Is it a fair debate?
Elwyn Tinklenberg has stated on numerous occasion's that he does not lobby on the federal level.
Is it true?
Does the city of Albertville think Elwyn is a lobbyist?
DEPARTMENT BUSINESS
ENGINEERING
ENGAGEMENT OF I-94 LOBBYIST
City Administrator Kruse addressed the Council asking what their wishes were after they had a chance to hear what Mr. Tinklenberg had to share with them. Does the Council wish to go ahead with hiring Mr. Tinklenberg as a Lobbyist to represent Albertville?
Mayor Peterson feels Albertville needs to go ahead with hiring a lobbyist. Council member Fay was in favor of hiring a lobbyist but has hopes of getting some funds in return. Council member Berning was not much in favor of hiring a lobbyist at this point. Council member Vetsch was new and was hesitant on hiring a lobbyist. Council member Klecker agreed with Peterson and Fay to go ahead with hiring a lobbyist.
Council understood the need to action now because Congress is back in session if the City wants to get any financial assistance from the federal and state levels.
City Administrator Kruse wanted to clarify with City Attorney Couri how would the City draft the contract between the City of Albertville and Mr. Tinklenberg. Some discussion ensued about how to structure an agreement.
MOTION BY Mayor Peterson, seconded by Council member Fay to have staff work with Mr. Tinklenberg to outline a work plan and an agreement for Tinklenberg to Lobby for I-94 funding and report back to the January 18, 2005 Council meeting. Mayor Peterson, Council members Fay, Klecker, and Vetsch voted aye. Council member Berning voted nay. Motion carried.
The motion made to confirm Tinklenberg's hiring as a federal lobbyist.
Item E. Move to pass Resolution Number 2006-XX entitled “A Resolution Requesting Federal Transportation Funding for Interstate 94 Access and Safety Improvements at CSAH 19 and CSAH 37 in the City of Albertville. Move to authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign a one year contract with the Tinklenberg Group to lobby for I-94 Federal Funding in the amount not to exceed $36,000 to be paid on a monthly basis, with funds expended to the I-94 Interstate Project account. Al Tinklenberg brought to the Council’s attention the fact that as you may know, Federal Transportation dollars are very limited and very competitive. It is difficult, in reviewing the MnDOT Report, in obtaining funding from the Feds. It may take several years to accumulate enough funds to begin construction. The majority of the $800,000 we have received will go towards acquisition of the right-of-way from Mr. Knechtl.
Mr. Tinklenberg informed the Council, that should he become elected for office, the contract for service would be terminated. Another representative would be available to continue lobbying for the City. As far as the Contract for Service goes, it would be on a month-to-month basis.
Mr. Tinklenberg also reported that the City of Albertville has determined that additional effort is warranted to secure federal support for the construction of traffic management alternatives along I-94 in the City. Work necessary to accomplish this goal has been identified in the 2005 consulting Services Proposal. The Consulting Service Agreement Amendment No. 1 maintains those tasks through the balance of 2006 with particular emphasis on tasks associated with project funding strategies and activities.
MOTION BY Mayor Peterson, seconded by Council member Klecker to approve Move to pass Resolution Number 2006-XX entitled “A Resolution requesting Federal
Transportation Funding for Interstate 94 Access and Safety Improvements at CSAH 19 and CSAH 37 in the City of Albertville. Mayor Peterson, Council members Klecker, Fay and Berning voted aye. Council member Vetsch voted nay. Motion carried.
MOTION BY Mayor Peterson, seconded by Council member Berning to approve Move to Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign a one year contract with the Tinklenberg Group to lobby for I-94 Federal Funding in the amount not to exceed $36,000. Mayor Peterson, Council member Berning, Fay, and Klecker voted aye. Council member Vetsch voted nay. Motion carried.
After $840,000 has been dumped into Elwyn Tinklenberg's lobbying group from the city of Ramsey since 2003, it would appear to me (and to many others out there), that he is indeed a lobbyist.
