group would conduct its meetings in compliance with open meeting laws. Once the details were settled, GRACT and RACC would submit a joint letter to the council with a asking that GRACT's request for $15,000 be approved.

As it turned out - in the first of many short falls - GRACT submitted a letter the council on its own leaving RACC to submit a separate letter. Never the less, on the basis of these letters and the conditions they contained regarding participation of the public, accountability to the public, and transparency for the public, the council approved the allocation of $15,000.

As the city attorney observed, there was no "contract" with GRACT. The city council refused one because some members of the council did not want to be obligated in any way to the plan the process might produce. However, the legislative history of the allocation would show the council's intent. There were clear conditions upon which the money was allocated to GRACT. There were clear contemporary statements and documents upon which that allocation was made contingent. A clear expectation one might reasonably hold - as did the council person and many others familiar with the process - that the planning and the plan were to be considered as a public process and product. It might well be that in a court of law this legislative intent would not have been upheld as sufficient, but the question was never put to a judge to resolve.

The council person was of the opinion - one warranted at least by the legislative history - that the public art master plan product was public and should be made available to the public upon request. The city attorney held differently. And yet, the council person persisted.

Were the council person and the city attorney to have stepped before a judge they would have been equal before the law. The judge alone would have rendered the conclusive and determinative opinion as to the public status of the plan. It did not get that far because the plan had been sent to a city staff member's email account by a member of the Trust board. That having been done, the document was now available through a Data Practices Act request filed by the council person.

Do not let it pass unnoticed that at the very time the GRACT CEO was personally insisting that the Public Art Master Plan document was private, a member of the GRACT board was contemporaneously making it public in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota.

Note too, that this document was not just sent to a city staff member's email account. It was sent to other members of the public as well. At almost the very time the city attorney was issuing opinions regarding the legal obligations of the GRACT CEO, that opinion and those legal obligations were being supplanted by the actions of a member of her GRACT board.

So here we find ourselves with a member of our city council in peril of censure or even expulsion because of what? Because he persisted.

There is nothing conclusive or determinative in the city attorney's opinion regarding the public status of the plan at the time. To find as it has, the Ethical Practices Board had to first reach its own conclusion regarding the public status of the document. A conclusion it is in no position to reach and has no authority to make. The EPB has intervened in a legitimate and fully warranted disagreement between an elected city official and a member of the city staff. The EPB then sided with the city staff member and held that "full cooperation" required the council person to have done so also. Having thus set the table, the EPB found a "conflict of interest" on the part of the council person because he did not agree with the city attorney with whom the EPB, in its overreaching opinion, did agree.

Given the conflicting position of the GRACT CEO and the contemporaneous actions of a GRACT board member, is it even clear what the public status of the document was at the time? The EPB must very finely parse the timeline and sequence of word and deed to come anywhere near a conclusion on the matter. A conclusion that would none the less remain overreaching and beyond its purview.

As to the matter of the tax filings made by GRACT and whether or not the council person's statements regarding them were "false." Is this conclusion by the EPB arrived at based upon anything other than the assertions made in the complaint by the complainant? Did the EPB investigate these filings and determine their appropriateness? If so, were the statements by the council person false or merely incorrect?

(Anyone looking at GRACT's finances might scratch their heads. One need not accuse GRACT of any illegality to wonder at the discrepancies among the news accounts of what GRACT reports raising and distributing, the income and expenses it reports to the Minnesota Attorney General, and the appropriateness of filing a Form 990 or a Form 990n. Though it might well be incorrect to look at those discrepancies and form a certain opinion about the appropriateness of the filings, it is not necessarily false to do so. Any organization holding a major fundraising event at the Mayo Civic Center and reporting $0 in fundraising expenses would raise an eyebrow. At least two questions immediately come to mind: (1) who is GRACT's accountant because many nonprofits would like to know; and, (2) how is it RASC can't seem to score the same sweet deal at the MCC?)

It is tempting to observe that the matter coming before the city council is less about a member's conduct and much more about how things get done around here. Or to put a finer point on it: trying to change how things get done around here. It is all that, but the implications of the matter need not be given such scope to stress their seriousness.

Council members should read very carefully the EPB's opinion regarding "full cooperation." They should ask themselves if it is really sufficient to guide their own conduct. Does "full cooperation" in complying with the "legal advice" of the city attorney also entail complying with the "professional advice" of public works or parks and recreation or the zoning commission or any other public employees? Given the prospects for censure or expulsion that might result, can any public official - elected, appointed, or salaried - know where, when, and under what conditions "inevitable" disagreements "breach the obligation of 'full cooperation'"?

I believe the matter of the public status of the public art master plan was one of those inevitable disagreements. Any points one might want to award the city attorney on the lack of a contract could be balanced by any contrary opinion based upon legislative history and the intent it reveals. The issue is certainly further muddled by the inconsistency arising between the statements of GRACT CEO and the contemporaneous actions of at least some members of the GRACT board. The EPB has no clear standing to determine now - months after the fact - what the status of that document was in that small window of time upon which it has spent so much of its own time and casuistry. Without that determination, there is no basis for the finding. Anything that remains of the original complaint is hardly worth the legal fees incurred by the citizens of Rochester.

