Rochester City Council Ward 2

This was not a difficult decision for me. I have been pleased with Mike Wojcik, the incumbent councilmember for my ward, and I will definitely vote for him in this election as I have previously. 

Mike is as dedicated a public servant as anyone I have come across in Rochester. He takes his role on the council as a more-than-full-time position. Mike consistently advocates for and models transparency in all government practices - to the point where he has made enemies of people who didn't want the level of transparency he has brought to our city government. He is deeply knowledgeable and experienced in many areas of local government and takes the time and effort to learn given an issue outside his area of expertise. 

Observing what Mark Bransford has made available on his site and in the recordings I've seen tells me that he has a clear focus on affordable housing. I absolutely applaud this goal, but it doesn't set him apart from his opponent, and he doesn't bring any special qualifications to the table with regard to housing/construction/permitting/real estate/development, so my feeling is to go with the guy who has 12 years experience on the council and knows how to get things accomplished in the city government.  

As of this writing on 9/28, less than 40 days out from the election, Bransford's website does not have any detail beyond a few bullet points on his other priorities of 'relationship building' and 'revive the economy'. Aside from the platform page on his website, Wojcik's active blog contains a public record of his thoughts on many issues and goes back years. 

On issues that matter to me more personally: 

Transit:

    Pre-COVID I rode the bus daily, I still do occasionally, and I fully intend to make use of it again as it feels safe from a public health perspective. Transit has been a central issue to Mike, a way to push Rochester into a progressive future with easy, safe, affordable, and equitable access to sustainable and eco-friendly city resources from electric buses to bike lanes. Transit doesn't make an appearance on Mark's platform, but he did mention in an interview that he seems ready to hold back on public transit plans for reasons that weren't clear - perhaps cost? Advantage Wojcik. 

Theatre and arts:

    Mike sat down and listened to the theatre community in 2017 when revelations about RCT leadership were made public. In early 2020 when another RCT executive director was in charge and driving the theatre off a cliff, he led a city audit of the organization and listened to the community again, going so far as to organize a public forum for the arts community to voice its thoughts about public spaces for the arts in Rochester. When COVID prompted RCT to undergo another leadership change, this time a positive change back to a place with active community engagement, he kept abreast of the situation and continues to seek information and listen actively when he finds it. 

    While Bransford mentions being involved in local theatre productions, a google search just shows me about one show at RCT from Jan-Feb 2020, the tail end of the second period when leadership had burned bridges with the theatre community at large. That's all I know - never heard of the guy in my theatre circles before, so clear advantage to Wojcik. 

Progressive policy:

    Mark sounds most of the time like a progressive candidate. Sometimes he'll word something in a way that makes me think he's hedging a little. That would be a reasonable tactical move, if he is trying to court folks who aren't progressive, because Wojcik very clearly is, so maybe he thinks to create some space for himself there. Mike has 12 years of city votes and endless other documented evidence of his desire and intent to work toward progressive policy goals. This looks like a lot of things: recently he pushed back on the school board's choice of location, because he noted that it would denude diversity of racial and socioeconomic student populations. He shows up at BLM protests and rallies against gun violence. He led pushback against an ordinance that would criminalize homeless staying in the skyways for warmth. Maybe all these things would be true of Mark if he'd been on the council for 12 years, but I don't know that. I know Wojcik values these things, so clear advantage to him. 

As a final thought, Mike Wojcik has gone from being a consistently outvoted progressive voice on the Rochester City Council to being in a place where he has a bit more support from his colleagues. I think this election could push our city council to be yet more progressive, which I believe will be very beneficial for Rochester as a whole. 

That's it. The End. Vote Wojcik. 

MN State Senate District 26

My ballot has two names for the district 26 MN state senate seat: Aleta Borrud, DFL, and Carla Nelson, Rep (incumbent). Come with me on a little journey through some state headlines from the last couple months that are important to the rationale for my vote. 

