Learned of a New Candidate for Andover City Council Today - No Firm Opinions Yet - Another Law Enforcement Conservative?

James Goodrich of Andover had a parade presence in today's Andover Family Fun Fest.  I'm just starting to learn about James Goodrich and what he stands for as a candidate for City Council.  I will be supporting Val Holthus, but there will be two seats to fill this Fall.


Based on what we the candidate states at his page, we are not on the same page.  Coming from someone who has worked for the government for 29 years, I'm disappointed with his presumption about Smaller government. 

Andover has been led by conservative-minded, fiscally-responsible leaders for many decades.  Andover is about as tight a ship as you can imagine - frankly, I think its employees deserve more pay right now by continuing to do more for the residents with less. 

Our City Administrator has no waste in that annual budget here.  The current Council makes it nice for us as residents - continually reducing our City property taxes.  I'd like to see less bare bones - which frankly means more tax revenue.  Maybe our rising house values, after seven years of lower and lower valuations will lead to more revenue.



Here is information about candidate Goodrich from his web page....

http://electjamesgoodrich.com/about-jim.html


A little about myself, I've lived in Andover for 20 years, what a great town!I've worked for the Hennepin County Sheriff's Office for 28 years.I've been married to my beautiful wife Janna for 23 years. I have three great kids, Zachary, Emily and Miriam. I'm a member of Constance Free Church in Andover.

I'm an avid bow hunter and competitive archer.




Why in the world do I want to run for Andover City Council? Well, several reasons. I'm going to retire from the Hennepin County Sheriff's Office after 29 years this fall and I want to bring my fiscal and social conservative values to local city government right here in Andover.  Ok so what does that mean? Well, the Andover annual budget is approximately 9 million dollars and over 7 million dollars of that is gained from our property taxes. I want to make sure our hard earned money is spent wisely. 

Spending can get out of control even on a local level. I want to make sure we're conducting the types of business that local government is supposed to.  Taking care of our infrastructure, wise ordinances, smart tax increment finance for business. Good Police and Fire services.
Assessments, who likes assessment's, I don't, but they are necessary as Andover grows. So, I want to be smart about it and bring them about as necessary and give residents as many options as possible to deal with them.
Metropolitan Council, the more we take their money the more they can tell us what to do. This would be a bad thing.

The smaller the Government the more we can make our own decisions.  I look out my window and see our liberties and freedoms that made this country great flying away at an alarming rate.  I want to do whatever I can at a local level to stop this.

I'm very capitalistic pro free-market oriented. I want to provide a business friendly environment to attract business to Andover and all the jobs and goods and service's that come with it.  Including the revenue.

If we want to gain more revenue for Andover it should come from a prosperous and growing economical environment, not through raising your property taxes. This is what I call a "No Brainer"

At the end of the day I'm your representative, I always want to hear what everyone is thinking about where your property taxes should go.

Andover - 2014 City Elections Straight Ahead - Bukkila Running for Mayor

I don't agree with Sheri Bukkila's politics.  She's a conservative Republican.  I'm a progressive Democrat.  But, I have had the opportunity to chat with Sheri, in the context of our mutual employment with Hennepin County, and belonging to separate unions/associations that bargain for contracts with the County.  She represents what - and whom - she says she will represent in her statement announcing her candidacy for Mayor.  I know of at least two other local residents that I hope at least one of whom will enter this race against Sheri, and whom I will support for Mayor.  But that said, here's coverage of Sheri's announcement from the Anoka Union Herald....

ABC Newspapers:  Government

Bukkila will run for mayor of Andover

By Community Contributor

June 28, 2014

http://abcnewspapers.com/2014/06/28/bukkila-will-run-for-mayor-of-andover/

Andover City Councilmember Sheri Bukkila is running for mayor of Andover, following the announcement that current Mayor Mike Gamache will not seek re-election.

“While I’ve enjoyed my role as councilmember, winning the mayor’s race will ensure the rules are followed and the discussions are thorough to ensure we are protecting your investments in the community,” said Bukkila. “It’s my goal to keep Andover property taxes among the lowest in Anoka County. I love the city of Andover and strive to keep government ethically in check, promote fiscal responsibility and keep taxes low through new business growth.”

A strong advocate for property rights and common sense codes and enforcement, Bukkila added, “I believe government shouldn’t get in the way of homeowners and prosperous businesses, but rather be there to ensure that residents and businesses are unencumbered by unnecessary fees or permit approval processes.”

