As we discussed at length what the school should be doing, we were mostly in agreement. We all agreed, for example, it would be great if the school tried to reduce its carbon footprint. But writing “environment commitment” into a vision did nothing. It made words, not action — without measurability, there’s no point in specific goals.

Fast forward a year and a half. As I sit here, watching the January 31 debate on my computer, I see a similar problem between Senators Obama and Clinton. Obama is more than happy to say, “I strongly support pink bunnies. Pink bunnies are core to me and core to America.” He’ll even say it in that wonderful “inspirational” voice. Clinton responds with specifics, she responds with measurability. She doesn’t say just say pink bunnies are dandy, she says that we should increase pink bunny spending by $25 billion by 2010. That in 1995, she chaired the Pink Bunny Coalition. That she supported fifteen bills that brought pink bunnies to kids in poverty.

There’s also the one major policy difference between Obama and Clinton. It’s what Patrick talked about in his post: healthcare. Clinton has a practical, attainable, universal plan. Barack Obama does not have this. He thinks health care (like pink bunnies) is a great thing, but he won’t put his money where his mouth is and say it needs to be government-run and mandatory.

I suppose to make inspirational, but ultimately meaningless statements is what Obama does best. As a citizen and as a first-time voter, I want substance. I want a president who says things that can actually be delivered. Hillary Rodham Clinton is that person.

Or to sum this up in a one-minute YouTube video:

Date: Feb 1, 2008 10:28 AM | subject RE: Supporting Hillary Clinton on Feb. 5 in Minnesota

Add Bob and I to those who support Barak Obama. Factors I add to the mix when I considered who to support were something Bob and I saw when we went to campaign events and the caucases here in Ames. 1) The number of young voters who were inspired to support Barak Obama are the future of the Democratic Party here in Iowa and in the nation. I, for one, do not take their involvement lightly. 2) The number of Republicans who were at Obama’s campaign events taking a serious look at him as a candidate and also dissatisfied with the choices in the Republican field speak much better for Democratic possibilities in November. Hillary has the added onus of galvanizing the Religious Right to get out and vote against her. They are not that excited about either Romney or McCain. When Bob was at a national meeting he met two people from Illinois. One was a conservative Republican male and the other a progressive Democratic female. Both of them voted for Obama for Senate and have been very happy with that choice. 3) While experience is something to look at, I realized when talking to women who were supporting Obama that he has a solid ability to pick good people and organize. In addition, he has the ability to inspire and lead people with his speaking ability. That’ll take us a long way in dealing with some tough issues.

STATEMENT ON IRAQ

hmm – her Iraq statement has never convinced me, Patrick. I see it now as I saw it at the time – a political decision. And that she continues to be unable to say “it was wrong” or “I made a mistake” reminds me way too much of George Bush.

The Blitzer baiting was disgusting – really tacky – good on both of them for resisting him.

I had more respect for her tonight nothwithstanding my basic distrust than in the past. Part of my distaste is from the emotional “dynasty” thing – and also that I don’t want a return to the Clinton years when NAFTA did so much damage to so many in this country.

Barack did say some cliche stuff – I agree. And Hillary got some good lines off which were humorous as well as on target.

I have made an emotional commitment to Barack. I might not have done that if I hadn’t known about Hillary’s lobbyist money. I guess most of us have an issue that we can’t get past. For me it is the war and lobbyist money. Hillary fails miserably on both of those. Edwards at least was able to say “I was wrong.” about the war. Edwards might have been my first choice had I not fallen in love with Barack’s larger message and his continuing focus on the fact that “we” the people have a responsibility.

We watched the thing on the web because we don’t have CNN.

P

Er, I would have preferred Al Gore.

But if I can’t have Al Gore, I would have preferred Edwards.

But if I can’t have Edwards, I would prefer Obama.

But if I can’t have Obama, I’d prefer whoever is left against any Republican.

Even if it’s Hillary.

Don’t hate me.

That’s a great article, Chuck, and I couldn’t agree with your comments on Obama and Hillary more. I was Terry’s partner on the fire department for his last year and a half or so, and I’ve known him for twenty years or more, so I’m able to forgive him when he has these lapses in judgment. I truly believe he will come to his senses. I, too, will vote for Hillary if she becomes our candidate, but I have much more faith in Barack and his ideas.

Sorry, Ter!

Mike

Hey, Terry.

