A River of Misinformation

By Karl Bremer

When I exposed the Coalition for the St. Croix River Crossing’s big lie about the Obama Administration and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood supporting their Boondoggle Bridge, the Coalition’s director defended its claim in a blog posting of his own.

“Despite what some people want us to believe, recent comments by U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood indicate that the Obama Administration really does want the St. Croix River Crossing to be built,” huffed Coalition Executive Director Michael Wilhelmi. “Honestly.”

“The only way one could think that his comments in support of the St. Croix River Crossing actually mean that the Obama Administration doesn’t support the St. Croix River Crossing,” Wilhelmi charged, “is when you ignore basic facts, as was recently done by a local blogger.” He linked to my column.

Today, the Star-Tribune newspaper in Minneapolis confirmed what I had reported last week: the Obama Administration has not thrown its support behind the Boondoggle bridge, and neither has Secretary LaHood, as the Coalition has falsely claimed. Mary McComber, the Coalition member who told Ripple in Stillwater that neither the Administration nor LaHood had expressed a preference for any particular bridge, also reaffirmed to the Star-Tribune what she told me.

According to the Star-Tribune: 

McComber, who was at the White House last month for a meeting with local officials, said Tuesday that [White House Chief of Staff] Daley did not specifically back the project and that the coalition's statement went too far. "Something has gotten mixed up somewhere along the lines," she said.

When one of Wilhelmi’s own Coalition members says they aren’t being truthful, that should tell you something.

The Star-Tribune went on to note:

Even though LaHood has said he supports building a bridge, he declined to back the specific legislation in Congress, saying that's something he never does.

The White House declined to comment for the Star-Tribune’s story.

Wilhelmi boasted in his missive that “We make sure that the details and facts that we use in support of the project are verified by a state or federal regulatory agency. Bridge opponents cannot say the same.”

Maybe when Wilhelmi sees his deceptions exposed by a big-city newspaper instead of just a “local blogger,” he’ll think better of continuing to make false claims about support for his Boondoggle Bridge that doesn’t exist. Then again, maybe he’ll just blithely accuse the Star-Tribune of “ignoring the facts” too, and continue to spew his river of misinformation.

Boondoggle Bridge Coalition muddies the St. Croix waters with more misinformation

By Karl Bremer

Michael Wilhelmi

Michael Wilhelmi, executive director of the Boondoggle Bridge-supporting Coalition for the St. Croix River Crossing, took umbrage at my recent post regarding the misinformation campaign of his Coalition. In a rather huffy response on the Coalition’s blog, Wilhelmi responded with more misinformation, and accused me of ignoring the facts. Let’s have a look.

Curiously, Wilhelmi begins by disclaiming ownership of the $700 million Boondoggle Bridge.

“First, the St. Croix River Crossing proposal is not ‘the coalition’s’ bridge,” Wilhelmi insists. That’s funny, because they’re the only ones lobbying for it, so if it’s not “their” project, whose is it?

Wilhelmi continues down this twisted path: “The Federal Highway Administration, which is led by Secretary LaHood, participated in the bridge design process and approved the bridge project with a Record of Decision. The administration even defended the project in a three-year court battle with the Sierra Club.” Therefore, Wilhelmi reasons, “the U.S. Department of Transportation supports this project.”

There are a few things wrong with that assumption.

First, the FHWA issued its Record of Decision on the bridge in 1995 during the Clinton Administration two presidents ago. The National Park Service (NPS) subsequently ruled against the bridge that administration’s FHWA signed off on, and the courts upheld the NPS’s decision.

It was the FHWA under the Bush Administration that issued a second Record of Decision in 2006 and defended the project in the Sierra Club litigation. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that the current FHWA—which is led by FHWA Administrator Victor Mendez and not Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, as Wilhelmi states—supports the Coalition’s bridge.

Remember, it was under the Bush Administration in 2005 that the NPS gave the project a green light. That decision was reversed by the Obama Administration’s NPS after the courts sided with the Sierra Club in 2010 and ordered the NPS to reconsider its earlier approval.