Being a lobbyist is not a bad thing. I have friends that are registered to lobby at both the state and federal levels. They do important work.
Elwyn does important work. However, if he's not properly registered to do said work, and subsequently denies his lobby work, something is wrong. Somethings fishy about it.
Is it fair?
Why the strong denial on Tinklenberg's end? No response from his campaign at all!
Ultimately, the delegates and voters will decide if it's important.
4 comments:
Are those excerpts the tip of the Tinklenberg-Albertsville iceberg, with 9/10th of it below observable level?
As an experiment, Google Advanced Search, City of Albertville website, search term = tinklenberg.
I got seventeen hits. Give it a try:
http://www.google.com/search?q=tinklenberg+site:http://www.ci.albertville.mn.us/&hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&start=10&sa=N
These links:
http://www.ci.albertville.mn.us/cityhall/city%20council/2005%20city%20hall/ccmw092005.htm
http://www.ci.albertville.mn.us/cityhall/city%20council/2008%20city%20hall/ACC%2001222008.pdf
Back again, one further observation, from that Google Advanced Search:
Above links: Sept. 2005, and January, 2008; these links, each talking about Tinklenberg Group lobbying, the 2005 one being some Groupie bragging about bagging $800,000 in Federal money for Albertsville.
Go figure.
These folks in Albertsville must be real stupid, not knowing what they were buying, thinking they were buying Federal lobbying, while Tink - he says he's not a federal lobbyist - could only bag a fraction of what he took from Ramsey -- $800,000 federal money for Albertsville [WOW! without lobbying] while taking $840,000 out of Ramsey.
Maybe he just should have had Ramsey pay cash over to Albertsville, but then -- what's in that, for him?
fyi - The earliest pre-hiring of Tinklenberg Group for Albertsville I saw online, the below link, has a lobbyist expectation built into the mix, that early, Dec. 2004. I think it was before Tink was hired, but was being considered.
Does anyone have better info?
Tinklenberg Group started its Ramsey fiscal drain Jan. 2003; within a fiscal quarter of the incorporation by Tink, of the "consultancy," Tinklenberg Group.
And - there IS something wrong with revolving door lobbying. Depending on how you define "corrupting" it has a "corrupting" effect on how business gets done - what's funded and what's overlooked.
There's a Tinklenberg contributor, Ken Butler, a DC area lobbyist, who's lobbied federally like Tink has lobbied in-state, for the Anoka County Regional Rail Road Authority; via "Capital Partnerships, Inc." which apparently is a closely held Subchapter S corporation.
It appears Ramsey has not used Butler, but his firm took six-figure money out of Anoka County, if not seven figure money.
I only saw a composite amount for 2006, I believe, online.
But, Dan Erhart get train money, Butler and Tinklenberg get fee income.
The persistent nagging question - would one have happened without the other?
That's why revolving door lobbying is problematic. This Butler guy was a federal legislative staffer [I believe, not elected] and an FTA official; and now "lobbies government for governments."
If that's something you like and want to see more of the same, perhaps you might want to vote Tink.
I published the last comment without proofing enough. Here's the Dec. 2004, link:
http://www.ci.albertville.mn.us/cityhall/city%20council/2004%20city%20hall/ccm120604.htm
"Being a lobbyist is not a bad thing. I have friends that are registered to lobby at both the state and federal levels. They do important work.
Elwyn does important work. However, if he's not properly registered to do said work, and subsequently denies his lobby work, something is wrong. Somethings fishy about it."
This is precisely the issue in this case! It is not an issue about ALL lobbyists but rather of one lobbyist who appears not to have followed the rules. Unfortunately, Tinklenberg seems to want to ignore the issue rather than face it head on. What does that mean? If there were nothing to the story, he would have dealt with it straight on. Kudos to Blue Man and Eric Zaetsch for being all over this story.
Post a Comment