Hamburg City Council Agenda – January 12, 2010

Hamburg Residents notice that two public hearings are taking place prior to the meeting. The public hearing notices will be posted shortly.

 

6:50. Public Hearing – Ordinance Number 135

 

6:55. Public Hearing – Ordinance Number 136

 

7:00. Call City Council Meeting to Order @ 7:00 PM

• Pledge of Allegiance
  
• Miscellaneous Business (Public Comments)
  
• Agenda Review (Added Items) and Adoption
  
• Designate Official Depository (Bank) and Official Newspaper
  
• Appoint Assistant (Acting) Mayor
  
• Designate Departments for City Council Members
  
• Set City Council Meeting Start Time for 2010
  
• Approve Minutes for November 24, 2009 and December 8, 2009
  
• Old City Business (Memo)
  

 

7:15. Fire Department Report – Chief Brad Droege

• FEMA Grants/US Fish & Wildlife Grant
  
• Fire Department Firefighters Baker & Spande
  
• 2009 Donation Summary (HFDRA)
  
  • $2,000 Donation Towards Ambulance Certificate
    
  • Resolution Number 2010-01
    
• HFD Relief Association – Required Municipal Contribution for 2010
  
• City Rescue Truck (Upgrade)
  
• Fire Hydrants/City Streets (Snow Removal)
  

 

7:25. Hamburg Lions Club

• MN Lawful Gambling Permit (Bingo)
  

 

7:25. Scott Qualle (MNSPECT)

• Contract Agreement Extension for Building Inspections
  
• State Building Code/Hamburg City Code
  
  • Ordinance Number 136 (Adopt)
    

 

7:45. Dennis' Report (Public Works & Utilities)

• Project List (Added Items)
  
• Carver County Right of Way Permits, Registration Form, Obstruction Permits
  
• Picnic Tables (Paint)
  
• Recall on Fire Hydrants (Update)
  
• Community Hall/Community Center Repairs
  
  • Cooling Fans/Electrical Repairs/City Shop Door
    
  • Wall Heaters/Fans
    
• General Maintenance Schedules
  
• Storm Sewer Repair (City Shop)
  

 

8:00. Deputy Clerk Report

• Delinquent Utility Bills Report
  

 

8:05. City Clerk/Treasurer Report

• City Fee Schedule for 2010
  
  • Ordinance Number 135 (Adopt)
    
• 2009/2010 Park and Ball Program (Community Education)
  
• Audio/Visual for Oak Grove City Center Council Chambers
  
• Senator Julianne Ortman (Emails)
  
  • Looking to Attend a City Council Meeting
    
  • Tax Committee (Email from Senator Ortman & Chris Lund)
    
• I/I Abatement Program Update
  
  • Easements (Public Meetings)
    
• LMCIT Public Employee Bond Coverage
  
• 2009 Hours Worked Worksheet
  
• Possible LGA Cuts for 2010 (State Budget Deficit)
  
• Time Off Requests (January 22, 28, 29 & February 4, 5, 23)
  
• Informational Items
  
  • Central Public Schools (Referendum Bonds)
    
  • City Offices Closed January 18, 2009
    

 

8:25. City Council Reports

• Councilmember Mueller Report (Sewer & Water)
  
• Councilmember Cummiskey Report (Streets)
  
  • Handicap Bathroom for Hall
    
• Councilmember Trebesch Report (Buildings)
  
• Councilmember Barnes Report (Parks)
  
• Mayor Malz Report
  
  • NYA City Permit Fees
    

 

8:40. Approve Claims for December 2009 & January 2010

 

8:45. Adjourn Meeting

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"The times set forth above are estimated.  Some subjects may take a longer time to discuss and take action on; some subjects may take less time than set forth."

President Obama gives Intelligence 101 speech

"As President, I have solemn responsibility to protect our nation and our people and when the system fails, it is my responsibility," said President Obama yesterday in his speech about the lapse in security of the "Underwear" Bomber. About time that President Obama takes responsibility and stops blaming the Bush Administration for all this challenges. I agree with President Obama that there was not one piece of data missed; rather the system as a whole failed to analyze the data properly. Perhaps the scolding President Obama gave the C.I.A earlier this year is having repercussions that he did not anticipate. The more troubling aspect of this incident is that Americans will see their freedoms reduced further under the guise of "National Security". I do not foresee another Patriot Act but the application of intrusive scanning may be moving us down that road.