Nor does it mean that Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood necessarily supports the Coalition’s version of the bridge, as Wilhelmi claims. Even Coalition member Mary McComber admitted to Ripple in Stillwater that LaHood’s recent comments didn’t indicate support for any specific version of a bridge—only that it be done “within the law.” If Wilhelmi has any solid evidence of LaHood’s support for the Coalition’s bridge—a letter, perhaps?—he needs to offer more proof than his own wishful thinking and hearsay.

Wilhelmi continues with his fantasies.

“There is no way to build any new bridge without an exemption from the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The National Park Service has concluded that the Act does not allow them to grant a permit for any new construction in any Wild and Scenic River that would have a ‘direct, adverse’ impact on the river’s ‘scenic values’,” he states.

That’s not what the NPS concluded at all. It concluded that “the St. Croix River Crossing Project (emphasis added) would have a direct and adverse impact to the river and that those impacts cannot be mitigated.” It said nothing about bridge designs other than the Coalition’s monstrosity it had before it.

Wilhelmi’s contention that “there is no way to build any bridge without an exemption to the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act” is equally phony. In fact, two bridges have been built across the St. Croix River since it fell under protection of the Act and neither required an exemption by Congress: the replacement bridge at Osceola, WI, in 1980, WI, and the lift bridge at Prescott, WI, in 1990. It’s just that there’s no way to build his bridge without an exemption to the Act.

Wilhelmi claims that "the law specifically allows Congress to provide an exemption for worthy projects. Therefore, exempting the St. Croix River Crossing from the provision in the WSRA is 'within the law.'  However, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act has never granted an exemption for a bridge. The Coalition once promoted that myth as well until Ripple in Stillwater debunked it too. The only two exemptions that have been granted under the Act in its entire history have been for fisheries habitat improvement projects.

Wilhelmi concludes by playing the victim card and accuses opponents of the Coalition’s Boondoggle Bridge of trying to “attack and smear” them. Maybe he’s just upset that he’s got a gaping $80,000 hole in his Coalition’s budget thanks to the diligence of those opponents.

Following after the Coalition for the St. Croix Crossing’s press releases is getting to be a bit like the guy with the broom and shovel trailing the elephants in the circus parade. It’s a distasteful job, but someone’s got to clean up the mess they leave behind.

Obama Administration supports Boondoggle Bridge? Not really

This is the $700 million monstrosity proposed to be built just 6 miles north of the eight-lane I-94 bridge at Lakeland-Hudson.

By Karl Bremer

The way the lobbyists for the bridge across the St. Croix River are portraying recent comments from Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, you’d think President Obama has given his personal stamp of approval to the $700 million Bachmann-Klobuchar-Dayton Boondoggle Bridge.

Not so fast.

“St. Croix River Crossing is a priority for President Obama,” trumpets the headline on a press release from the Coalition for the St. Croix Bridge Crossing, a lobbying group for the Boondoggle Bridge. The press release continues:

“Oak Park Heights City Councilmember Mary McComber spoke with LaHood and White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley about the St. Croix River Crossing during a briefing for city and municipal leaders held at the White House on Thursday, October 27. McComber was invited in her capacity as incoming chair of the Regional Development Committee of the National League of Cities.

“In response to a question from McComber during his presentation to the group, LaHood said that President Obama and his administration are well aware of the St. Croix River Crossing and are committed to getting it done. 

“Secretary LaHood said, ‘I know about your project. I know what the problem is. I am committed to getting it done. The President is committed to getting it done,’” McComber stated.”

So is that project that he’s committed to getting done the Coalition’s $700 million, 65-mph, four-lane freeway version of the bridge? Not necessarily.

Ripple in Stillwater contacted McComber and asked her to clarify her statement—specifically, whether LaHood was referring to the Coalition’s bridge proposal.

“What Ray LaHood said was that the Obama Administration is committed to getting this project solved, but totally legally—and he kept referring back to this—within the law,” McComber said.

