Dark (or if you prefer not transparent) dialogue

Good post, Dave. Three comments/questions: Shouldn't the library have initiated/organized/asked for the very type of meetings that have been occurring to build consensus for a proposal? As far as anyone knows, the expansion proposal is dead in the water...maybe there's something going on at the county and DMC EDA, but you wouldn't know it...and the city's "tentative approval" is more like an ambiguous nod of the head, rather than tentative approval. Second: These are the very people the library needs to move a plan -- any plan -- forward. It's counterproductive to portray people like Kiscaden and yes, Staver, as dark forces trying to work outside established channels. Third: Doesn't a combined facility of the kind described today make a lot of sense? - Jay Furst comment posted to Facebook 08.06.16

Here are responses to Jay Furst's comments to yesterday's blog. As I was getting to those, he posted some related comments on his blog, I'll get to them below.

Shouldn't the library have initiated/organized/asked for the very type of meetings that have been occurring to build consensus for a proposal?

It depends on what you think these meetings are about. The reporting says the group's purpose is "to facilitate discussion between several groups who have similar goals and similar needs." Since they are not just concerned with the library, but also UMR, the Y, and the Children's Museum, then probably no, I wouldn't expect the library to have initiated, etc. these meetings.

Though the impetus for convening the meetings to begin with appears to have been the rejection by the county of a library expansion proposal, the meetings seem centered on the UMR/Recreation District of the DMC master plan. Notions of re-locating the library there are not new. They have come up before. I don't know that the library seriously pursued it nor that anyone brought forth a serious proposal for it to do so.

Given the group's reported purpose, one could just as well ask shouldn't have UMR or the Y or the Children's Museum initiated, etc. these meetings. None of them did either. Meetings about these organizations were convened without these organizations.

Convening a group to work on the UMR/Recreation district has been proposed. One problem is the current DMC EDA strategy of taking the DMC master plan forward piecemeal starting with Heart of the City and Discovery Square. Maybe this approach makes sense on a Gantt Chart but, it's not keeping up with events on the street. St. Mary's Place isn't waiting. The UMR/Recreation district doesn't now appear to be either. With the DMC EDA understaffed, it's can't be easy keeping up. In whatever way this gets resolved, it's probably not best done ad hoc.

Of course, let's not lose in all this that the city council president - a member of this group - has already made his "consensus" position clear.

As far as anyone knows, the expansion proposal is dead in the water...

Probably safe to say that the initial $55 million proposal the library brought forward is off the table. Apparently there was no Plan B. The reporting is that the library is hard at work on one but "has not changed its approach to expansions plans" having "not seen a better option than the expansion of the library at the current location come forward." I assume that includes the option of re-locating to the UMR/Recreation district. I'm thinking these ad hoc group meetings have been about saying to the library: better take another look.

Again, the city council president leaves no doubt that in his view the library needs to find someplace else to be.

maybe there's something going on at the county and DMC EDA, but you wouldn't know it...

According to recent reports in the Post-Bulletin, the county and the DMC EDA, along with other elected officials and selected others, have been meeting privately as part of this ad hoc group. But, no, you wouldn't have likely known it otherwise. Nor would anyone else had the city council president not announced what he did at the forum and people began asking where did that come from?

and the city's "tentative approval" is more like an ambiguous nod of the head, rather than tentative approval.

Yeah. And, given the county's unambiguous shake of the head, moot as well. Even more so, the city council president is now on record withdrawing his support for library expansion at its current location. But then you know that. Indeed, that's how we got to these comments and questions in the first place.

Second: These are the very people the library needs to move a plan -- any plan -- forward.

You are right. There is considerable political power and private influence embodied in the electeds and selecteds comprising this group. I assume that's why they were invited to be among the convened. Though there is a collective wisdom amongst them, I am not sure one can overlook the aggregated power and influence.

Frankly, to be honest, if the outcome is just to get these four organizations to sit down with a "design expert," it seems a bit excessive to me. Rochester is not a what I'd consider a "consultant averse" city. Why in this instance would it take some rather heroic "encouragement" to get these four organizations in the same room with a consultant, a white board, and some Post-It notes? Why must a "safe environment" be created to even make the suggestion?

Of course, given the city council president's statement it seems to be more than a suggestion.

It's counterproductive to portray people like Kiscaden and yes, Staver, as dark forces trying to work outside established channels.