President Obama said, "Ultimately, the buck stops with me." Did Hoover just walk into the White House? It is refreshing to hear President Obama to take responsibility and that he may finally understand the tough job it is to keep freedoms safe from those that seek to destroy it. "Because great and proud nations don't hunker down and hide behind walls of suspicion and mistrust. That is exactly what our adversaries want," stated President Obama. Correct, and our adversaries want to disrupt our economy and encourage further erosion of our freedoms. The plan going forward appears to be out of Intelligence Analysis 101 class.

Some of the actions President Obama laid out were timely distribution of intelligence reports; improve watch list databases, enhanced intelligence analysis, and aggressive and thorough pursuit of terrorism threat threads. See a more comprehensive list at: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6065ZB20100107. All of these should already be in place. Perhaps if President Obama hadn't blasted the intelligence community earlier this year, they would be more apt to aggressively pursue terror suspects. Granted no system is fool proof and someone will always find a way to beat the system. As the old saying goes, "We need to be vigilant every day; the terrorists only need to be lucky once." What is the cost to Americans? After 9/11 we saw the Bush administration use that attack to pass the Patriot Act and now we see the Obama administration using the Christmas Day attack to deploy 300 advanced imaging scanners in the United States airport this year.

Here is what we can expect the TSA agents to see from the use of the scanners to be used:

Now is this something we as a Free Society need to subject ourselves to in order to "feel safer"? The TSA and government officials are saying that the TSA agent viewing these scans will not be in the same room as the person being scanned and that is to make us feel better? I was watching C-SPAN yesterday over the lunch hour, instead of having health care discussions on, the English House of Commons was on. The members of the House of Commons were grilling the Secretary of the Defense Ministry over various topics including the use of full-body scanners. The debate centered on the amount of personal freedom the members were willing to give up. The discussion did bring up the point about what would happen to the images. To which the honorable Secretary did not have an immediate answer.

Now the Obama administration contends that these images will not see the light of day and in fact will be destroyed. Really! If they are destroyed then what evidence one will have to go back to when determining how someone got another diaper bomb on the plane? Plus as one can tell from the images above, a woman with large breasts or a man with a large gut could easily hid bomb material. Also, my guess is that children will not be subject to these intrusive scanners which will give the terrorist their mule to getting explosives on the plane. The question comes down to this: How much personal freedom do we want to give up for safety from terror attacks? I do applaud President Obama for taking the potential terror attacks are still a real threat.

McCullough vs. Maryland: Implied Power Clause Established – Constitutional?

In 1819, the United States Supreme Court heard a case that forever changed the landscape of legislative power and paved the road for a larger more centralized government. The case in question is McCullough vs. Maryland. The question before the court was twofold: First, does the "necessary and proper" clause of the Constitution imply that Congress had the power to charter a national bank? Secondly, is it within State power to place a tax on national banks or are national activities supreme to State rights? After arguments were made, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote the opinion that established the "necessary and proper" clause implied that Congress can establish a national bank as it carries out activities that maintained the powers specifically listed in the Constitution; thus the Implied Powers Clause was born. Marshall also stated "that allowing states to tax part of the national government disrupted the supremacy of the Constitution and of national laws over conflicting states laws" (http://www.enotes.com/supreme-court-drama/mcculloch-v-maryland).

While the case originally surrounded the taxation of a national bank by the state of Maryland, the case laid the ground work for future Congressional actions that went beyond those powers specifically listed in the Constitution. Article 1, Section 8 states (http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei):

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Obviously the Founding Fathers did not have television, radio or the internet but one wonders if Marshall had not established the Implied Powers Clause through his interpretation of the final sentence of Section 8 would we have so many inequities within our lands. What I mean. Where does it state the establishment of entitlement programs? Did Marshall go too far in his decision? Or are there in face implied powers established in the final sentence of Section 8? Ron Paul, in his book "End the Fed", points to this decision as the birth of the central bank and the bane of our economy. Many consider the Constitution a living document but has this decision created a Pandora Box? Does the Implied Powers Clause make recent legislation, i.e. Patriot Act, TARP, and Health Care reform, Constitutional or does it display that Marshall's decision and establishment of Implied Powers Clause in itself is unconstitutional?