LaHood did not say he or Obama supported an exemption from the Wild & Scenic Rivers Act to get the bridge built, and did not express support for any specific bridge proposal, McComber said. There was some discussion about the need to streamline federal approval processes for infrastructure projects when multiple agencies are involved, said McComber, but there was no talk about including an exemption from the Act in a  “streamlining” of the process to get the St. Croix bridge problem resolved.

The Administration’s support was “more just to get it off people’s plate,” McComber noted.

The Obama Administration on November 1 released a list of 14 infrastructure projects that it said “will be expedited through permitting and environmental review processes” in order to move them “as quickly as possible from the drawing board to completion” and create jobs.

There are two bridge projects on that list, but the St. Croix bridge is not one of them.

Once again, the Boondoggle Bridge Coalition appears to be playing loose with the facts, and their strategy worked with some in the media..

Stillwater loses battle over $80,000

TIF donation to bridge lobbyists

Meanwhile, in other Boondoggle Bridge news, the City of Stillwater decided to cut their losses and return to Washington County the $80,000 in tax-increment finance (TIF) funds the state auditor ruled they had illegally donated to the Coalition. The city stands to lose half of those funds because of their misappropriation of them to the bridge lobbying group, which Stillwater Mayor Ken Harycki co-chairs.

The state auditor's ruling was in response to complaints filed by myself and Stillwater historian Don Empson.

Stillwater City Attorney Dave Magnuson

refuses to admit he was wrong.

Not content with having his dubious legal opinions repeatedly called into question by the Office of State Auditor in its reports on the matter, Stillwater City Attorney Dave Magnuson accused the auditor’s office of playing politics with its decision. He was joined by City Council member Jim Roush, who the Star-Tribune reported opined in an Oct. 31 council meeting on the matter: “I think their office is out of control and has exceeded their authority.”

Said council member Micky Cook, according to the St. Paul Pioneer Press: “I think we just need to suck it up, unless we want to get slapped around some more.”

Roush told the Star-Tribune’s Kevin Giles after the meeting that the auditor’s ruling was “politically motivated” but Roush declined to elaborate.

State Auditor Rebecca Otto responded that Roush’s comments were “a little bit like blaming the dentist for a cavity in your mouth.”

Bachmann Boondoggle Bridge legislation up for markup in House committee October 5

The markup on Republican Congresswoman Michele Bachmann’s bill to do an end-run around the Wild & Scenic Rivers Act in order to build her Boondoggle Bridge across the St. Croix River is Wednesday, October 5, in the House Natural Resources Committee.

Bachmann’s bill, H.R. 850, is one of about 20 bills the committee is expected to deal with at Wednesday’s meeting, which begins at 9 a.m. CST. It will be streaming live online at the committee’s website.

Minnesota Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar has introduced a Senate version of Bachmann's bill, S.1134, that was heard in the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks July 28.

You can use this form to send the committee your comments on Bachmann’s legislation. For some ideas on where else in Minnesota we could spend $360 million on bridge repair and replacement rather than this Bridge to Nowhere, you can start with this recent report. To discuss the issue of the precedent this bridge would set for other rivers protected under the Wild & Scenic Rivers Act, check out this past article. For background on one no-cost option the city of Stillwater and Minnesota department of transportation have so far ignored--reducing the frequency of the bridge's lift--read this. Jim Erkel of the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy gave an excellent presentation at a recent forum on the proposed Stillwater bridge. You can view it here. For details on a more sensible bridge proposal that costs hundreds of millions of dollars less and significantly less in environmental impact, go here.

Please send your comments to members of the House Natural Resources Committee before Wednesday. Tell them this bridge is an environmental and economic disaster that will result in a horrible precedent for the development of other protected rivers nationwide. Tell them there are far more sensible bridge solutions to crossing a protected scenic riverway than with a $680 million, 65-mph freeway bridge just 6 miles from an existing eight-lane freeway bridge. Tell them this is the wrong bridge at the wrong time.