Bukkila said her 26-year work history, most recently as a career law enforcement officer, labor negotiator, coach and mentor, provides an in depth ability to work through difficult legal and social issues. Bukkila also said her civil and criminal history, whether in the courtroom or patrolling the streets, gives her personal experience with ordinance and statute enforcement and an understanding of the difficult time ordinary people have navigating government systems. Bukkila said she also believes in positive, constructive discussion and inviting residents and community partners to have a voice in the city’s government and she believes her no-nonsense style of leadership will help the council cut through the clutter and come to practical solutions.

Bukkila is an 11-year resident of Andover and has served on the Andover City Council for six years.  She has been married to her husband Brett for 14 years and has two sons.

 

Annoyed by Medtronic's Move to Ireland to Dodge US Taxes? Try Tax-Dodger Walgreen's Next - You Know Them - Two Stores in Andover, About Seven Stores Within 10 Miles of My House

Jim Hightower - Texas rabble-rouser - is famous nonetheless for "tellin' it like it is.'  Well, he's got quite a story out on AlterNet (which Salon has reprinted), sharing Walgreen's scheme to merge with a Swiss pharmaceutical, and move its headquarters to Switzerland - and avoid millions of dollars in taxes that should properly be paid to the US government - not the Swiss.  The stores will be working just fine here in the US.  But, it's nice that CVS has moved into our neighborhood, too.  Used to be Snyder's or Snyder Brothers that competed here with Walgreen's.  But we can try the Caremark folks and their CVS operations.

Salon

Thursday, Jul 10, 2014 06:15 AM CDT

It’s Not Just Walgreens: The Absurd Measures Corporations Will Take to Dodge Taxes

The popular "inversion" scam allows American institutions to game the system. It's unethical -- and unpatriotic

 

Jim Hightower, AlterNet

http://www.salon.com/2014/07/10/its_not_just_walgreens_the_absurd_measures_corporations_will_take_to_dodge_taxes_partner/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

 

How would you react if one of your neighbors announced that while he obviously benefits from having clean water, highways, Medicare, police protection, parks, schools, and other public services, he was no longer going to pay his part of the taxes that make them available?

 

And what if this neighbor also said he was renouncing his American citizenship to become a citizen of Switzerland, because he could pay less taxes there?  Not that he was actually moving to that cold country, mind you — no, no, he’d still be living right here in the good ol’ USA, still benefitting from all those public services that taxpayers like you and I provide.

 

Surely, you think, this has to be a joke.  A person can’t really do this, can they?  No, of course a “real” person could not get away with this.  You see, corporations are funny creatures.  For example, they don’t want to pay their share of America’s tax bill, but then they’re first in line demanding subsidies, grants and other special handouts from America’s government to pad their financial bottom line.

 

That’s hilarious hypocrisy — but it’s no laughing matter, since it means you and I have to pay more to cover their tax avoidance, while also seeing our public money siphoned out of the programs that we need into the pockets of corporate elites, who most often use the funds against the public interest.

Corporate tax dodging has become both rampant and ridiculous.  Take an increasingly popular scam called “inversion,” which is nothing but a perversion of tax law, business ethics and common decency. It works like this: By merging with a corporation based in a country with lax tax laws, a U.S. corporation can reincorporate as a citizen of that country and shift its tax obligations there, even though all or most of its profits are made from sales in the U.S-of-A.

 

For example, Gregory Wasson of Long Grove, Illinois, announced that he has plans for all of the above. Gregory isn’t my neighbor, but he sounds like a “real” person.  So how is he getting away with this scam, you ask?  While Greg is not personally my neighbor, or yours, the corporation he heads might be. Wasson is CEO of America’s largest drugstore chain, Walgreens Corporation, the sprawling, $72-billion-a-year behemoth that is in all 50 states and has stores in thousands of neighborhoods all across the country.

 

But Greg no longer wants Walgreens to be American, so he is presently trying to use this tax-shifting film-flam by merging with a Swiss-based chain. Rather than paying the roughly $800 million a year tax tab it owes to our nation, Walgreens would pay maybe $600 million to Switzerland.