 

C-SPAN Rejected by Administration to bring transparency to the Conference Committee process

During the race for the Democrat nomination Sen. Barack Obama pledged that he would "have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who is making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies." Well, C-SPAN CEO Brian Lamb took, then Sen. Obama, seriously and offered C-SPAN services to air the conference committee proceedings as leaders in the House and Senate look to merge the health care reform bills. The letter that CEO Lamb sent can be seen here: http://www.c-span.com/pdf/C-SPAN%20Health%20Care%20Letter.pdf. The offer by C-SPAN includes all the hardware to show all sessions "LIVE and in their entirety" while giving complete access to all footage to any "member of the Capitol Hill broadcast pool."

In so many words, the Obama administration, Sen. Reid, and Rep. Pelosi are saying thank you but no thank you. The latest report on C-SPAN's webpage, http://www.c-span.com/Topics/Health-Care-Insurance-Reform-Legislation-Town-Hall.aspx, that "the leadership is considering bypassing a formal conference committee in resolving differences between House and Senate versions of the legislation." Now, why is there not more public outcry by Americans or the mass media? The potential passage of health care reform will have massive implications to every American. Shouldn't Obama be held to his pledge of keeping the negotiations open and "televised on C-SPAN"?

Why are we so content on sitting idly by and watch the majority party dictate reform to America? What are they hiding? Will another Nebraska deal come through the pipeline? Perhaps Rep. Pelosi has it right about Obama when she said, "There are a number of things he was for on the campaign trail" (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31180.html). Is this what we are to accept as free citizens of the United States a secret government that has expanded its power and reach into the free market? It's about accountability and by Congressional leaders and President Obama no televising the conference committee sessions and potentially skipping the conference committee process all together, why are more Americans not enraged by the trampling of the process?

I was told a long time ago that a man is only as good as his word. What does this tell us about those that run our country? What does that tell us about our society that accepts it?

Staff quits after Congressman switches party

A friend of mine listed this story from the Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/04/parker-griffith-staff-res_n_410280.html, on his Facebook page. The article discussed that every member of Rep. Parker Griffith's staff has quit because the Representative of Alabama's Fifth District decision to switch from the Democrat to the Republican Party. Chief of Staff Sharon Wheeler is quoted in the article as saying, "Alabama's Fifth District has deserved and has benefited from great Democratic conservative leadership since Reconstruction. And until now they had it. I appreciate Congressman Griffith's being a very dedicated congressman. But we believe he made a mistake – a well-intentioned but misguided mistake that is not in the interest of the great people of North Alabama who elected him a year ago as a Democrat." So let me get this right, since the Congressman switched political labels he suddenly lost his conservative leadership? This is exactly what is wrong with having political parties. Just as Arlen Specter (D-PA) made his leap last year, did anyone really think his ideals or principles flipped as well?

The move from one political party to another is not one of personal shift in ideology, at least it does not appear in this situation, and rather the move is for political survival. House Speaker Pelosi has already conceded that policies passed on the Hill will result in a net loss of Democrat seats in the House of Representatives and is giving all indications that she is okay with that. Wheeler goes on to say, "As his staff, we wish him only the best, and we will remain committed to the citizens of the Tennessee Valley. But we cannot, in good conscience, continue working for him. It is with deep sadness that we leave our work for the Fifth District. But because we are unwavering in our own principles, we have no choice but to move on." Really, "because we are unwavering in our own principles", what does that mean?

The man the staff went to work for was a Conservative Democrat (Blue Dog) and now he is a Conservative Republican. Someone, anyone please help me understand how the change in words – Democrat to Republican – breaks with Rep. Griffith's core beliefs and what most likely attracted the staff to work for him. For the staff to up and quit just displays how ideology rules the roast in Washington D.C., probably in politics in general, that if ones employer or candidate doesn't have a certain label then they must be the opposition. How shortsighted is the staff?

The type of ideological stance taken by the staff is the primary reason why I do not call myself a Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, or insert political affiliation. Instead I look at the candidate's stance on my core issues to determine if I will back that person or not. I have little time to care what their party affiliation is. Does one a change in party affiliation translate into a change in core beliefs of the candidate? Is the staff being true to the principles they signed up for by quitting? Or is the staff quitting a sign of ideology over principle in action?

Minneapolis School Board decision is not a Segregation policy

Yesterday the Star Tribune ran an article titled "Downsizing schools, increasing segregation?" The plan, approved last year by the school board, is to close four schools and transform four magnet schools to neighborhood schools. The changes are reported to save the district more than $6M a year. I understand many of us hear million and think chump change as our Congress grows our debt to $13T. In an age where Americans have become increasingly dependent on the government it is no wonder that parents in the school district claim the changes will restrict their choices of schools. School Board member Chris Stewart is quoted in the article as saying, "Doing things like restricting access to [better schools] and closing off doors with the promise that we're going to make the ghetto better is not what parents want to hear."