Stillwater votes to challenge State Auditor ruling on $80,000 TIF donation to bridge lobbyists

City Attorney creates novel definition of 'lobbyist' to prove he's right and State Auditor is wrong


Stillwater City Attorney Dave Magnuson

By Karl Bremer

The Stillwater City Council, relying once again on City Attorney Dave Magnuson’s legal and verbal gymnastics, voted 4-1 tonight to challenge the State Auditor’s contention that it cannot spend $80,000 in Tax Increment Financing (TIF) funds on a lobbyist for the proposed Boondoggle Bridge across the St. Croix River.

If that turns out to be a losing argument again, Stillwater Mayor Ken Harycki indicated that he would seek the money from another city fund.

Responding to complaints from myself and Stillwater historian Don Empson, the Office of State Auditor (OSA) last month determined that the City’s donation of $80,000 to the Coalition for the St. Croix RiverCrossing, a lobbying group that Harycki co-chairs, was illegal and recommended that the City get the money back.

The Coalition returned the money to the city today, but the Council found out in the past week that under state statutes governing the use of TIF funds, a large portion of the money would be diverted to the county and school district rather than back to the City’s TIF fund as a penalty for the City’s misappropriation of them. No one seemed certain how much the City would lose. Figures ranging from $40,000 to $60,000 were thrown around during the discussion.

At a special meeting of the City Council today, Magnuson still insisted he was right and the State Auditor was wrong in its determination that using TIF funds to hire a lobbyist is illegal.

“I think it’s worthwhile for the City to respond to the auditor,” Magnuson said. “I think they didn’t get it right.” If the City can convince the OSA that its use of TIF funds was in compliance with the law and simply draw up a contract for their services, Magnuson reasoned, the City would get to keep the entire $80,000 instead of losing a portion of it to the school district and county.

PRETZEL LOGIC

Magnuson’s argument hinges on yet another creative definition of “lobbyist” as determined by the City. It goes something like this, according to his draft response to the auditor that the Council tentatively approved:

The old bridge is in the City’s TIF District No. 1. State law grants to the City within the TIF district the power to “promote developments aimed at improving the physical facilities, quality of life and quality of transportation.”

Building a new bridge and taking the old one out of service would do all these things, Magnuson proposes, but a new bridge cannot be built without an exemption from the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, and that takes an Act of Congress. “Acts of Congress require the aid and skill of professional lobbyists to assist in the promotion of the new bridge project” so, Magnuson reasons, a promoter is needed.

Turning to his trusty Black’s Law Dictionary, 4^th Addition (sic), Magnuson finds that “a promoter is practically synonymous with a lobbyist,” and cites a couple of legal definitions from his dictionary to prove it. Ergo, a lobbyist under Magnuson’s definition now becomes a promoter.

“Under those circumstances,” Magnuson concludes in his draft response, “the use of TIF funds from District No. 1 may be lawfully paid to lobbyists hired to promote the construction of a new bridge and the closing of the historic bridge to vehicular traffic.”

“The TIF allowed us to promote,” Magnuson told the Council, so the City can “hire a promoter.” At least twice during the discussion, Harycki suggested changing the term “lobbyist” to “promoter.”

Councilmember Doug Menikheim questioned whether it was wise to continue arguing with the State Auditor and risk “compounding the problem. If the auditor disapproves of us again, then what do we do—keep playing the game over and over again?” he asked.

Magnuson replied that the auditor’s final ruling after the City responds will be sent to the county attorney to either be resolved or pursued. At that point, the City would have to decide whether to give it up or go to court.

MORE AUDIT PROBLEMS


Councilmember Micky Cook

Regarding another problem the OSA found, Magnuson said the City’s contract with The Conach Group, a “legislative consultant” hired by the City, is being re-drawn to comply with the auditor’s recommendations. The auditor had noted that “The Conach Group’s attorney has admitted that the contract between the City and the consultant is ‘poorly drafted and significantly misrepresents the scope of what The Conach Group did and is doing for the City.’” It recommended that the contract be re-written “to clearly define the roles, responsibilities, and performance expectations of The Conach Group and City staff.”

Upon questioning from Councilmember Micky Cook, Magnuson and Harycki assured the Council that Stillwater City Hall’s address would no longer be used as the registered address for the bridge Coalition.