 

Of course, the stores will not move to Switzerland.  Wasson fully intends to keep extracting profits from our neighborhoods and for Walgreens to keep benefiting from all the public services that America provides, from police to infrastructure.  Through inversion — a reversal of the natural order — the giant corporation would continue to enjoy enormous profits and benefits it gets from the United States, but pay Swiss taxes.  So you and I are left picking up Walgreens’ tab, and the Swiss gain 600 million in tax dollars for services and infrastructure they did not provide — unless you count being a tax shelter as service and infrastructure.

 

Walgreens’ crass tax ploy would also give it a competitive advantage over other American drug stores that aren’t so greedy as to abandon America and, as Sen. Dick Durbin put it, “move their headquarters for a tax break.”

 

Oh, one more thing: About a fourth of Walgreens’ annual income is derived from — guess who? — our U.S. government.  Yes, our very government that the people of Wasson & Co. say they no longer want to help support.  The unpatriotic drugstore ingrate drew nearly $17 billion last year from Medicare and Medicaid payments provided by Uncle Sam.

 

If Walgreens doesn’t want to support public programs like these, the programs should not be supporting Walgreens.

 

Jim Hightower's most recent book is "Let's Stop Beating Around the Bush." He produces a monthly newsletter, The Hightower Lowdown, and a syndicated daily radio commentary.

Harris v. Quinn: A Bad Decision for Americans - A Troubling Decision for Public Employee Unions

As a proud AFSCME member - a full member, who pays the union dues so my workplace rights are protected and my union can collective bargain for better wages and benefits for me - the Harris v. Quinn ruling is disgusting.  Justice Alito incorrectly turned this into a First Amendment right to freeload off the work union representatives provide the workplace/the work group.   From the American Constitutional Society web site comes this astute analysis by Attorney Chris Sanders....

Getting Something for Nothing in Harris v. Quinn

July 1, 2014

 

by J. Chris Sanders, Attorney, Chris Sanders Law PLLC
https://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/getting-something-for-nothing-in-harris-v-Quinn

In a unionized workplace, one labor union has the sole and exclusive right to represent all those employees. The workers select one union, and the union handles workplace matters for everyone. That typically means collective bargaining–negotiating as a group to build better pay, better benefits, better hours, better treatment and respect on the job into a union contract. Despite these tough times for unions, the union advantage for workers is10-20 percent over the same workers in the same industries. It also means job protection, usually requiring representation by volunteer activists and paid staff at union expense. As lawyers will understand, representation is costly, and being in a union is financially worthwhile.

Along with the right to represent people, the union has the duty to represent everyone alike. No picking and choosing between members and nonmembers. That’s right, members and nonmembers, because a worker doesn’t have to join the union in a unionized workplace to be represented. Choosing to join is and has been a First Amendment right, recognized for decades.

Workers who don’t join weaken the union in bargaining, as the proverbial chain is only as strong as its weakest nonunion link. Contracts and benefits in states and industries where unions are weak are weaker, too. You get what you pay for. Nevertheless, letting people opt out isn’t a group decision, though it affects the group. It’s an individual choice.

But, whether the union is weak or strong, the non-member gets the benefits contained in the union contract. In return, nonmembers must pay for the union services that achieved the gains made in collective bargaining and the protections provided by union representation. In the public sector, it’s known as “fair share”–paying one’s fair share of the cost all workers bear for union representation.

Until now. In Harris v. Quinn, the Supreme Court launched a direct attack on paying one’s fair share. The 5-4 majority discredited decades of precedent underpinning the duty to pay. But then it dodged and weaved, avoiding a direct decision on the First Amendment. Rather, it said that the Illinois homecare workers weren’t true government workers, so the statutory fair-share fee can’t be enforced. This doesn’t bode well for the new American workplace, with its “associates,” contractors, temps, subs, project people, etc. smudging the lines between employer and employee. But it’s the main issue that matters. The right-wing Justices made it clear that individual whim trumps group responsibility.  

   
A recent personal story about why it matters. I handled a case involving a young Cuban meatpacker who speaks very little English wanted to buy some pork at cost. He boxed up the meat, then asked a co-worker how to code the purchase. They miscommunicated, so he mis-coded, and put the wrong tag on his purchase. A manager met him at the gate, accused him of stealing the pork, and fired him. You can’t make this stuff up.