In all the muddle, one thing is clear: after over two years, $15,000 of public money, and the drama now unfolding, we still do not have a public art master plan.

"Heads I win. Tails, who's your Daddy now" | #becauserochester

"Heads I Win, Tails You Lose" 

A device whereby, if things turn out one way, your system accounts for them - and if they turn out another way, your system accounts for them. 

- Kenneth Burke, Attitudes Toward History

You are a Shit Spotter. It's satisfying work. … We have observed that most of the trouble in the world has been caused by ten to twenty percent of folks who can't mind their own business, because they have no business of their own to mind, any more than a smallpox virus. Now your virus is an obligate cellular parasite and my contention is that evil is quite literally a virus parasite occupying a certain brain area which we may term the RIGHT center. The mark of a basic shit is that he has to be right. And right here we must make a diagnostic distinction between the hard-core virus-occupied shit and a plain, ordinary, mean no-good son of a bitch. Some of these sons of bitches don't cause any trouble at all, just want to be left alone. 

- William S. Burroughs, The Place of Dead Roads

It appears the City will take up it's botched social media policy without fixing what botched it or holding any hearings regarding it. But it will have its way. Check the agenda packet [pp. 300 -338] for Monday's [04.17.2017] council meeting.

The City attorney attaches a court ruling [pp. 337 - 338] that addresses public employees (which was not a point of contention) but nothing that address appointees to boards and commissions - which was a point of contention. Of course, the City has every right and the responsibility to oversee the use of its own social media. The City can also hold its public employees accountable for their personal social media conduct - though with protections not afforded to persons in private employment. The cited case is mute with regard to appointees to boards and commissions who, as unpaid volunteers, can hardly be regarded as public employee.

But wait for the coin toss:

"There are numerous references within these Organizational Polices to the term 'employees.' To the extent possible and in light of the fact that members of City boards, commissions, and committees are unpaid volunteers rather than employees in the strict definition of that term, the term “employees” does include unpaid volunteer members of City boards, commissions, and committees."

How does that sentence even make sense? Since members are "unpaid volunteers rather than employees" we will include them as "employees".

So: "unpaid volunteer members of City boards, commissions, and committees" are "employees".

The city then returns to its peculiar use of the category "City representative". Apparently not realizing that this bit of doublespeak is no longer necessary. It was used in the prior draft to introduce a new category the City would employ to encompass the unpaid volunteers whose personal speech it so desperately wants to restrain. This device is no longer required since the City has now simply asserted that "unpaid volunteers" are "employees" of the City.

Anyway here it is:

Scope 

This policy applies to any existing or proposed social media websites sponsored, established, registered or authorized by the City. This policy also covers the private use of the City’s social media accounts by all City Representatives. For purposes of this policy, the term “City Representatives” includes all City employees, agents (i.e. independent contractors), Council members, and appointed board or commission members and all volunteers" 

So: since appointed board and commission members are "unpaid volunteers" and thus "employees" of the City. Therefore, the City can treat them as it can "employees" and subject them to constraints and sanctions upon their use of personal social media.

I believe this is known as "heads I win, tails who's your daddy now.'"

Also it doesn't pass unnoticed that striking of "the City's" from social media now extends the scope to - one presumes - any and all social media.

'Some people are shits, darling.' - William S. Burroughs

.....

How about this as a policy for appointed members to City boards, etc.:

First of all, the City thanks you for your service and the important contribution you make to the civic life of our community. Regarding the City's social media policy, please note the following: 

When you make use of the City's social media, you are subject to the City's social media guidelines. 

Additionally, the city suggests that during your tenure of voluntary service to the City and its residents, if you have identified yourself as a member of a City board, etc. on your personal social media sites, it is good practice to also include this statement: “These are my own opinions and do not represent those of the City.” We encourage you to follow this practice. 

Thank you again for your service.

Oh yeah, one more thing.

Dear Mr/Mrs./Ms. Mayor:

If ever I apply for appointment to a City board, commission, or committee: "These are my own opinions and do not represent those of the City." Obviously.

Armory Redux

KROC- AM News: So, the idea of the arts and cultural collaborative is not dead and buried?
Mayor Brede: Absolutely not. Absolutely not. 