I do think it remains to be seen where the counter productivity - or productivity, if any - will come to reside. But, since the stated intent of the group was to work outside established channels ("a different avenue of dialogue" was the phrase) why would it be counter productive to say so?

I believe I took care not to characterize persons as "dark," but rather the process. I do see parallels - in principle at least - between the "safe and encouraging environment" created by a 501(c)(4) to solicit what has come to be known as "dark money" and the similar effort here to insulate dialogue from... whom?  Here is something else that is odd to me - what does creating a "safe and encouraging environment" mean in this instance? As mentioned above, if the outcome is just to suggest these four organizations sit down with a "design expert" why does that require a "safe and encouraging environment" to accomplish?

The selecteds are all either private individuals or represent private organizations. However, the four electeds cannot shake the other obligations they carry by virtue of their offices. I appreciate that our cultural light/dark framing carries certain connotations that using "dark dialogue" evokes, but it is only to the appropriateness of the process to which the term is applied.

If "dark dialogue" is too provocative, substitute " not transparent dialogue" and add a "?" if that helps take the edge off. But whatever one calls it, it is not without consequence as we saw on stark display in the city council president's recent remarks.

At any rate, I reserve the use of the phrase "dark forces" for Cthulhu, Thanos, and their ilk.

Third: Doesn't a combined facility of the kind described today make a lot of sense?

The Y and UMR are already located or planning to locate at the UMR/Recreation district site. So, what's really up for discussion are the library and the Children's Museum. The latter is on record as being months away from even beginning to seriously consider their space requirements and preferences and is currently engaged in a process of their own to sort that out. So their answer would likely be at best: we'll have to get back to you on that.

As for the library, the reporting indicates that they have not seen a better option than the one they are pursuing - including the one it is suggested they meet with a design expert about.

Does it make sense to me?  I guess I kind of like the library right where it is. Let's see if they can make it work even without the current city council president's support.


There's always a klatch.

Furst's most recent Furst Draft has a much more cheerful outlook on this whole thing. Sliced bread takes a backseat to what is now just a "high-minded coffee klatch" that simply required the efforts of the only person "in public life in Rochester who would have the local and legislative chops, the connections and credibility to step forward and do this." That's some klatch.

Of course this effort isn't just some elected officials sitting down with voters at the Food Coop for a morning coffee. Ad hoc though it may be, it has been an organized and systematic enterprise - looking, walking, and talking like "a well-oiled policy machine." Admittedly the gears jammed a bit when the city council president mucked up the communication plan mid-soft launch. Be that as it may, I'll cheerfully grant - klatch or otherwise - it is "high-minded."

As to the choice of "memes," Furst does not claim that this klatch had no issues with transparency. On the contrary, he takes well-deserved pride in asserting that this group "is newsworthy, and it's our job as a news organization to dig this out and deliver the transparency." Adding as if having just landed on the deck of an aircraft carrier, "Mission accomplished. I'm guessing the group's process changes as a result."

Perhaps, in time, it will occur to him that "dark dialogue" refers to the lack of transparency he now celebrates as having been so intrepidly dug out and delivered by the Post Bulletin.

On the bright side, I can close on my own cheerful note that both Furst Draft and A Life and the Times have reached a consensus on the issue of this ad hoc group's transparency. Not so much before. Much better now.

Dark dialogue: public affairs in private places

Apparently an unsafe and discouraging environment

If it is the function of the public realm to throw light on the affairs of men by providing a space of appearances in which they can show in deed and word, for better and worse, who they are and what they can do, then darkness has come when this light is extinguished by "credibility gaps" and "invisible government,"..... - Hannah Arendt, Men in Dark Times

Dossier

The Med City Beat (08.04.16)

Library expansion 

Staver's answer to the question of whether he supports a proposed $55 million expansion of the Rochester Public Library prompted a chorus of boos from the audience. "Not in that location," he said. 

He later clarified: 

I think the public library is a fundamental element of any community and we have a great one. I do have some issues with what we're trying to accomplish on that particular site. I'm thinking bigger picture here. I think, if we talk about the evolution of libraries, it's just not just stacks of books anymore. These are community gathering places; they are multi-media hubs. I think we should be thinking about a different location, perhaps, where we can embrace some of these new ideas. So I think spending that kind of money to expand in place is shortsighted. I really rather think more future. 

Allen, who was first to answer, simply said "yes." He did, however, provide a full explanation for his support of the expansion in a blog post earlier this year. 