Mr. Stewart, who voted for the closings, what are you talking about? I understand that tough choices were made and with Minnesota's open enrollment program, how is this decision "restricting access"? What I am hearing is that parents are concerned that "poorer" schools will be left behind and that will have disparate treatment toward minorities. Parents need to get involved. Get involved with the school, the district, and your child's own learning process. 2010 needs to be a year that we hold ourselves accountable and not push blame off on someone else. And it starts with not placing blame on the school board for making the choices they did. The article discussed that "school board members have pressured administrators to correct inequities among high schools" because the school board has reduced the number of choices for parents in the district.

First off, school board members live up to your decision and not place stipulation or attempt to spread the blame to others in the district. Secondly, what do you mean by correcting inequities? I know the article alludes to the number of advance courses offered at Southwest vs. North. Parents, school board members and administrators need to understand that basics are all that is required and if those are proving inequities between schools in the district then those inequities ought to be changed. Correcting the inequities in advance courses is not something to be considered. If student demand is there, meaning if the school is limiting the learning power of their more intelligent students then looking into the cost/benefit of adding the course is required. At the same time, parents can assist their intelligent children by doing more at home.

At the end of the day, do not hide behind limited choices or the fear of segregation to "handicap" your child. Be accountable, be involved and assist your child in their learning regardless of their surroundings. Where I live my children have one choice of public school unless I want to drive them to a nearby community or enlist them in private school. That being said, I won't allow my kids to use that as a crutch for not learning the basics that they need to be productive members of society. I hope that those in the Minneapolis school district understand that the savings realized will open up dollars to update school material and needs that will ensure their students will learn the basics. And if their child wants to learn more either drive them to another school that offers the classes your child needs or show them where the public library is. It is amazing how much one can learn from the books that line the shelves at a library.

Even the Ardent Viper Has a Soft Side…

Yesterday I hinted that The Hamburg Post would have a guest blogger today and here she is; enjoy.

 

Don't tell anyone….but the author of the Hamburg Post is actually a real softie.   
 

I've know Chris since the fall semester of 1992 when I decided that I wanted to be a part of the Hall Orientation Team at the University of North Dakota.  The leader of that team?  Chris.  The rest is history.  I promised Chris that I wouldn't post any pre-receding hair line photos.  And by receding hairline, I mean his—not mine.
 

In the last year that Chris and I have reconnected via the ever popular Facebook, we have many common interests—one of which is blogging.
 

As you know, Chris blogs about politics, big government, and the like.  I am completely the opposite.  My blog is a random bunch of nothing.  Seriously.  If you want to see it, come by and check it out—you can read about how I may end up on the TV show Mall Cops, how I almost burned down the future in-laws kitchen or even my e-mail from actor Wil Wheaton.  You can read it here:  http://osmundson.blogspot.com

 

Good stuff, I tell ya'.   
 

But the reason for my post today is that I have a second blog.  I have a blog that I use to promote a non-profit project that I started where I send cards to people who are fighting cancer. 

 

See?  Chris does have a soft side, doesn't he?

 

How the project started is a long story, but the short version is this:  I have a friend who is now a breast cancer survivor and because of cards sent in the mail from friends and family, her days were made a little brighter.  When she received a card in the mail, her day went a little easier and she was brought out of some of her darkest days.

 

And that is how Cards by Amy's Angels was born.  www.cardsbyamysangels.com

 

I, along with a small group of ladies, make cards (read:  handmade—no Hallmark cards here!), write a personal note in the card, and send it to the cancer patient.  We will send cards directly to the cancer patient or to the person requesting the card.  Privacy is important to us, so we delete all e-mails after the card has been sent, and make sure that the person receiving the card knows how we got their name.

 

Since our project started in November 2008, we have sent out over 200 cards.

 
 

However, our project, sadly, has hit a lull.

 

We get a majority of our card requests through an organization that we partner with—but we are having second thoughts about working with them.  There is nothing wrong with this group, but we are starting to feel that their focus has been taking on a new direction that we aren't so keen on supporting. 

 

We need to continue to get the word out.  This is why Chris has asked me to write a post today.

 

We are looking for ways to expand our site.  Do you know a way that we can get the word out?  We'd love to hear your ideas—just leave a comment and we'll read what you have to say.

 

Here's to a great 2010!