                                                                               - interview, 9/15/16 

Dossier

"Mayor Opposed to Selling Armory Building," interview KROC-AM News, 09/15/2016

Memo to Mayor and City Council from Steven Kvenvold, City Administrator regarding Armory Reuse Matters, 09/13/2016

The Armory building has served as a community resource for a number of decades and I would prefer that it continues to serve as a community resource for the future. A community is enhanced by a vibrant arts scene and an affordable gathering and work space is needed for individuals to explore and implement their artistic endeavors. In many cities, an artistic quarter often thrives in a low rent area of the city, frequently resulting in making such an area more attractive to investors, ultimately increasing rents which drives the artists out of the area. With a community owned facility, an "artistic quarter" could exist for many years without a loss of space due to the increasing costs of such a space. The proposal from the Arts and Cultural Initiative would also serve the needs of Rochester's diverse cultural groups by providing a space for the groups to meet and interact.

 "The Armory arts and culture re-use proposal: How much? Who agrees? Now what?," A Life and the Times, 09/05/2016

          Who agrees?

Over 100 organizations, groups, and individuals

The proposal submission includes commitments from 103 arts and cultural organizations, groups, and individuals to monthly rental of ACI Armory facilities; periodic use of the ACI Armory facilities; and, other support for the ACI Armory facilities project. The arts and culture organizations included among others: the Rochester Art Center, Rochester Symphony Orchestra and Chorale, Rochester Choral Arts Ensemble, Rochester Civic Music, Alliance of Chicanos, Hispanics and Latin Americans, and the Cambodian Association of Rochester Minnesota.  Dozens of letters of support were provided for review with the proposal submission.

Rochester Art Center 

In a letter included in the March 2016 ACI proposal submission, the Rochester Art Center (RAC) shared its own intentions to “guide and encourage thoughtful re-alignment between arts and cultural organizations in Rochester” and shared its believe that the ACI proposal was “a strong move to solidify an artists-led space.” RAC committed in its letter to provide “professional advice and support” to ACI as needed; rent space as for artists working with RAC; serve as “a foundational organization along with other arts organizations, museums and community groups“; and, provide “concrete professional art administrative support via governance, finance, grants, collaborative projects, etc…” 

Greater Rochester Arts and Cultural Trust

Subsequent to the ACI proposal submission, and based on an update it received regarding that proposal, the Board of the Greater Rochester Arts and Cultural Trust at its quarterly meeting in April 2016 passed a resolution on “The Re-use of the Rochester Armory Building”. Citing the “a longstanding desire within the arts and cultural community of a multi-use facility” and the benefits to the general public “from the potential for new educational, retail, and social artistic-related offerings,” the Trust recommended that the city of Rochester strongly consider “the arts, culture, and humanities re-use” of the Armory. 

Chateau Theatre Re-use Study 

Last month, August 2016, the Chateau Theatre Re-use Study commissioned from Webb Management Services, Inc by the Chateau Re-use Task Force included in its report references to the ACI Armory re-use proposal.  The study found “multiple arts groups, artists, and ethnic cultural communities, all struggling for funds and space (but mostly space).” The study noted that space was not only needed as places to “to work and produce,” but also “crucial” to receive grant dollars.

The study also observed the city has “a very large cultural community that has significant need for affordable gathering space.” For both groups the study noted that rising property values resulting from DMC have resulted in “rents that many can no longer afford.”  The study found “many art and cultural community representatives feel that, if the ACI’s proposal is unsuccessful, Rochester’s independent arts and culture community will be completely displaced”

Based on these and other findings, the study included this recommendation:

“In addition to making it the heart of the ‘Heart of the City’, make the Chateau the anchor facility of an arts and culture district or trail, one that includes the Armory as a home for Rochester’s small arts and cultural groups and independent artists. There is an acute need for small organization support in Rochester. The Chateau will be able to meet the needs of some of the community’s arts groups, but not all of them. We would recommend that the City give RACC’s Armory proposal significant thought, particularly within context of developing an arts and cultural district in downtown Rochester and the DMC.”

Observation 1:

Do not sell the Armory.

Observation 2:

Accept the Arts and Culture Initiative proposal for Re-use of the Armory with Addendum.

Observation 3:

Before 3:30pm this Wednesday (01/18/2017), let the people who will make this decision know that: (1) the Armory should not be sold; and, (2) the Arts and Culture Initiative proposal for Re-use of the Armory with Addendum should be accepted. Those people would be:

Randy Staver, City Council President  rstaver@rochestermn.gov Ed Hruska, City Council Member, 1st Ward ehruska@rochestermn.gov Michael Wojcik, City Council Member, 2nd Ward votewojcik@gmail.com Nick Campion, City Council Member, 3rd Ward ncampion@rochestermn.gov Mark Bilderback, City Council Member, 4th Ward  mbilderback@rochestermn.gov Mark Hickey, City Council Member, 5th Ward  mjhickey@mail.com Annalissa Johnson, City Council Member, 6th Ward  AlJohnson@rochestermn.gov

Observation 4:

It's not complicated.

Rochester Politics | Chicago Style w/a Slice of Turkey

Campaign mailer prepared and paid for by the National Association of REALTORS Fund*

At bottom, the Court's opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. - Justice John Paul Stevens (dissenting), Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

So, first off, this is not about the incumbent city council president - not mostly anyway. It's not like he asked the National Association of REALTORS (NAR) to spend $16,184 on behalf of his re-election campaign. But, they did and the campaign lit has started to drop in some local mail boxes.