Furst Draft (08.05.16)

The big headline of the night was the library issue: When asked whether the city should put $55 million into the public library expansion, Allen said yes, without a moment's hesitation. Staver said flatly, "Not at the current site." 

There was an audible gasp from many in the audience -- maybe there were boos, but from up front, I heard gasps... 

Staver went on to say he has "issues with what we're trying to accomplish on that particular site. I'm thinking bigger picture here. ... I think spending that kind of money to expand in place is shortsighted." 

That was a brave statement, especially in light of the campaign the library is running, which may be more energetic than any campaign in town right now. As an example: I asked for questions from the public in advance of the meeting, and about 10 were from people wanting me to ask the library question. That's good promotion. 

We've heard rumblings about an effort that's underway to find a new location for the library -- downtown -- that would dovetail with DMC and other goals. You may read more about that in Saturday's P-B. Library leadership and fans are dug in at the current site, but if they were offered a new, larger building elsewhere, presumably they'd listen. The current plan isn't flying ahead.

"Group deliberates public projects in private discussions" Post-Bulletin (08.06.16)

A high-ranking coterie of community leaders during the last several months has orchestrated conversations on pressing community needs, including a proposed $55 million expansion of Rochester Public Library. 

The ad hoc group also has explored the potential for collaboration between the library, Rochester Family YMCA, Minnesota Children's Museum of Rochester and University of Minnesota Rochester. Each organization has discussed facility and space needs publicly. 

Olmsted County Board of Commissioners member Sheila Kiscaden formed the group shortly after the county board declined to give a funding commitment to the library's expansion proposal. The proposal would have built on the current downtown location and provided needed space for community programming. 

Kiscaden described the group as people who have leadership, business and public project experience in the Rochester community. 

The group includes Rochester City Council President Randy Staver, Olmsted County Board of Commissioners Chairwoman Stephanie Podulke, Destination Medical Center Economic Development Agency Executive Director Lisa Clarke, Rochester Area Chamber of Commerce President Rob Miller and retired leaders of Mayo Clinic, IBM and Rochester Public Schools.

Observation

"... it is an ad hoc, informal group that's just trying to be good citizens and good civic leaders trying to move something forward....."

Despite the no doubt sincere characterization of this group as just some civic minded folks getting together to chat about community needs, it does include the President of the City Council with the city's tax dollars, the President of the County Commission (plus one more county commissioner) with the county tax dollars, the Executive Director of the DMC Economic Development Agency with its state tax dollars sitting around with other selected - as yet unidentified save for the President of the Chamber of Commerce* - private citizens talking about us without us. There are big public purses in that room along with the folks who hold those purse strings and the folks they choose to talk to.

It's not clear how one reconciles the statements in this article that the group has "no official capacity" with so many high-ranking officials with capacity in the room.

Or what it means to say that a group representing not just serious political power and private influence but also millions in public dollars can "suggest" anything that doesn't have the effect of a "formal recommendation."

Or to say that whatever these organizations decide to do "it's totally up to them" when the President of the City Council is already on record in his response to the question Wednesday evening regarding support for the expansion of the Library: "Not at the current site," he said. People wondered where that position - asserted so confidently without hesitation - came from. Now we know.

If you've ever wondered how hockey arenas and new charter schools can seem to appear before the city council out of no where fully formed and ready for fast-track action, well it looks like these meetings.

"...if we can create a safe environment, an encouraging environment....."

A few weeks ago, a story broke about what was probably at least a flirtation among some to form "a 501(c)(4) — also known as "social welfare" organization ... to raise and spend an unlimited amount of money on political activities and lobbying without publicly revealing the identities of its donors." The parties purported to be involved issued denials that such an organization was formed. The issue was raised at the recent city council president candidates forum as well. The sort of money raised and donated through these organizations is often referred to as "dark money" because individuals and organizations can influence elections without having to disclose their participation. One might say this alternative - perfectly legal - path for donations creates a safe and encouraging environment for donors.

Organizing, convening, and conducting a series of meetings to work through the very real challenges and difficulties in formulating public policy out of the public eye where those impacted by these discussions are not present and/or where the public cannot witness or review records of the deliberations is a form of "dark dialogue." These are not simply routine conversations in service to constituents or stakeholders, but part rather of a deliberative process meant to influence public policy and planning that will in turn impact decisions regarding public expenditures. These deliberations are not supposed to be "safe." These deliberations should entail political risk for those elected officials who participate. That risk is at the core of representative government.

