The patriots' rallying cry rose to the lips of neighbors gathered for a book group in southwest Minneapolis last Wednesday evening: "taxation without representation." The citizens of legislative District 61B are currently without representation in the Minnesota House. Former state Rep. Paul Thissen was appointed by Gov. Mark Dayton to the Minnesota Supreme Court and unceremoniously left the people in his district in the lurch. This includes people who voted for him, contributed to his campaigns and worked to get out the vote for him.
At the close of the session, when the final votes on legislation are counted, we will not be represented. What are the governor and Thissen thinking? Have they joined the ranks of the cynics? As one DFL staff person told us from Thissen's empty office: "One vote won't make a difference."
In our minds, every vote counts. Every citizen counts. This is the foundation of democracy. It seems in this case, private ambition may have trumped the public good.
Carolyn and Peter Hendrixson, Minneapolis
U BOARD OF REGENTS
Advisory Committee's goal: To serve, not to 'get cozy'
Although readers may be tiring of the debate over the University of Minnesota regent selection process, I am loath to allow Darrin Rosha the last word, for he omits and twists facts to place a halo on his own head ("In U regent debate, assassination of character [mine])," editorial counterpoint, April 24).
The regents he slyly claims were discriminated against when applying for re-election were actually ruled out based on their performance. For example, one inappropriately handed out business cards not to facilitate communication, but as a business-getting strategy, and this and similar behaviors were fatal to being recommended for a second term. Another was ineffective, contributing little to discussion of important issues, coming unprepared and appearing uninterested. And so it went. Rosha's suggestion of racial and gender animus is not only wrong, but an invidious use of diversity principles for personal gain.
When I chaired the Regent Candidate Advisory Council, I never observed RCAC members wanting to please or cozy up to administrators, as Rosha alleges. They were there for one purpose: to serve the university's needs in the very best way they could. His accusations regarding the RCAC are the kind of behavior Rosha has become known for, viz, making accusations or arguments that are difficult or impossible to disprove or counter.
The attorney the regents hired to investigate the sexual-harassment claim against him cited a former director of music industries at McNally Smith, who "was adamant that Rosha was 'asked to leave' in part because of complaints about his behavior towards women." The investigative report fell short of proving certain sexual-misconduct allegations, due to witnesses asking for anonymity. Nevertheless, it cites numerous problems with his employment, so his statement that he left after "a productive year with no allegations of misconduct" is blatantly untrue. He is simply not to be trusted.
I would call Rosha's campaign a kind of revenge, but whatever it is, it is unsavory and unwarranted. If the members of the RCAC are willing to put in the long hours they do, for no pay whatsoever, then let's thank them profusely and ask them to continue their work with the Legislature to perfect the selection process.