I must say, that about 90% of the time, you and I are in agreement on issues. However, on the issue of Hillary, we couldn’t be farther apart. She scares me. I wouldn’t have said that a year ago, and almost jumped on her bandwagon. I could wax eloquent on the subject, but the following link says it much better than I could. But, it represents my feelings about Hillary (by the way, I was a strong supporter of Bill, but his recent campaign protocols have disappointed me immensly).

Read this article: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/013108K.shtml

As far as Obama is concerned, I don’t find it the least bit disingenuous for him to have been endorsed by Ted, Caroline and Patrick Kennedy. Yes, Ted is older than you and I (glad someone is) but Caroline and Patrick are younger. I find the fact that one such as Ted in his generation finds it refreshing to have someone such as Obama to endorse. He hasn’t endorsed candidates as a matter of course, so this is truly a significant event. I find Hillary to be supremely disingenuous. She has yet to apologize for voting for the Iraq War, and continuing to vote for funding, while talking about ending the war if she becomes president. Hypocritical, in my estimation. It was Hillary and Bill who first played the race card in this campaign (she also played the gender card claiming the “boys” ganged up on her because she was a woman). Give me a break. She is so beholden to the same corporate power brokers who funded George W that I can’t tell if she’s a Democrat or a Republican. If she’s elected, when will the quid pro quo begin? She is in the pockets of the War profiteers and lobbyists, and that’s scary. For one who truly wants this war to end, I cannot envision how that will happen with Hillary at the helm. That being said, I will vote for her in preference to ANY republican they can throw at us, but with Obama, I believe we have a new vision for the future, new hope for reconciliation, and the possibility that we may continue to exist on this planet. All good reasons to vote for him.

Anyway, read the article. I know you have it in you to see the light. I still love you, even when you are wrong.

So I mulled it over, and observed Hillary and Obama through the last four weeks since the caucus. I think Obama is an excellent orator but with no substance. I think he could become a great leader with time, experience, and some humility. Most of his draw as the great new hope is a very skillfully-developed image. I find it really galling that he purports to be above the fray when I can see he is deeply calculating and manipulative, and excellent at playing the victim. Hillary has done her share of dumb things, and Bill has not chosen his words as wisely as he should, so they’ve allowed themselves to be painted as playing the race card, as disparaging of Obama’s life experiences, and condescending as if it is their right to claim the mantle of leadership at this time in history. Many people are tired of first Bush the Elder, then Clinton the Suave, then Shrub the Snide, and now maybe Clinton the Calculating. But it really ticks me off when I hear Obamiacs say if she’s the nominee, they’ll sit it out or vote for McCain. That pushes me powerfully into her corner. I embrace an underdog, and I think she’s been abused by the media and the Radical Right so mercilessly for so long that it has to stop, and electing her would be the best way to force the rejection of sexism, and a repudiation of Karl
Rovian-type inuendo and decimation of your opponent’s strengths. Judy and have talked about all this at great length, and we are just put off by Obama’s self-righteousness, although again, I will support him in a heartbeat over any of the evolution-denying, global warming-denying, choice-denying, borrow-and-spend, war without end Repugnibums.

(A little aside: we found it disingenuous that Obama says we need to reject the past and move to the future, and to do it he calls on Teddy and Caroline Kennedy, the last vestiges of our American Camelot.) Ter

BY BOB SHAW
Pioneer Press
Article Last Updated: 01/13/2008 12:41:51 AM CST

Lake Elmo City Council Member Steve DeLapp calls himself a “lone wolf.” He calls his colleagues on the council other names.
During a typical shouting match at a Lake Elmo City Council meeting, three people clamored to be heard. The mayor banged his gavel.

But the council member at the end of the table kept on talking. “I am allowed to speak!” cried Steve DeLapp.

Indeed he is.

A Pioneer Press analysis of City Council meetings shows DeLapp talks more than everyone else on the council combined, including the mayor. And it’s not just the quantity of DeLapp’s talking that is drawing attention – it’s also the tone. DeLapp scolds his colleagues, insults them and swears at them.

The open warfare to rein in DeLapp escalated to the point that the council passed an ordinance to make him behave – complete with veiled threats to have him forcibly removed from meetings.

The rule passed after DeLapp called Mayor Dean Johnston a “goddamned bastard” at the Oct. 16 meeting.