The view from Chicago

From 350 miles away the NAR offers us three reasons to re-elect the incumbent city council president.

(1) "Implementing a new public transportation system and completing the Transit Operations Center $4 million dollars under budget." (emphasis in the original)

First, can we reach a “civil consensus” that very few of us know what the heck the NAR is talking about here? If we have a “new public transportation system," then the city government transparency problem is far more serious than we thought.

Secondly, I’m supposing the other achievement refers to the Public Works and Transit Center. According to reports in the Post Bulletin the center was a project that was approved in Spring 2009 and opened in Fall 2011 and completed sometime in 2012. What's interesting about those dates is that the incumbent city council president first joined the council in 2011 and became its president in May 2013. So, I am not sure to what part of the project he is being credited with completing or how it is he saved the city "$4 million dollars." Perhaps someone might risk checking with the NAR. I say risk because these days contacting business HQ's is regarded as bullying in some quarters and earns you a sternly worded letter threatening lawsuits.

(2) "Supporting entrepreneurs who want to bring new housing, restaurants and business to Rochester." (emphasis in the original)

It was nice to see that what has shown up so far is not an attack piece on the candidate's opponent. So, points for civility. Indeed, since this statement includes a healthy bit of the challenger's resume, one might even read it as a tacit - albeit unlikely - endorsement of Mr. Allen.

A less generous reading might recall the incumbent's leadership on food trucks and his recent lone dissenting vote on bringing Uber and such to town. Or a long overdue comprehensive plan that's now a year longer and overdue under his watch. Or...well, like I said, it's not about the incumbent - mostly. Anyway, and finally:

(3) Improving our infrastructure, walking paths, public spaces, and developing our business district. (emphasis in the original)

This reads to me like a bit of filler. Certainly not a strong close for a campaign appeal, but then not a very strong campaign message anyway.

Frankly, mailers like this are pretty much yard signs that show up in your mailbox. Maybe you notice the bold-face type, maybe you don't. The hope is you catch the name as you are tossing the glossy card stock into the trash. Of course, I have offered to extend the messaging by posting the photo above. That helps too.

Oh, that slice of Turkey

A local resident** has tracked down the two stock images used in the layout. It seems those three young urban professionals pictured waiting to use the "new public transportation system" are doing so somewhere in Turkey. Also, those notably not very diverse folks pictured enjoying the improved walking paths and public spaces are doing so from an undisclosed location, presumably not Turkey.

Of course you should,

__________

*     image by Jessica Schmidt.

**   research by Abe Sauer. 

Mayo Clinic wants me dead

"...who would these fardels bear...?" - Wm Shakespeare

Mayo Clinic wants me dead.

As you might imagine that is quite the thing to have Mayo Clinic want of you. But there it is. And, yes I have proof. Documentation on our kitchen table that leaves no room for doubt. I would not make so bold a claim were it not true. Nor would I do so had I not the proof. Mayo Clinic wants me dead and therein too lies a great regret of things unsaid. The undone of my undoing. Who bears this fardel? I, of course, for it is my death they want.

Why does Mayo Clinic want me dead? Because I am not dead yet. Truly they do not mind so much I am alive, but their keen interest comes from me not yet being dead. Even more so that I have not yet been dead for all my life - so far and this far. It makes them curious. What’s up with that? They wonder. What could he be thinking after a lifetime of not yet being dead? Or even capable of thinking?

And so it begins. Doing my bit for Mayo Clinic's Alzheimer's Disease research starting with a series of humiliations of cruel Luminosity.com-like design. Playing out on an I Pad, images from a deck of cards appear. If you have not seen that card before, hit this key. If it is a card you have seen before, hit that key. Again. Again. Faster this time and more cards. Faster and more cards. The I Pad beeps when I hit the wrong key. It knows what I have seen even if I don’t. “It’s OK,” she says, “ it’s supposed to be hard.” But, she should have asked if I had ceased to care. Because: I had ceased to care. I got your beep right here, I’m thinking. Besides I get grumpy when I am hungry and you know Mayo Clinic, they never want to see you fed.

As you might expect, next they draw blood. Lots of it. Drained into little vials. More vials than I had ever seen - even when dire surgery loomed I had not seen so may little vials. The final one she kneels to fill. Really? "This one goes to Atlanta," she offers by way of explanation sensing that a kneeling phlebotomist might be unnerving. "They need it drawn below the plane of the needle." Why? "Something about the blood cells." she shrugs. I can only conclude she is probably right. I'm sure she knows much more. I'm sure it's complicated. It is going to Atlanta.

Then the snack. An assortment of juices or water or coffee. Fruit and breakfast bars. I feast. I am in a better mood. It won't last. Down the hall there are more tests.