I appreciate those who want to create safe spaces where difficult subjects can be explored with candor. But our political discourse should not be delivered to the public with the wrinkles all privately pressed out and the rough edges safely sanded smooth. If all we get to see is the vote and not how that vote was influenced by "dark money" or "dark dialogue," then we are ill-served by those we have elected.

"While the group will make no formal recommendations, it has suggested....."

Last week I offered that one of the major local trends "is expressed in a question and exemplified in four groups that have erupted into our city's life since 2013" to consider "What is the future we want to create together?" The four groups briefly shared in the post included the Community Networking Group, Journey 2 Growth, Rochester Arts and Culture Collaborative, and In the City for Good. They include all sorts of folks including city and county elected officials.

These groups were not elected or appointed or created by an act of any governing authority. They are all bottom-up groups, grassroots and grass tops. They are more and less organized; more and less formal; driven by volunteers and dependent upon voluntary associations. None of them have any money of their own to speak of and most would speak of having none at all. Increasingly they supersede groups that preceded them. As observed above, even though these groups may form initially in an anxiety arising from uncertainty and complexity, all four quickly embraced participation, accountability, and possibility. 

By virtue of its select invitations, its membership, its intent, and its conduct thus far, the group we have learned of this week is categorically different than those described above and will remain so. In the attempt to create a safe environment, it provides an insulated one instead. They may seek an answer the the same question, "What is the future we want to create together?" But, the electeds and "selecteds" that comprise the "we" make for a pretty feeble "together."

We have already made a place for this

A couple of the organizations being talked about (note none were in the room until summoned) are private, another is a state institution, but the fourth, the Library, is a major local public institution. It has a Board established in city ordinance with members appointed by the city and the county. The Library Board meets every third Wednesday of every month at 4:30 p.m. in Meeting Room C on the first floor of the Library. If there is a time and place and body with whom to "dialogue" about the future of the Public Library, that would be it. Perhaps it isn't the "safe environment" and "encouraging environment" these elected officials seem to prefer. Perhaps conducting the public's business in public can be a bit of rumpus and ruckus. But, perhaps, we should discourage the alternative.

__________

* Subsequent to publishing this post, the Post Bulletin updated it's online story with a complete list of members:

Sheila Kiscaden, Olmsted County Board of Commissioners
Stephanie Podulke, Olmsted County Board of Commissioners chairwoman
Randy Staver, Rochester City Council president
Nick Campion, Rochester City Council
Lisa Clarke, DMC EDA executive director
Rob Miller, Rochester Area Chamber of Commerce president
Jenna Bowman, Rochester Downtown Alliance executive director
Hugh Smith, retired CEO and chair of the finance committee, Mayo Clinic
Walt Ling, retired senior state executive/senior site executive, IBM
Jerry Williams, former Rochester Public Schools superintendent
Kathy Meyerle, retired Emeritus Legal Counsel at Mayo Clinic

Note the absence of anyone from the facilities or organizations being discussed at these meetings.

The future we want to live into

I said, ‘It’s certain there is no fine thing
Since Adam’s fall but needs much labouring.'  - W.B. Yeats

East of Eden

Earlier this week I was invited to share with a local group what I saw as issues and trends current in our city. The group would also be briefed on DMC, demographic projections, and some other targeted economic data. I was to address - broadly - anything of everything else that might be pertinent this group's purposes.

With two exceptions the group was comprised of Rochester residents and, as I looked over the list of whom to expect, residents likely to be well-informed on the issues facing the city. That being the case, it did not seem a good use of the time to catalog the all too familiar and growing list of challenges that demography, growth, and urban living pose for us. You know: affordable housing, transit, transportation, income disparities, immigration, workforce skills, arts, sustainability, sharing economy, infrastructures for communication of all kinds, inclusion, healthy living, recreation, jobs that pay well, jobs that refuse to pay well, persistent gaps in achievement, opportunity, wages, access; et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

The list is long, gets longer, and nothing will ever get crossed off of it. These issues are the permanent concerns of living and living in a city. They are not necessarily in every case bad problems to have but they will remain problems - or if you prefer, challenges; or, if you prefer, opportunities. Whatever term you use, these are the distractions that keep us mortal. A partial catalog of how in the 21st Century we till the ground from whence we were taken. No matter how many lists of the best this, that, or the other thing Rochester tops, we still dwell east of Eden after all.