The Council also voted 5-0 on a motion by Cook to revoke an earlier action authorizing the City to pay membership dues to the Coalition—another violation the auditor found—even though no one on the Council could recall voting on the matter last November.

A $70 filing fee the City paid for the Coalition’s registration with the Secretary of State also was found to be in violation of state law by the auditor. That was refunded by the Coalition today along with the $80,000 donation.

Finally, Cook, who cast the lone dissenting vote today and on the donation to the Coalition when it was first approved, wanted assurance that “We’re not going to try to find another $80,000.”

Harycki responded: “Not today.”

Boondoggle bridge lobby group says it will return illegal $80,000 donation to City of Stillwater

Mayor Ken Harycki vows to find money elsewhere to give to coalition he co-chairs

By Karl Bremer

Michael Wilhelmi

The Coalition for the St. Croix River Crossing will be sending back the City of Stillwater’s illegal $80,000 donation to the lobbying group following a determination by the Office of State Auditor (OSA) that the donation was an “unauthorized expenditure” and that the City “attempt to recover the money donated to the Coalition.”

The OSA’s opinion was in response to complaints filed by myself and Stillwater historian Don Empson with the OSA regarding the legality of the donation.

"This is a distraction," said Coalition Executive Director and registered lobbyist Michael Wilhelmi.

The Stillwater City Council will discuss the OSA’s recommendations and the City’s response to them at a special September 13 meeting. At the advice of City Attorney Dave Magnuson, the City Council held a closed-door meeting on a portion of the discussion involving the Tax Increment Financing source of the funds last week in a meeting that many citizens felt should have been held in the sunshine instead.

The City relied on the legal advice of Magnuson to support its contention that the donation to the bridge lobbying group was proper. The OSA strongly disagreed.

The OSA chastised the City for its sloppy contracting procedures with the Coalition and stated that “If the City decides to contract with the Coalition for services directly related to one of the City’s authorized functions, the City should use proper contract management procedures to protect public funds.”

The OSA also took issue with the contract between the City and The Conach Group, with whom the City has contracted for $1,500 a month for “legislative consulting” services. The OSA noted that “The Conach group’s attorney has admitted that the contract between the City and the consultant is “poorly drafted and significantly misrepresents the scope of what The Conach Group did and is doing for the City.” The OSA recommended that the City amend its contract with The Conach Group “to clearly define the roles, responsibilities, and performance expectations of The Conach Group and City staff.”

The OSA found during its investigation that the City not only donated $80,000 to the Coalition without authorization, but it also paid—at Stillwater Mayor Ken Harycki’s request—the Coalition’s $70 filing fee with the Secretary of State when it was formed. Harycki is co-chair of the Coalition. The OSA stated that the filing fee payment, along with any membership fees paid by the City to the Coalition, also were not authorized expenditures by the City.

The $80,000 the City donated to the Coalition was to come from a Tax Increment Financing fund for the downtown Stillwater district. The OSA stated that it “will handle any issues related to the use of tax increment for the $80,000 donation through the procedures required under the tax increment financing laws.”

Harycki appears determined to secure the $80,000 in city funds for the lobbying group he co-chairs one way or the other. Following the State Auditor’s initial report, according to the St. Paul Pioneer Press, “Harycki said if the city attorney says using TIF money is a problem, he would simply take the $80,000 from another city source.” Then upon the announcement that the Coalition was giving the money back to the City, the Pioneer Press reported, “Stillwater Mayor Ken Harycki said Friday that the contribution might come up again - as a payment to the same group, with a contract.”

City Council member Micky Cook, the lone dissenting vote against the original $80,000 donation and a critic of other less-than-transparent actions taken by Harycki and bridge supporters on the council, cautioned that the lack of a contract for the donation was only one of several legal questions raised in the OSA report.

“It's disturbing to me that the city of Stillwater would get an 11-page finding reprimanding us, basically slapping our hands,” Cook said, according to the Stillwater Gazette. “I think there's a lot more to this opinion than that we just need a contract.” Cook asked that Magnuson address all the legal issues raised in the auditor’s report.