DeLapp, 63, says he is the only council member who puts the interests of Lake Elmo citizens first, and he calls the others liars, manipulators or puppets of the mayor.

“I am a lone wolf,” DeLapp said earlier this month. “I know I talk too much. I hate it. I wish I could be part of a group of people who learned critical thinking in college.

“Half of what I have to say should be said by other people, but they won’t say it,” he said. “I would rather not do it. It puts a hell of a burden on me.

“Their job is to beat down everything I say,” DeLapp said.

POINTLESS TO RESPOND

Other council members laughed
Advertisement
- wearily – at the idea that someone who talks more than all of them combined would claim to be censored.

“These accusations are so outrageous, it is pointless to respond,” said Johnston, 63. “He can make things up faster than you can respond.”

“I consider his behavior to be that of a 2-year-old in need of a timeout,” said Council Member Elizabeth Johnson, 50.

DeLapp is crippling recruiting efforts, the mayor said.

Johnston recently contacted 30 people, asking them to be involved in city government. He said most of them turned him down for the same reason: “I am not going to put myself in the hostile environment that DeLapp creates.”

The Pioneer Press examined videotapes from the meetings of Oct. 16, Nov. 5 and Nov. 20. In those meetings, DeLapp spoke for one hour and 33 minutes. Other council members were Johnston, 41 minutes; Anne Smith, 16; Elizabeth Johnson, 15; and Nicole Park, 7.

DeLapp’s verbosity is all the more remarkable because the mayor’s time is inflated by routine announcements, such as the call for the Pledge of Allegiance.

Greg Keel, of Lake Elmo, was drawn into the council chambers in the fall by a letter in a local newspaper claiming the council was stifling DeLapp.

“It was exactly the opposite,” said Keel, after witnessing four meetings. “It was all Steve, all night.”

At one meeting, he even timed the amount various members spoke. His results were identical to the Pioneer Press analysis – DeLapp spoke more than all others combined.

Keel supports what he sees as DeLapp’s goal of minimizing growth in Lake Elmo.

“But to literally take more time than everyone else is being combative and resistant to helping the council as a group,” Keel said.

3-MINUTE RULE

The council began to take courtesy more seriously last winter, when it adopted a rule limiting statements to three minutes. If no one else wants to talk, then the same person – usually DeLapp – gets another three minutes, and so on. There is no limit to the number of three-minute segments a person could have.

But in October, Johnston said, DeLapp’s behavior was not improving.

After consulting the city attorney, the council adopted an ordinance to conduct meetings according to Robert’s Rules of Order, which included a passage about discipline.

At one meeting, Johnston pointedly asked the attorney whether police could be made available to eject disruptive council members.

On Oct. 16, DeLapp called Johnston the obscenity, muttering into a microphone.

He was asked this month whether he owed the mayor an apology.

“Apology? That was a compliment,” said DeLapp. “He was sitting there lying to the public. … At the time, I was correct about calling him what I did.”

Neither the mayor nor anyone else on the council agreed that Johnston distorted the truth in any way. They called it another rude stunt by DeLapp.

GENEROUS, GIVING

DeLapp is an architect for 3M Corp. He serves on several other boards, with no known complaints about rudeness or excessive talking. He has been elected to the Lake Elmo City Council four times, and previous mayors have few complaints about him.

Sue Dunn, who was Lake Elmo’s mayor in the 1980s, said: “He is the only one (on the present City Council) who knows anything. Steve is a generous, giving individual.

“He just has to come across a little more appropriately to people he works with,” she added.

Dunn said the council does not listen to what DeLapp is saying.

“Their eyes glaze over,” she said. “But Steve can sleep at night knowing what he did was right.”

Former Mayor Lee Hunt, an old friend of DeLapp’s, also worked with him on the council.

“I would hate to see a council which didn’t have someone to challenge the status quo,” Hunt said.

“I have never known anyone to be more open, honest and forthright. Steve is a very passionate person,” said Hunt, “although sometimes he loses a bit of control.”

Others say enough is enough.

DeLapp insults other council members in meetings and elsewhere. He mocks council members, calling them “self-centered,” “clueless” and “fawning.”

Council members say DeLapp is an intelligent public servant but his behavior eclipses his contributions.

“When Steve speaks with a rational thought, he can provide wonderful input,” Council Member Johnson said. “When he starts speaking with the blame game and labeling people, then things become dysfunctional.”