Though sometimes the long view can be helpful, I did not contextualize my remarks by referencing either Yeats or Moses on Adam's Fall. Going back to those days just prior to the passage of the DMC legislation seemed far, fall, and frame enough.

There is good news to be found there in those days and in the days that have followed. In those days began an important trend that is not reducible to demographics or economics or the long term growth of the local "medical business entity" as Mayo Clinic was referred to in the DMC legislation. It is a trend that is expressed in a question and exemplified in four groups that have erupted into our city's life since 2013. Groups that did not exist three years ago. All four born in a bit of angst but quickly embracing participation, accountability, and possibility.


Who wants to know?

The question each of these groups asks in their own way for their own reasons is this: "What is the future we want to create together?" If there is a trend across all the issues any can list, it is how quickly this question came to be asked; how it burst into a broad community conversation about a shared future; and, how new groups demanded of themselves that the question be asked by and of and for so many.

Community Networking Group

The first of these groups formed early in 2013 even as bill that would establish DMC was moving through the state legislature. Now called the Community Networking Group, this informal assembly of mainly private and public social and human service providers came together initially try to sort out what was happening and what it might mean for their organizations and the people they served and supported. They saw early on that the growth toward which DMC focused our attention would bring with it increasing pressures upon our community fabric, increasing demands upon community services, and increasing stress upon community infrastructures. Like the rest of the city, the Community Networking Group spent months trying to sort through the hoops and hoopla that preceded and followed the passage of the legislation. What they sorted out they shared with each other. Over the months they have grown more clear on how better to provide service and support. When they could they have tried to speak in common and in concert about the concerns they share and the opportunities they see.

The Community Networking Group is now driving an effort to create a set of shared community-wide indicators that identifies measures of community well-being.

Journey to Growth

The origins of the second group to form are also found in 2013 in the Market Street study initiated by the Rochester Area Chamber of Commerce and Rochester Area Economic Development Incorporated. The resulting report issued in January 2014 lead over the following months to the formation of Journey to Growth, a five-year economic development plan created to ensure the future economic viability of our region. Their goal is to diversify and grow the regional economy comprised of  Dodge, Fillmore, Freeborn, Goodhue, Houston, Mower, Olmsted, Steele, Wabasha and Winona counties. They have identified five target sectors for development and expansion: computer system design and production, food processing, manufacturing, convention and tourism, and medical technology. Ten "journey committees" have formed around the issues they believe are vital to expanding and diversifying the regional economy, optimizing the regional talent base, and becoming a cohesive, connected region.

Journey to Growth is now moving into its second year of its five year journey tracking and sharing their progress in quarterly meetings throughout the region.

Rochester Arts and Culture Collaborative

A third group formed in September 2014 at an evening meeting in the library auditorium called to create an action plan for arts and culture in Rochester. They were pretty adamant about not being interested in more "input." Even then engagement fatigue was setting in among Rochester residents and many were growing weary of convening without consequence. The Rochester Arts and Culture Collaborative was an invitation to "output." As have other groups, they identified areas where they might get some needed traction and maybe even make something happen. For two years they have been doing just that. When news that the Chateau Theatre would become vacant surfaced, this group began the earliest planning for its possible use as a multi-function performance venue. They are now part of the task force that is working to realize that very same vision. The Collaborative has before the city council an Armory Re-use proposal to create at that site an arts and multicultural center. The "major public art project that would represent Rochester in an iconic way," that was on a potential To Do List at their very first meeting, is now realized in the Arts4Trails project that has placed five sculptures on the trail between Silver Lake and Slattery Park.

The Rochester Arts and Culture Collaborative has in less that two years contributed in substantial ways to develop a vital arts infrastructure in the downtown, address some long-standing needs of our multicultural community, and lay the groundwork for a continuing major public art project.

In the City for Good

All these groups formed before the DMC Master Plan was presented and approved in 2015. The final example is a group that formed just as that planning phase was being concluded. Its voice was first heard at the DMCC board hearing on the approval of the plan. A voice that raised the same concerns about living in the "in shadow of growth" that others had. With its origins in the social justice missions of local communities of faith, In the City for Good arose quickly over a series of three community forums in June, October and November 2015. They organized themselves around the priorities those forums identified. Now "action groups" meet regularly to bring those issues to the fore and press for results that promote growth that brings its benefits to all without those least able bearing its costs (e.g. here, here, and here).