The City Council will discuss its response to the auditor’s recommendations at a special meeting on Tuesday, September 13, at 4:30 p.m.

State Auditor: City of Stillwater's $80K donation to St. Croix bridge lobbyists 'unauthorized'

Rep. Michele Bachmann and Stillwater Mayor Ken Harycki

Office of the State Auditor agrees with Ripple in Stillwater on legality of lobbying expenditures and recommends the city get its money back.

By Karl Bremer

The Minnesota Office of the State Auditor (OSA) has determined that the $80,000 the City of Stillwater donated to the lobbying group Coalition for the St. Croix River Crossing was an “unauthorized expenditure” and has recommended that the City “attempt to recover the money donated to the Coalition.”

The ruling was in response to a complaint filed by myself and other citizens with the OSA over improper use of taxpayer dollars to promote the proposed freeway bridge across the St. Croix River, aka the “Bachmann Boondoggle.”

The Office of State Auditor (OSA) chastised the City for its sloppy contracting procedures with the Coalition and stated that “If the City decides to contract with the Coalition for services directly related to one of the City’s authorized functions, the City should use proper contract management procedures to protect public funds,” which it did not in this case.

The OSA also took issue with the contract between the City and The Conach Group, with whom the City has contracted for $1,500 a month for “legislative consulting” services. The OSA noted that “The Conach Group’s attorney has admitted that the contract between the City and the consultant is “poorly drafted and significantly misrepresents the scope of what The Conach Group did and is doing for the City.” The OSA recommended that the City amend its contract with The Conach Group “to clearly define the roles, responsibilities, and performance expectations of The Conach Group and City staff.”

The OSA found during its investigation that the City not only donated $80,000 to the Coalition without authorization, but it also paid—at Stillwater Mayor Ken Harycki’s request—the Coalition’s $70 filing fee with the Secretary of State when it was formed. Harycki is co-chair of the Coalition. The OSA stated that the filing fee payment, along with any membership fees paid by the City to the Coalition, also were not authorized expenditures by the City under state law.

The $80,000 the City donated to the Coalition was to come from a Tax Increment Financing fund for the downtown Stillwater district. The OSA stated that it “will handle any issues related to the use of tax increment for the $80,000 donation through the procedures required under the tax increment financing laws.”

When the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board last month dismissed my complaint regarding the registration of The Conach Group’s “legislative consultant” as a lobbyist, Harycki sniffed that it was “much ado about nothing.” Perhaps Harycki and his legal advisors will listen to the OSA instead.

More to come on this story as it develops. You can read the entire Office of the State Auditor’s letter to Harycki here.

State Campaign Finance Board rules Stillwater 'legislative consultant' is not a lobbyist

Michele Bachmann and Stillwater Mayor Ken Harycki

Lawyer for 'consultant' admits contract is 'poorly drafted' and 'misrepresents' scope of work

By Karl Bremer

The Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board (CFB) on August 16 dismissed my complaint regarding whether Mike Campbell, the “legislative consultant” hired by the City of Stillwater for $1,500 a month who claims he isn’t a lobbyist, should have registered as a lobbyist based on his duties as outlined in a contract with the City.
 

The CFB’s investigation appears to have consisted of simply asking Campbell's lawyer and Stillwater Mayor Ken Harycki whether Campbell lobbied.

The CFB noted that Campbell’s activities on behalf of the City of Stillwater met two of the three criteria for lobbying—that he provided services to the City of Stillwater for the purpose of influencing official legislative or administrative action and that he has been paid more than $3,000 in a calendar year for his services. However, based on responses from Campbell’s lawyer, Ryan Kaess, and Stillwater Mayor Ken Harycki, the CFB determined that Campbell did not meet the third criteria of communicating “directly with public or local officials to influence their actions or … with other individuals to urge them to contact public or local officials on behalf of the City of Stillwater.”