No I Pad here. Pieces of paper. Dog-eared and stained little flip books of images. Bits of cardboard cut-outs - circles and triangles. Puzzle pieces. All very low tech. All will be deployed in the next thirty minutes to gauge what I can gauge of words and shapes and small, simple pictures of this and that. Then this:

I had been identifying objects. Common objects. Everyday objects. Well, everyday for me. When I asked how the study accounted for cultural bias - well, let's just say the kneeling phlebotomist was more helpful. I'd think being shown a picture of something and being asked what's missing assumes a lot about what you've been seeing all those not dead yet years you've accumulated. But hey, it's not my rodeo. Anyway among the series of everyday objects these two turn up. A protractor and a compass or is it a compass and a protractor. I tell the guy - it's a guy now - I know the two words associated with these two things but you know what: All my life. All those not dead yet years, honestly, I could never keep the names straight. Dunno why. One of those things. Never could. Can't today. Even with the juice and the breakfast bar I got nothin'. "I can't write that down," he says. "Guess." How about this one's either a protractor or a compass and the other is what the first one isn't? "Guess." Well,  it seems to me you want to know what I know and I'm telling you what I know. That's a protractor or a compass and that's a compass or a protractor. "How about you just guess."

I believe in science. I have some appreciation for the scientific method, experimental protocols and such. But there in that room, on that day, science was letting us down. At Mayo Clinic. Millions in grant money. Blood heading to Atlanta. The fella says, "Guess." So, I do. I guess. Did I get it right? Can't recall. See. Told you.

Is this what I regret? Guessing. No. Not my data. Besides I am no scientist. I am a rhetorician. I have a rhetorician's regrets. Such regrets are rarely about data per se. Well, at any rate, it depends. Besides, at this point I have yet to learn that Mayo Clinic wants me dead. That comes next when I am ushered in to see: the doctor.

I figure right quick that this is a doctor who sees subjects not patients. He has been practicing "interacting" but it's clearly new to him. Nice enough guy, just not in his element. First thing he asks me is "how's your blood pressure?" I don't know you all took it this morning when I got here. How was it? "No, I want to know how you think your blood pressure is." Well, the best I can do is say you folks have me taking pills for it, so there's that. Not much otherwise. So....awkwardly.... We move on. He explains how he's now going to be doing things to me. Bit of an examination. I stand and he puts his hands on my shoulders and moves me just a little to the left, then back a step or two. Not sure why. Next it is mostly tapping me here and there with metal objects. Reflexes. Muscle tone. No turning my head and coughing. No gloves. So, not bad and he's done.

Back down we sit. He pauses. Looks at me. Rolls his chair back a bit. Smiles and says, "Well, you know, we're with you to all the way now." Now, I pause. Not sure yet what he means. With me all the way? Oh. Ooooohhh. You mean, to the end? "Yes," he says relieved that I got it. Ok. " So. You're going to die, right?" Yeah. "Well, can we do an autopsy?" he asks. Cupping his hands, he offers them up in a gesture as if cradling something "Because we're going to want to look at your brain." He's now miming holding my brain in his hands. Showing it to me. Then he offers me instead some forms and a brochure.

You want me to tell you now? "No, no. You think it over. Talk it over. Your wife will need to sign this. I mean she really needs to agree to do this because, well, you know...." Right. I won't be around. "Yes, right." How soon do you need to know? "Well, you're one of our younger ...so, there's time. Yesterday I was talking with a man 102 years old." Right, so you need to know from him much sooner probably. "Yeah" he nods pleased that I seemed to have connected the right dots.

So, Mayo Clinic wants me dead. And, if my wife wouldn't mind, enrolled in their Alzheimer's Disease Research Autopsy Program. And herein lies my great regret. A regret not born of some somber thanatopsis contemplating wrapping the drapery of my couch about me or raging against the dying of the light. No, it is a rhetorician's sort of regret.

It might help to read this:

The dictum of the sophists is strange and beautiful: Say the right thing at the right time. What is so odd is that it at once proffers an absolute (the right thing) and a locality (the right time). While rhetoric is often accused of being without standards: the opposite is true. It has as many standards as there are circumstances. For the rhetor it is not that there is no propriety, it's that propriety can never be known for sure beforehand. Propriety emerges - here, there, and everywhere, all the time. 

Whenever a rhetor is asked about what's right, his response is usually the same: it depends. Circumstance is local and so is propriety. And, to make things even stranger there is no propriety to a circumstance per se as the circumstance itself is a network of circumstance and perspectives. And each perspective is a network of trajectories of history, memory, desire, need. Nothing is more mysterious and difficult than doing the right thing at the right time.*

A rhetorician's regret comes with not saying the right thing at the right time. Not seeing the opportunity. The greater the opportunity missed, the greater the regret.

I get home. I toss the brochure and "Permission for Postmortem Examination" form on the kitchen table. And too late it comes to me.

"Well, can we do an autopsy?"