About a month ago, the MN state senate crossed my news feed in an upsetting way. In a surprise move during a special session, the GOP majority voted on party lines to remove Nancy Leppink, the Walz-appointed commissioner of the state Dept of Labor and Industry. There is a MinnPost story here. Basically, the state senate has authority to 'advise and consent' to commissioner appointments according to the state constitution, but in practice, the appointments are rarely contested or voted on at all, which leaves a door open for the senate to take a vote denying consent at any time, removing the appointed commissioner -- and that's what they did. 

The reason for the vote? To pressure Walz to end the state of emergency due to COVID-19. The state senate was shooting a hostage, and that isn't even my inflammatory analogy - it's a quote from the state house GOP leader, Kurt Daudt (its in the story linked above, seriously). 

The state senate did the same thing again in a special session on September 11th. After Walz extended the state of emergency (Minnesota's case load in September is as high as it has been all year), the GOP responded by removing the Commerce Commissioner Steve Kelley, reinforcing the act as a pattern of appointed commissioners being targeted in order to put political pressure on the governor. 

Isn't this really the fault of the state senate GOP leader, Paul Gazelka? While I personally think Gazelka is desperately trying to be a mini-McConnell and I despise it, Carla Nelson got to vote on both of these measures. Firing someone with no warning to make a political statement. 'Shooting hostages' to get what they want, which is apparently a state government that doesn't take the pandemic seriously even as all our neighbor states become national hotspots. 

Carla could have also voted against that practice, and shown a bit of respect for the public servants Leppink and Kelley whose departments are working on behalf of the people of Minnesota. 

Let's dive down one more level. Obviously, Gazelka didn't say he was shooting prisoners - he's picking commissioners that have done things the GOP doesn't like. In the example of Leppink, here's one of the complaints:

Leppink is enforcing Minnesota's 2019 law criminalizing wage theft. It was a widely bipartisan piece of legislation, but when Leppink started actually holding businesses responsible for paying employees the wages that they are owed, I guess she turned into a socialist boogeyman. 

She also negotiated a deal to make worker's comp smoother for medical workers who get COVID. She enforced rules about fire sprinklers in barns used for weddings. She's clearly a monster that needs to be stopped. 

Again, Carla Nelson voted for her removal (or technically, voted no on consent to her appointment), as a way to complain about and politically pressure the governor regarding emergency powers to enact public health measures for a pandemic response. 

I have rabbit-trailed. I'm sorry if you're actually trying to read this, but I'm also not sorry, because being an informed voter is important. 

And in the interest of not being entirely negative about Nelson, she put up an instagram post of her joining in what I truly think was a wonderful effort by local leaders to do something positive and constructive and artistic in the midst of pandemic times - I think public art is a fantastic tool to build community. She was also a teacher before going into politics, and I have a lot of respect for that. 

Overall, I'm not impressed with Nelson as a candidate more than I want her to feel political repercussions for the choices I outline above. While her positions are not as far from mine as many republicans, but those of her opponent Dr. Aleta Borrud are a much better fit. 

Borrud's platform reads pretty much like a list of my own priorities. Women's reproductive health and choice is part of her healthcare section. Equity across lines of race, sexuality, and income is a theme throughout the issues. She indicates bolder steps toward environmental sustainability than her opponent. 

Importantly to me, Borrud's statements directly addresses racism and police violence issues. Neither is given space on Nelson's website. George Floyd's murder has highlighted that these are huge problems in Minnesota - we have embarrassing racial disparities in income, wealth, education, and those problems don't go away if they are not being actively worked. 

Nelson has had her seat for long enough. I will definitely be voting for Aleta Borrud, and against the actions of the MN state senate GOP that Nelson supported. 

Rochester is split between state senate district 25 and 26. I am in 26 in SW Rochester - here is a map of where they sit, for reference. You can find your own ballot if you haven't at this site.