In the City for Good now holds regular forums to bring the work of these groups and the concerns they address to the broader community. Their next forum in October will invite candidates for city offices to respond to this work and those issues.


The dancers are not the dance

Though organizations and people that comprise these groups have been around for a while, the groups themselves did not exist three and half years ago. They have come upon the scene quickly. They are making a difference quickly. Formed in response to the big changes they each in their own way saw coming, they are perhaps the most important change we have seen so far. These groups may well represent the most significant change we will see. Along with other groups like The Commission, and We Bike Rochester, these groups represent a major local trend: asking the question, "What is the future we want to create together?" 

These groups were not elected or appointed or created by an act of any governing authority. They are all bottom-up groups, grassroots and grass tops. They are more and less organized; more and less formal; driven by volunteers and dependent upon voluntary associations. None of them have any money of their own to speak of and most would speak of having none at all. Increasingly they supersede groups that preceded them. As observed above, even though these groups may form initially in an anxiety arising from uncertainty and complexity, all four quickly embraced participation, accountability, and possibility.

Participation: These groups all expanded quickly by actively inviting others in and keeping that invitation always an open one. By doing so they benefit from the gifts and capacities that only others bring, and by seeking out those on the margins they can harvest new gifts and capacities.

Accountability: These groups formed around a founding sense of accountability understood here as Peter Block defines it: a willingness to care for the well-being of the whole. Participants find themselves among those with whom they are connected in shared interests and broad purpose. The groups they form actualize the potential collective these connections always held. Bringing a kind of soft power to local and regional affairs.

Possibility: These groups all placed before themselves what only questions about the future can make possible: possibility. Embracing as essential that the well-being of the whole depends not upon what comes next but what they do next. They must ask what is it possible to do and then what else is possible and then what else. Not surprisingly, as participation grows and accountability deepens, more possibilities emerge as possible.

These four groups will succeed some and fail some. Three years from now they might not exist. Maybe they accomplish what they set out to accomplish and disband. Maybe they morph into something else that carries their question forward. Maybe they collapse. Frankly, for different reasons in different ways, they are all pretty fragile. But they need not last. Their impact on the future they create together will not happen in the future, it will happen - if it happens - now. Besides these four examples are not the only examples of this trend. They represent the trend. They are not the trend itself. They are the dancers not the dance.


A better answer than the best one

Walking out of the meeting afterwards, a member of the group before whom I had presented ask me where I thought the city would be in five years. The best answer to questions like that is always "it depends," but this was someone literally helping to build a future Rochester, her question was serious and deserved a better answer than the best one. And this is no answer really anyway, just a reply to a query.

I said in essence but not in these words that I thought in time a shared horizon may emerge. All the asking of the same question may give rise to many hands gesturing in the same general direction toward that shared horizon.

Issues are shared, but interests vary. The answer is certainly not some group of groups, some parliament of all interests that will sort them all out. The answer is definitely not some ill-conceived attempt to "adjudicate" among these groups and their interests. Better we seek alignment toward that shared horizon if we can discern it. Better that we seek a resonance among these groups.  We can expect some dissonance along the way, but sympathetic vibrations born of earned empathy will serve us all well and better than any zero sum balancing. Resonance and alignment will not happen of its own accord. It will be another labor these groups take on.

Asking what is the future we want to create together depends most of all upon the coming together to do so. So far, we seem to be doing that and upon that it depends.

What's not to like about the "Armory Arts Academy"?

Except for the due date.

What's not to like?

What's not to like about the "Armory Arts Academy" proposal submitted in response to the RFP issued by the city of Rochester for Re-use of the Armory? It has kids. It has arts. It has all that money.

With the Senior Center relocating and re-branding (125 Live) sometime later this year or early next year or whenever, the Armory becomes vacant and available. Some months ago in late 2015, the city issued an Request for Proposals (RFP) for the re-use of this building.

The Children's Museum showed early and strong interest, but that waned. They submitted no proposal. There was a car museum group that expressed interest, but nothing seems to have come of that. The folks that have been working for sometime to establish a veterans' and first responders' museum were interested, then weren't, then were. The Rochester Arts and Culture Collaborative also was interested in establishing an arts and culture center. There may have been other parties as well.

At the time the proposals were submitted there was some confusion as to whether there were three or two. Most reports settled on two - one may have been withdrawn. Last Monday (07.11.16) there were indeed only two proposals presented at the city council's Committee of the Whole (COW) meeting: the proposals for the veterans' and first responders' museum; and, for the arts and culture center.

