On June 24 during the Fridley Parade there were many candidates for various office in the Fridley Parade which started at 6:30 on Thursday. However only one of those candidates; Rae Anderson, in Senate District 50, had their yard signs up. This is not a sign of one candidate working hard early but of a candidate who violated a city ordinance to get an unfair advantage in an election.
Minnesota Statute 211B.045 states that campaign signs are to be allowed 46 days before the primary (June 25th) and until 10 days after the general election in cities that have election sign ordinances. Fridley does restrict political signs with Ordinance 1267 which restricts signage that mirrors the state statute in terms of the allowable window. After a significant ethics violation from the sitting Senator in SD50 this is a cause for concern.
Many believe that politicians think they are above the law, like Senator Chaudhary believes he is, but it has now morphed into a candidate for office thinking the same thing. After a check of the site after 10:00 PM (which was actually a mini donut run) the signs had been taken down. Demonstrating that Ms. Anderson knew what she did was wrong.
Photographic proof (see slideshow) of the violation was captured before Ms. Anderson had a chance to cover up her tracks. This November, two candidates with multiple ethic violations in the past; Senator Chaudhary (who is running in a primary versus a weak challenger) and Rae Anderson will be running against New Brighton Council Member Gina Bauman for the Senate District 50 race.
The voters of Senate District 50 will have to decide if ethics comes into play this November when casting their votes.
LOCATIONS OF VIOLATIONS
*Two homes at Mississippi Ave & Able Street
*One house at Mississippi Ave & 7th Street
*Two homes at 61st Street & 7th Street
*One house on 7th Street across from the Fridley Community Center
Comments
Actually the state statute doesn't specify a date limitation on campaign signs, but rather pre-empts local ordinances which restrict political signage. Those signs aren't in violation of State Law, but they might be in violation of a local city code or ordinance (or not- I don't know the local regulations). I'm all for holding liberals accountable, but we have to be correct in holding them to account. In this case, if you want to allege a violation you would need to cite the local code not state law. That State Statute is permissive, not restrictive.
To Cambridge; you are technically correct that it is city ordinance which covers the ban of political signs whereas the state statute forces the city to allow signage during the time period stated. The interesting thing is that while I'm learning the law myself, the staff in Fridley don't understand their own ordinance and they do not know who is allowed to enforce the ordinance. When a complaint was made Deb Skogan informed me that the Office of Administrative Hearings had jurisdiction over the violation. When the OAH informed me that if it was before the allowed times re: 211B.045 that the city had jurisdicition. When presented with this information she conferred with the city attorney he didn't know the law either. Two questions:
1. Why do we have ordinances that are not enforced or understood by the city and infringe on private property rights?
2. Why are we paying a city attorney so much money when he doesn't understand his own city's ordinance?
The article has been updated for accuracy; thank you Mr. Cambridge for your assistance. I'm not a professional writer so I appreciate all the help I can get.
It's obvious you're not a professional writer but I think I can help. Try not erasing posts from readers who don't agree with you who think you're trying to hide the truth. Maybe I should start my own Examiner column then I can report the truth from both sides of the aisle instead of the one-sided drool that you spew out whenever you think you can slam someone. Report the truth John.
Concerned: I would strongly suggest that you become an Examiner, it's pretty easy, they'll ask you to submit two writing samples. I would ask that you put down my name as the one that referred you because I get $50 for referring you to the site and I think we can all agree you're here because of my articles.
In response to your other comments which were deleted, when I write an article I have my name on the article and everyone knows who submitted what was written. If you would provide your real name and evidence to support your claims I would be happy to keep your comment here (or better yet become an examiner).
Personally, I won't be referencing Chadhary's tax issue as it has nothing to do with anything political other than to serve as a gotcha moment. It's a private issue and the government always gets their money one way or another. It's different from the lake issue where he abused his power, if Chadhary tries to change legislation to remove his taxes then I'll care.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!