If this were a non-union workplace, that would be the end of the story. He would have had no legal recourse, no way to get his job back. Under the employment-at-will doctrine, employers don’t have to justify their decision to discharge, and don’t have to prove theft. But this is a union shop, where workers have rights and power. The union filed a grievance through the contractual procedure, and volunteers and paid staff advocated for him. That costs. When the company wouldn’t settle, the union sought arbitration. That’s expensive–there’s a filing fee, an arbitrator’s fee, hearing expenses, and my time as union counsel. Thousands of dollars. All at no cost to the wronged worker. At the hearing, it came out that, in mislabeling his purchase, he’d actually paid too much for the pork. The arbitrator got the picture, and put him back on the job, awarding months of lost wages.

Post-Harris, that very same protection will now also be available to nonmembers in unionized government workplaces, without ever paying their fair share of union expenses. They will literally get something for nothing when they file their grievances. The actual expense to the union, grievance upon grievance, may be big. For a typical discharge case, it’s certainly far more than that person would ever pay out of pocket for union dues over years (assuming anyone stays in any one job for years any more in the new American workplace). Imagine the same scenario above, with a long-term employee who never paid any fees, gets fired, and disdainfully demands the same services as those who pay their fair share!

Back to collective bargaining, in and of itself a huge benefit to all employees, member and nonmember alike. The Harris petitioners were making $7 an hour before they unionized in Illinois. Their union contract raises wages as high as $13 an hour. They would never have gotten there without their union, which spent hundreds and thousands of volunteer and paid hours in negotiations and advocacy to get organized and get to a contract. But the Harris petitioners will still get to enjoy their doubled wages, but now can drop their fair-share fee.  

No other organization has to provide services for free. Unions have been singled out for this burden under the “right-to-work” (right-to-shirk) scheme. Right-to-work has been the law in the South and in the West since the 1940’s, and the Supreme Court just drew a roadmap for right-to-work from Illinois to public-sector workplaces all across the country. Why should labor be singled out for required free services? Professionals, businesses, service-providers, nonprofits, and yes, government, all assess fees for services. Ask the Chamber of Commerce or the bar association if you can join and get benefits and services for free. It’s a rhetorical question, you already know the answer.



We have a long, difficult fight ahead of us, if this conservative majority of 5 holds at the Supreme Court!

Joe Perske: Democrat for the Sixth District - In the Words of His Wife, Jan

The first time I ever set eyes on Joe Perske, I was in high school.  He was tall and thin and looked like a really nice guy.  He was involved with the cross country and track teams and loved long distance running.  He loved hanging out in the woodshop and the photo lab at school and was pretty shy around girls.  Little did I know at the time how much this man would change my life.  

 

Joe and I were in the same graduating class, but didn't officially meet until the end of our senior year when he asked me to go to prom with him.   We started out our relationship as good friends, deepened our relationship over a five year span of time and were married in July of 1979.

 

One of the qualities that attracted me to Joe all those years ago, and continues to amaze me, is his willingness and openness to help others.  Whether it it fixing the wheels on a student's bike, checking out someone's flooded backyard,  doing taxes for his mother, or being called at the last minute to referee a  soccer game, Joe always says yes. A few years ago, he took it upon himself to be the "chauffeur" for a young lady in high school who wanted to go to prom with her boyfriend.  This young lady and her boyfriend both had disabilities and could not drive.  Joe looked past the disability and saw a young lady who wanted to go to prom just like everyone else.  Joe arranged the evening for this sweet high school couple, and they were able to attend their senior prom and had the time of their lives. His genuine care and concern for his fellow human beings has always been an inspiration to me and countless others.  

 

Another quality of Joe's that has influenced me is his positive attitude.  No matter the situation, Joe always looks at the positive side of things.  Whether the situation involves his job as a teacher, his role as dad to our three daughters, or as mayor of the city of Sartell, his positive attitude always shines through.  When our youngest daughter was diagnosed with leukemia at the age of fifteen, he continually strengthened me with his positive outlook that she was going to survive.  Joe held up our family during that difficult time, and our daughter is now a seven year cancer survivor.  He believes in working hard and finding solutions through positive thinking and an optimistic frame of mind.  

 

I support Joe's run for Congress because I know that he will work hard for the people of the Sixth District. I know that he has a passion for people - to help them, uplift them, and do what he can to improve lives.    His tireless energy, his willingness to help others, and his positive attitude will benefit so many people.  If elected, I know that Joe's genuine and heartfelt concern for the people of Minnesota's Sixth Congressional District will make this a better world for all of us.

 Jan Perske

http://joeperske.com/main/