“In response to a question on whether Mr. Campbell communicated directly with public and local officials on behalf of the City of Stillwater,” the CFB reported, “Mayor Harycki responded, “I received daily updates as to the status of our legislation but to my knowledge, he did not communicate directly with any groups listed. That is to say at no time did he ever have a conversation by saying “I talked to Senator X and he/she informed me…’

 

“Mayor Harycki was asked if under the duties of the contract Mr. Campbell communicated with individuals and urged them to communicate with public officials on behalf of the City of Stillwater. In response Mayor Harycki stated, ‘Mr. Campbell did not appear before any groups or issue any communication urging individuals to call. He simply provided me with updates on the status or legislation we were following.’”

Mayor Harycki also was asked about a quote in a media story in which the Mayor attributed in part the success of obtaining funding for the Browne Creek bonding bill to the services provided by Campbell. According to the CFB’s findings, Mayor Harycki states, “I am pleased the Browne Creek bonding was done. In a conversation subsequent to the newspaper story and preceding your letter, Mr. Campbell informed me that the budget settlement was a late night deal that he had no connection to. Throughout the legislative session he did inform me that he was tracking the bill and that we were fine.”

In other words, the Mayor attributed part of the success to the Brown’s Creek funding to Campbell even though he “had no connection to it” and only tracked the bill through the session.

According to the CFB’s findings, Kaess explained that Campbell “provided strategic advice, research and messaging related to legislative initiatives of the City of Stillwater. He did not attempt to influence legislative or administrative action, communicate with public officials or urge others to communicate with public or local officials as defined by Minnesota Statute. At no time did my client ever have contact with any public official for the purpose of advocating a position on behalf of the City of Stillwater.” The CFB’s report notes that “Mr. Kaess acknowledges that Mr. Campbell contacted one legislative staffer and requested research information, but states that Mr. Campbell did not urge the staff member to advocate on behalf of any legislative position.”

 

Campbell, who reportedly has been a political advisor to the mayor in the past and was hired without advertising or competitive bids, is the sole owner and principal consultant for the Conach Group, Kaess told the CFB.

My complaint to the CFB was based on the fact that the contract between the Conach Group and the City of Stillwater stated that the Conach Group is “To secure the required support of the Federal Government State of Minnesota and any administrative Department of either entity for the approval and funding of the pending St. Croix River Crossing at Stillwater” and “To secure Minnesota Legislative funding for the State purchase of the MN Zephyr Railroad Right of Way as an extension of the State Trail system, support for the New Armory Project and Phase III of the Levy Wall Project." According to the contract, “Consultant services will be rendered largely at the Consultant office and the State of Minnesota Capitol.”

The CFB’s Lobbyist Handbook states that, “You must register as a lobbyist within five days after you … are engaged for pay or other consideration and receive more than $3,000 from all sources in any year, for the purpose of attempting to influence legislative or administrative action or the official action of a metropolitan governmental unit by communicating or urging others to communicate with public officials or local officials in a metropolitan governmental unit.”

However, Campbell is not registered as a lobbyist with the CFB.

But the CFB bought Kaess’s explanation regarding the apparent discrepancy between what the contract states and what Kaess and Harycki claimed Campbell’s duties were.

“Regarding the terms of the contract, Mr. Kaess states, ‘I will concede that the contract is poorly drafted and significantly misrepresents the scope of what The Conach Group did and is doing for the City of Stillwater. However, it is clear, based upon the statements made by the parties that The Conach Group was not retained to lobby for the City of Stillwater, and no one from The Conach Group actually lobbied for the City of Stillwater.”

Concluded the CFB:

“What may be confusing to the general public is that tracking legislation, providing research, and providing advice on actions that a client might take to further a legislative or administrative agenda are all actions that support lobbying efforts. But without direct communication with public or local officials, or communication in which the public is urged to contact public officials on an issue, the definition of lobbying is not met, and registration and disclosure under Chapter 10A is not required.”

Harycki dismissed my complaint as “much ado about nothing.” But Stillwater’s troubles involving its lobbying activities with tax dollars may not be over.

The State Auditor is currently looking into the legality of Campbell’s hiring, as well as the city’s donation of $80,000 in Stillwater Tax Increment Financing funds to the Coalition for the St. Croix River Crossing, another lobbying group supporting the construction of the “Bachmann Boondoggle” freeway bridge across the St. Croix.