“He is really nice before meetings, and it really shocks me how much he changes in council meetings,” said Park, 35, who is serving her first term.

“We try to be adults and give him time to talk,” she said. “It’s all fine until he makes statements about all of us, and how none of us cares – like he is the only one who cares.”

OLD VILLAGE AN ISSUE

Council Member Smith, 44, takes offense at DeLapp’s constant charges that the city stifles debate.

“That is completely false,” she said.

But, she said, council members are getting tired of arguments about the decision made in April to proceed with expansion and renovation of the Old Village, the city’s historic downtown area.

That plan – approved by all council members, including DeLapp – was the city’s response to a decision by the state Supreme Court forcing the city to plan for growth. Overall, the city has hosted about 20 meetings seeking public input about the plan.

“Now, a small group comes in with one viewpoint, and repeats it over and over,” Smith said. “There are 7,950 other people out there. Many are very, very happy with the new direction.”

DeLapp now leads the charge to curtail the Old Village plan. He has said he changed his mind after discovering the scope of the plan and the need for sewer connections to the area.

The turnaround strikes some council members as political posturing. When combined with DeLapp’s accusations that they don’t care, they say, resentment naturally builds.

“I get offended by Steve saying that. We all put in time, energy, heart and soul into this job, including Steve,” Smith said.

“When he keeps interrupting, you don’t know how to handle it,” Smith said. “I have a well-thought-out thought, and he interrupts, and it’s gone. It’s very disturbing.”

DeLapp’s supporters derisively use the term “Dean’s Ladies” to refer to the three women on the council – implying they do anything the mayor asks.

“That is such an insult,” snapped Johnson. “I am not a hooker. I am not a prostitute. I am an independent thinker.”

“That is so sexist and the height of disrespect,” Smith said. “We have three bright, sensitive, excellent women on the council, making their own decisions.”

INTERRUPTIONS CONSTANT

Details of the three meetings give glimpses of what the mayor and council members find objectionable.

In the meetings, the mayor used the gavel about 15 times, when DeLapp interrupted or went over his time limits for speaking.

Much of the council’s time was spent trying to get DeLapp to stop talking. Comments ranged from “Can you let him finish?” to “Please stop talking” and “Steve, that’s enough.” When those failed: “Stop it!” and “Hush up!”

In one case, after failing to win support for his position concerning lawn signs, DeLapp told the council, “What you are saying is, you don’t care what the quality of life is.”

He made a motion, and no one seconded it.

“Well, that says it all. We don’t care about residents,” DeLapp said. The result was one of many 4-1 votes, with DeLapp the lone dissenter.

At another meeting, DeLapp explained the cause of his anger.

“I get frustrated because nobody listens,” he said. “I’m made to look like a bad guy … with nothing but 4-to-1 votes all the time.”

Council members suggested his own behavior was to blame.

“It is your own choice in life,” Johnson said. “We are all accountable for our actions.”

Another time, DeLapp said council members were too passive: “The fact that others are not asking these questions and the fact that I am asking them should not be held against me.

“It’s not me,” said DeLapp. “The public wants to know what we are doing. It’s not me.”

“You are repeating, Steve,” Johnston said.

“Well, I don’t think anyone heard. Did anyone hear what I said? If so, could they repeat it?” DeLapp said.

DeLapp charged council members with not listening to public objections to the Old Village plan. When Johnston objected, DeLapp countered: “Don’t tell me what I heard and saw. Everything (the public) said was ignored.”

Another time, DeLapp talked straight through two bouts of gavel-rapping. He stood up, put his hands over his ears and said sarcastically: “Hi, residents. This is how we listen to you.”

DeLapp interrupted Johnston several times. “Stop it!” replied Johnston. “Respect the ground rules!”

In other cities, the approval of the minutes of past meetings is routine. But in two Lake Elmo meetings, DeLapp questioned how the minutes were kept, in one case launching a 10-minute debate.

He questioned the term “Christmas lights” in a city document. He objected to the use of color photos in a trail plan for the city. He questioned using the 10th edition of Robert’s Rules of Order for managing meetings. The reason? There might be an 11th edition in the future.

At one point, the mayor put his head in his hands.

“Who rules this city?” said DeLapp. “The loudmouths.”

Bob Shaw can be reached at bshaw@pioneerpress.com or 651-228-5433.