Minneapolis Park Board has pattern of problems with free speech

By Chris Steller, Minnesota Independent
March 26, 2009

Tom Nordyke, Jon Gurban

Every couple of years, the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board makes headlines for violating citizens’ right to free speech. The latest example? The board’s president, Tom Nordyke, and superintendent, Jon Gurban, are banning the Minneapolis Charter Commission from holding public meetings at park buildings because the commission’s topic is a proposed charter amendment that would eliminate the Park Board.

Last week, according to the Star Tribune’s Steve Brandt, Nordyke told Charter Commission Chairman Jim Bernstein that the Park Board’s objection was to the content of the speech that would take place at the commission’s public meetings:


I cannot support holding the meetings in our buildings and wasting more taxpayer dollars and staff time on this initiative.

Bernstein ran unsuccessfully for park board in 2005. That same year, the suprintendent sicced police on another park board candidate who was attempting to distribute flyers for his reform campaign at a city park. Gurban told park board candidate Jason Stone to stop handing out campaign literature on park property and eventually called park police. The American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota (ACLU-MN) intervened on Stone’s behalf.

Reporter Scott Russell quoted Gurban in the Southwest Journal:


Jason would say: “How are you this evening?” My response would be, “Jason, you can’t do this. And you know better. You were at that meeting last Wednesday night. Stop doing this.” … Am I happy three squad cars showed up? No, I am not. I know those squad cars have better things to do than to deal with an issue like this. If I was Jason Stone, I would be a little bit embarrassed about that. All Jason had to do was to stop handing out his literature.

Stone lost his 2005 race and is running for a place on the park board again this year.

Two years ago, Nordyke’s predecessor as board president, Jon Olson, wouldn’t let a citizen criticize Gurban during “open time” at board meetings. As the Star Tribune’s Pam Louwagie reported, the ACLU-MN again intervened after Olson cut off Minneapolis resident Arlene Fried, a co-founder of the citizen watchdog group Minneapolis Parkwatch, in the midst of a statement critical of Gurban:


FRIED: … Four: Failing to comply with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act by not honoring all requests for public information. Five: Withholding of information from commissioners and the public, for example –

OLSON: Um, Ma’am …

FRIED: These are governmental issues.

OLSON: Okay, do you have documentation that we have failed to comply with the open Data Practices Act?

FRIED: I’m aware of it.

OLSON: You know, this is not — I’m going to cut you off right there. I’m going to cut you off.

FRIED: Excuse me. Excuse me. You can do that –

OLSON: Thank you very much and you have a good night. Thank you. And we’ll move on to our next speaker
–
FRIED: Freedom of speech. You’re denying me freedom of speech.

OLSON: I don’t think so. I’m not going to allow you to get up there and make accusations like that, that we violated the law.


May 2, 2007:



After the ACLU-MN intervened, Fried tried again at the May 16, 2007 meeting. In this second clip, Nordyke (who was not the board’s president at the time) persuades Olson to let Fried finish her statement.


Disclosure: I know Fried and have worked with her on several park-related issues, including posting these two clips from the official park board meeting videos to YouTube. I also wrote a January 2008 commentary for the Daily Mole expressing hope that newly elected President Nordyke would raise the park board’s standard of transparency, accountability and professionalism.

©2009 Minnesota Independent

    Comments

    Comment viewing options

    Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

    I Support MPRB

    Submitted by MeadowLarkLemon (not verified) on Mon, 04/06/2009 - 3:00am.
    Every couple of years the city council wags the dog, shakes down or shuts down viable, sustainable job growth to take the preassure of the issues they want to see slip through their cracks. If you think 'the city' isn't going to exploit land now managed by MPRB then you haven't been paying attention. At this date, the MPRB has reasoned that they cannot deny the Charter commission a right to assembly. Again, with humilty and patience, this land and her laws perservere. The MPRB maintains their commitment to accessiblity, accountabilty and programs designed to suit leisure and recreation for the citizens of Minneapolis at all of the rec centers throughout all four seasons. Not to mention, the land itself holds the key to opportunity to heal wounds to the damage that has been done insofar. Both socially and ultimately environmentally. With conscience planning; we can reduce smog in our city, reduce green house gases and take the preassure cooker down a notch on the urban heat island effect. Can the city council promise this to the public it serves? And protect the land? Not without finding every excuse not to raise your taxes. Sometimes, I'm tired of Nottingham and want to run away to Sherwood Forest, luckily i live close to a 101 year old rose garden where i can remember that taxes are not always the enemy. The public would do itself a diservice to abolish the park board and transfer the energy to an over-loaded city office. Duplicity in systems is better than having a broken system. Now is not the time for city and park to collide but work and flow like the Mighty Mississippi on 34* day. It isn't that I don't understandRalph Remington-thought with the proposal , I just do not agree with it. I will let you know if my boss's boss decides to block my right to free speech and stops giving me a paycheck for writing this before the city takes away both my rights and my land with their chisel. ball park stadium? Hmm, how about fields for your grandchildren to play. greedy egos take away. ele

    I support the efforts of access to public data

    Submitted by holmerj0 on Sun, 12/26/2010 - 7:30pm.

    As a former employee of 29 years with the MPRB, I can attest to the fact that the MPRB is less than forthcoming and cooperative with issues related to data privacy and the governance of our "quasi-independent" Park Board.   I have personally experienced the frustration dealing with certain MPRB staff when attempting to obtain information from the organization in which I believe not only I, but everyone should have access to.  The biggest problem seems to be that a small group of satff try to control the flow of information available to the public, media outlets, and even from the elected Park Board commissioners in an attempt to protect their own personal agenda and goals.   The MPRB as an organization has enjoyed a rather lengthy history in  allowing some of it's own staff to continue overlooking such things as unethical, unlawful, or at the very least-questionable acts even after having been brought forth undeniable and compelling documentation. 


    I commend the current regime of elected Park Board Commissioners in their gallant efforts to have had the undaunting task of selecting a new superintendent that will hopefully turn the organization around to the organization that it once was.