Over my dead body. Why didn't I say: Over my dead body.

Some fardel that.

__________

* Daniel Coffeen, Reading the Way of Things: Towards a New Technology of Making Sense

The Armory arts and culture re-use proposal: How much? Who agrees? Now what?

To the ACI Armory re-use proposal

How much?

The ACI proposal budget includes ongoing costs to the city of $83,901 in year one (2017) with modest increases in the out years. Out year costs remain below $90,000. The expense projections are based on audited financials or actual costs of the Senior Center.

The ACI proposal requested support for one time start-up costs of $30,000 divided evenly between operational and capital expenses. ACI has since revisited this request and intends to pursue private start-up dollars as an alternative to the request to the city.

Who agrees?

Over 100 organizations, groups, and individuals

The proposal submission includes commitments from 103 arts and cultural organizations, groups, and individuals to monthly rental of ACI Armory facilities; periodic use of the ACI Armory facilities; and, other support for the ACI Armory facilities project. The arts and culture organizations included among others: the Rochester Art Center, Rochester Symphony Orchestra and Chorale, Rochester Choral Arts Ensemble, Rochester Civic Music, Alliance of Chicanos, Hispanics and Latin Americans, and the Cambodian Association of Rochester Minnesota.  Dozens of letters of support were provided for review with the proposal submission.

Rochester Art Center

In a letter included in the March 2016 ACI proposal submission, the Rochester Art Center (RAC) shared its own intentions to “guide and encourage thoughtful re-alignment between arts and cultural organizations in Rochester” and shared its believe that the ACI proposal was “a strong move to solidify an artists-led space.” RAC committed in its letter to provide “professional advice and support” to ACI as needed; rent space as for artists working with RAC; serve as “a foundational organization along with other arts organizations, museums and community groups“; and, provide “concrete professional art administrative support via governance, finance, grants, collaborative projects, etc…”

Greater Rochester Arts and Cultural Trust

Subsequent to the ACI proposal submission, and based on an update it received regarding that proposal, the Board of the Greater Rochester Arts and Cultural Trust at its quarterly meeting in April 2016 passed a resolution on “The Re-use of the Rochester Armory Building”. Citing the “a longstanding desire within the arts and cultural community of a multi-use facility” and the benefits to the general public “from the potential for new educational, retail, and social artistic-related offerings,” the Trust recommended that the city of Rochester strongly consider “the arts, culture, and humanities re-use” of the Armory.

Chateau Theatre Re-use Study

Last month, August 2016, the Chateau Theatre Re-use Study commissioned from Webb Management Services, Inc by the Chateau Re-use Task Force included in its report references to the ACI Armory re-use proposal.  The study found “multiple arts groups, artists, and ethnic cultural communities, all struggling for funds and space (but mostly space).” The study noted that space was not only needed as places to “to work and produce,” but also “crucial” to receive grant dollars. The study also observed the city has “a very large cultural community that has significant need for affordable gathering space.” For both groups the study noted that rising property values resulting from DMC have resulted in “rents that many can no longer afford.”  The study found “many art and cultural community representatives feel that, if the ACI’s proposal is unsuccessful, Rochester’s independent arts and culture community will be completely displaced”

Based on these and other findings, the study included this recommendation:

“In addition to making it the heart of the ‘Heart of the City’, make the Chateau the anchor facility of an arts and culture district or trail, one that includes the Armory as a home for Rochester’s small arts and cultural groups and independent artists. There is an acute need for small organization support in Rochester. The Chateau will be able to meet the needs of some of the community’s arts groups, but not all of them. We would recommend that the City give RACC’s Armory proposal significant thought, particularly within context of developing an arts and cultural district in downtown Rochester and the DMC.”

Now what?

The action that will come before the council at its September 7 meeting will relate to the appraisal and possible sale of the Armory property. As a recent Post-Bulletin editorial observed, there are serious concerns about the whether or not the site could ultimately be protected in private ownership.

If the Amory Re-use RFP is reopened, could it be expected to produce a higher or better use of the Armory than that presented and broadly supported in the ACI proposal? Though other uses may emerge, ones that are higher or better will be a challenge to realize. Apart from those council members who have wanted all along to sell the property, the nature and substance of the concerns raised about the ACI proposal suggest it is very close to providing for the "highest and best use" of the Armory. This proposal should be provided the opportunity to succeed.

Approval of the ACI Armory re-use proposal to be reviewed in 5 years deserves a vote from the city council.

If you agree, let them know:

__________

Dreaming bold the big dream in the "Heart of the City"... meh

Creative Districts Characteristics

• Are unique to the character, community, and resources available locally.
• Have a significant economic impact on cities—attracting businesses, tourists, and local residents to a central part of the city.
• Can help revitalize neighborhoods and increase the quality of life for its residents.
• Act as a vehicle to assist in the support and marketing of local nonprofit cultural organizations.
• Serve as a focal point to brand a city’s unique cultural identity and embrace its historic significance. - Destination Medical Center Arts, Culture, and Humanities Site Visits Overview*

So, imagine - er, do some visioning - if you will about what happens if the Armory becomes a home for local arts and a hub for the many cultural groups that comprise our city (and note what happens if it does not). Let's check out who cares - surprisingly not who you'd think.