At that meeting, there was mentioned something about a third proposal that might be coming. Some folks in attendance caught that. Others didn't. It was duly reported by at least one local media outlet. No one asked about it, even though there is good reason why they might have.

Thursday evening, some city staff members were told that an arts academy Armory proposal would be presented at this Monday's (07.18.16) COW meeting. Sometime on Friday the "Armory Arts Academy" proposal was delivered to the city administrator. Early in the afternoon, he distributed that proposal for review to city council members - many of whom were surprised to see it.

According to the proposal, the "Armory Arts Academy" will be "a comprehensive tuition-free public elementary - middle [K-8] school offering a rigorous academic program while integrating the visual and performing arts into each and every school day." In other words, a charter school.

Charter schools in Minnesota are eligible for state Lease aid. The proposal reports that the current Lease aid amounts to $1,314 "per pupil unit."  The proposal projects that in the first year this charter school will be able to pay the city $257,544 in lease payments. The second year, $310,104. And at full "pupil unit" capacity, $473,040.

So; kids, the arts, and a whole lot of money. What's not to like?


Well, let's see

Set aside for the moment how one might regard the city facilitating the establishment of a charter school in the district and what that might mean. State education funding is arcane and fickle so who knows what impact it will have on the ISD 535 budget.

But, consider how it is that this "Armory Arts Academy" proposal has come forward.

The proposal with its kids and the arts and all that money was submitted 16 weeks after the required due date of 12pm, March 31, 2016. In fact, this proposal was submitted to the city administrator sometime on Friday before 1pm. That's 1pm July 15, 2016. Upon receipt the proposal was not returned by the city administrator with a polite email of regret that due to its late submission it could not be considered. On the contrary, it was promptly forwarded to members of the city council for review.

No doubt sometime very soon the city attorney will patiently explain that there's nothing wrong here. That having set the due date the city can ignore it because it can. Or at least one would assume a legal opinion along those lines will be forthcoming. That's how it usually works.

Folks not familiar with the limitless whimsy of local government might be surprised to learn that the city apparently does not need to first reject the proposals that met the due date requirements and were presented in good faith last Monday. Nor does it seem to need to close out the current RFP then open and publicize a new RFP to allow for additional submissions.

Instead, it appears that the council can arrange for this charter school proposal to be presented 16 weeks after the due date requirement. If that's not the case, then someone's in trouble and since no one in this city government ever seems to get into trouble, all this finagle must therefore ipso facto, abracadabra, voilà, actually be OK.


Never mind

Never mind those questions you might have about how it is Dr. Galeazzi came know and be assured that preparing and submitting his proposal long after the deadline had passed would not in any way interfere with it being presented to the city council. Never mind who might have provided him with those assurances. Never mind that unless other proposals are going to be pulled out of someone's, ah, hat, no one else has received the benefit of similar assurances.

Never mind that it was 16 weeks from the due date for submission to the date the council scheduled the COW presentations of the two proposals last Monday. Even though it has yet to appear on the COW agenda, if the council's plan is indeed to hear this charter school proposal on Monday, that would mean it would take place only three calendar days after it was submitted. So, never mind that this "Armory Arts Academy" proposal would effectively be heard by the council the next business day after it was received by the city administrator. At least some processes at city hall are being streamlined. By some. For some.

Finally, never mind how the city has already treated those folks who in good faith presented to COW last Monday. The local citizen groups who played by the rules they were given. Prepared their RFP's. Submitted them by the required due date. Waited months upon the council for an opportunity to present their proposals. Local citizens who came before the council thinking they were getting a fair hearing.

Perhaps there are some who will say these citizens got that fair hearing, but to the extent that any on the council knew of this "Armory Arts Academy" proposal (and one can only conclude that some did) and withheld that specific information (and it is clear that some have) the local citizen groups who presented last Monday were not treated fairly. Not at all. Not even close.


It depends

A process these local citizens thought to be open, was not. A process they thought to be transparent, was not. A process they thought governed by "terms, conditions and requirements" that they each had to affirm they understood, was not.

This treatment of these local citizens by our elected officials will probably be found all nice and legal. Still, by standards of simple decency that others think might also apply, their treatment does not seem at all nice or fair. Familiar though. Sadly so.

So, what's not to like about the "Armory Arts Academy" proposal with the kids, and the arts, and all that money? As always, it depends. Do you mind?