The City's CEO, Patron of the Arts, Champion of Inclusivity, DMCC Board member

The mayor will stand at the Armory's front door cutting a ribbon and reminding us of the local arts award that bears his name and call out the city of compassion we are. He may remind us of the task force under his leadership whose very own study recommended that the Armory might best be used for this very thing.

And if there's no Armory, there are plenty of places for the mayor to say the same things and plenty of times he'll say them. Either way, he's got it covered.

DMC - They put the "Heart of the City" on the map. No, literally, they did.

The DMC Economic Development Agency will hold a function on the Armory's third floor weeks before the center opens sharing their excitement for how this new center brings vibrancy to the "Heart of the City" and testifies to the importance of the arts and how vital the center will be in sustaining an inclusive community for the diverse work force upon which our economic future depends. In it's next report before the DMCC Board, the new center will get a PowerPoint slide and that slide will become a common fixture in subsequent EDA presentations - everywhere. 

To be fair, no matter what happens at the Armory site, the EDA will share their excitement for how this new whatever brings vibrancy to the "Heart of the City" and testifies to the importance of whatever it is and then put it on a PowerPoint slide. So, whatever.

A medical business entity employing more than 30,000 employees at the time of the passage of the DMC legislation making it the only such medical business entity in the State of Minnesota for which a "destination medical center" might be created in the city of Rochester.

Mayo Clinic will begin to include the new center in its Mayo Employee Resource Group messaging as further evidence of how "Rochester embraces the multicultural nature of its residents and celebrates its ethnic diversity...[C]reating a welcoming and inclusive environment." 

Either way they're good.

So, who cares?

The mayor currently opposes this re-use of the Armory and didn't bother to share the task force study recommendation supporting it.

The DMC EDA has taken no position on the re-use of the Armory.

Mayo Clinic has taken no position on the re-use of the Armory.

So, you know, meh.

Now who does that leave who does care? If that includes you, then get your body down to the Council Chambers at the Government Center on Wednesday September 7 at 7pm. Or join the council members for their "dinner meeting" beforehand at the new Bleu Duck Kitchen at 14 4th St. SW at 5pm. Or both.

Sometimes, if you care, you just gotta show up.

__________

* DMC trips to Portland, Seattle, Bellevue, Cleveland, and Indianapolis to no apparent effect. Note this recommendation from the Chateau Theatre Re-use Study:

In addition to making it the heart of the ‘Heart of the City’, make the Chateau the anchor facility of an arts and culture district or trail, one that includes the Armory as a home for Rochester’s small arts and cultural groups and independent artists. There is an acute need for small organization support in Rochester. The Chateau will be able to meet the needs of some of the community’s arts groups, but not all of them. We would recommend that the City give RACC’s Armory proposal significant thought, particularly within context of developing an arts and cultural district in downtown Rochester and the DMC. [ page 90 ] 

"Unfortunately, the council seems unwilling...."

Raymond Schmitz: Dave, have you filed for a copy under the public record act, if not I will!

Dave Beal: Since you seem to know what that is, by all means.

                                                                                                                           Facebook post 08.26.16

Dossier

from the Webb Management Services Incorporated Chateau Theatre Reuse Study, August 2016

Context: Arts + Culture in Rochester

✲ The City of Rochester has an active and lively, but segmented, arts community.

✲ On one hand, the city has a number of well-established organizations and institutions with long legacies in the community entities - like the Rochester Community Band and Chorus, the Rochester Symphony Orchestra and Chorale, Rochester Art Center, and Rochester Civic Theatre, all of which provide regular programs and have dedicated rehearsal/programming/ performance space. On the other hand, however, can be found what might be referred to as Rochester’s ‘independent scene’ - multiple arts groups, artists, and ethnic cultural communities, all struggling for funds and space (but mostly space).

✲ As a side note, space is not only important because artists and arts organizations need places to work and produce - it is also a crucial part of the Southeast Minnesota Arts Council granting process. Grantees are required to have a public capstone. Without a guaranteed, final, public showing place at the time of application, a potential grantee will not be funded.

✲ According to arts groups, the need for arts and gathering space has increased significantly since the announcement of the DMC. While a handful of artists and organizations had space in downtown Rochester, the DMC has raised property values, leading to rents that many can no longer afford.

✲ Further exacerbating the problem, many of the community’s rentable spaces are either too expensive, too big, or have low availability. The Library, for example, is already booking for April 2017.

✲ In March 2016, the City opened a Request for Proposals for the Senior Center/Armory. The Arts and Cultural Initiative (ACI), an extension of the local arts advocacy group, Rochester Arts and Cultural Collaborative (RACC), submitted a proposal suggesting that the facility be converted to a multi-tenant, multi-use art space. The results of the RFP have not yet been decided on, but many art and cultural community representatives feel that, if the ACI’s proposal is unsuccessful, Rochester’s independent arts and culture community will be completely displaced. [ page 9 ]

User Demand

 ✲ Cultural Community: Rochester has a very large cultural community that has significant need for affordable gathering space. Flexibility is key for these users, both physically and in regards to operating policy (i.e. catering policies that allow them to work with a caterer of their own choosing or cook food themselves and bring it in). Many of these groups would like to have kitchen space. [ page 74 ]

Recommendations

2. In addition to making it the heart of the ‘Heart of the City’, make the Chateau the anchor facility of an arts and culture district or trail, one that includes the Armory as a home for Rochester’s small arts and cultural groups and independent artists. There is an acute need for small organization support in Rochester. The Chateau will be able to meet the needs of some of the community’s arts groups, but not all of them. We would recommend that the City give RACC’s Armory proposal significant thought, particularly within context of developing an arts and cultural district in downtown Rochester and the DMC. [ page 90 ]

Observations

This consultant's report that contained a recommendation regarding the Armory re-use was going to become public at some point. Eventually one assumes it will be on the Chateau Re-use Task Force agenda - the task force the Mayor chairs.

As chair it is hard to believe having received the report on August 16 (as we now know he did) that the Mayor had not seen this report and was not aware of its contents at the Committee of the Whole (COW) meeting on Monday, August 22.

At the COW meeting the Mayor was asked directly by the council president if he had anything he wanted to contribute to the Armory re-use discussion. Knowing the recommendation from the consulting firm his Task Force enlisted, and, contrary to that recommendation, all he offered was his opposition to the proposals. Fine. He's under no obligation to accept the consultant's recommendation. (That's pretty much what we do around here anyway, hire expensive consultants and then ignore them.) 

But he decided not to share the information that he did know with most of his colleagues who did not know. The Chief Executive Officer of the city thus denied these elected officials with whom he serves the opportunity - the courtesy, the comity - of reaching their own conclusions based upon that information.

But we were all going to see this report at some future meeting of the Task Force, so what was to be gained by withholding the recommendation and the data that supported it? What was to be gained once the existence of the report was made known by continuing to suppress it for several days until a copy was obtained through a request made under the public record act?

If the propriety of releasing or even acknowledging the report existed prior to a task force meeting was so important, then staff should have informed the council that they needed to delay their discussion and any subsequent action until this new information could be made available to them. But, that was not what happened. One of the report's recommendations was shared. Now it is clear that another even more pertinent recommendation was suppressed. So much for propriety.

Vox publica

There are increasing calls from the public and the press for the council to reconsider their intentions to reject the proposals before it and put the Armory up for sale. Calls to finally engage with citizens who they are elected to serve.

From a petition to the council currently in circulation:

The people of Rochester Minnesota call on the Rochester City Council to reconsider their rejection of the Arts and Cultural Initiative (A.C.I.) proposal for the community based use of the historic building now housing the Senior Center (Armory) at 121 N Broadway Ave, Rochester, MN 55906. 

We, the undersigned believe that the A.C.I. proposal has great merit and that it’s uses of the building as a space for inclusiveness, community building, interfaith and intercultural gatherings and education would add greatly to the quality of life for Rochester residents.

In addition the building will (Under the A.C.I. proposal) be used for visual arts displays and receptions as well as a venue for performing arts of any and all kinds.

We the undersigned believe that we cannot let this opportunity slip away. We must send a clear message to the City Council that this proposal will serve our community on a variety of levels and that this location is ideal for cultivating a downtown rich in myriad cultures, arts, ideas, humanity and simple human connections.

From a recent Post Bulletin editorial:

Unfortunately, the council seems unwilling to ask the questions and let the two groups better define their intentions, which could end up cementing council and community support for either project. During their presentations, members of both groups acknowledged the city's request left room for assumptions on the presenters' part.....

The council has two proposals, and they're proposals council members refuse to call bad. They are from groups willing to revise and hone their plans; they simply want an opportunity....

Additionally, it is unclear whether a sale would serve the public good. Council member Michael Wojcik noted Monday both proposals in hand seek to create an inviting community atmosphere. Would a new owner do the same?...

Ideally, they will seek answers to the first set of questions by engaging with the two groups. It could mean the armory building remains an active part of downtown, rather than sitting dark until the elected officials find an acceptable option without too many questions attached.

"First Class City. First Class Service" 

Though it required a bit of lawyering, the suppressed report is now available to the public. In the end, its continued suppression just corrupted further an already corrupted process.  A process characterized thus far by needless delay, the circumvention of the council's own rules, the suppression of information by high city officials, and an all too familiar disregard for good order, good manners, and good government.

"No ox left ungored" might be a better city motto.