Ripple in Stillwater files Campaign Finance Board complaint over Stillwater lobbyist who's not a lobbyist

Stillwater Mayor Ken Harycki: 'Really, he doesn't do any lobbying.'

Ripple in Stillwater author Karl Bremer has filed a formal complaint with the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board (CFB) over the alleged lobbying of unregistered lobbyist Mike Campbell on behalf of the City of Stillwater.

On April 19, Stillwater entered into an agreement with Michael Campbell of the Conach Group in Stillwater for “Legislative support for the St Croix River Crossing extension of the State Trail system, support for the New Armory Project and Phase III of the Levee Wall project.”

According to the contract with the City, the Conach Group is “To secure the required support of the Federal Government State of Minnesota and any administrative Department of either entity for the approval and funding of the pending St. Croix River Crossing at Stillwater” and “To secure Minnesota Legislative funding for the State purchase of the MN Zephyr Railroad Right of Way as an extension of the State Trail system, support for the New Armory Project and Phase III of the Levy Wall Project." According to the contract, “Consultant services will be rendered largely at the Consultant office and the State of Minnesota Capitol.”

But neither the lobbyist, Mike Campbell, nor anyone else with his firm, the Conach Group, are registered with the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board (CFB) or with the U.S. Senate or Congress. In fact, there are no lobbyists representing the City of Stillwater registered with the state at this time.

However, Stillwater Mayor Ken Harycki continues to insist that Campbell is not a lobbyist at all, even though he told the Stillwater Gazette: “Campbell is a well-connected person and has helped get two bills passed at the legislature, he is getting results.”

"Really, he doesn't do any lobbying," Harycki told the St. Paul Pioneer Press, apparently with a straight face. "He doesn't make calls to legislators for us. He tells us what the status of bills are, what some of the pitfalls are that are facing us and who we should call to address those pitfalls or to make that final push."

Although the city's contract states that Campbell's work will be "rendered largely at the Consultant office and at the State of Minnesota Capitol," Harycki told the Pioneer Press: "Usually, a lobbyist will go to the Legislature on your behalf and talk to them--he doesn't do that."

What exactly Campbell is doing for his $1,500 a month in taxpayer "legislative consulting" fees is unclear. Harycki and the Stillwater City Council rejected an attempt to require him to file monthly progress reports with the Council.

According to Council minutes, “Mayor Harycki suggested that any published reporting may impede some of the ongoing discussions.” The contract states only that “The City will rely upon the Consultant to put forth such effort as is reasonably necessary to fulfill the spirit and purpose of the Contract” and that “the nature of the work done by consultant will be reviewed at least quarterly to determine whether work should be deleted or added based upon changed circumstances.”

If Campbell were legally registered as a lobbyist, as it appears he should be, he would be required to keep detailed records of expenditures and file reports with the CFB. According to the CFB Lobbyist Handbook:

Records must be kept separately for administrative lobbying, legislative lobbying or the lobbying of a metropolitan governmental unit in the following categories:
Disbursements for:

• preparing and distributing lobbying materials;
• media advertising;
• telephone and all other communication services;
• postage and distribution costs associated with lobbying activities;
• fees, allowances, public relations campaigns including consulting and other expenses related with those services;
• entertainment;
• food and beverages;
• travel and lodging;
• administrative costs and salary of support staff attributable to lobbying; and
• all other disbursements including general administration and overhead and any other lobbyist disbursements not reported in other categories,
• gifts or benefits paid or given to officials, and
• other sources of funds of more than $500 in a calendar year given for purposes of lobbying, including fees or salary paid to a lobbyist as compensation.

Records must be kept for four years.

As it stands, whatever the public wants to know about what Campbell is doing for $1,500 a month or how he's spending taxpayers' money must be gleaned from his quarterly report filed with the City Council.

For his part, Campbell, a business agent for Cambria. told the Pioneer Press he was perplexed about the CFB complaint.

"It makes it seem as if something dastardly is going on. If I was going to the Capitol and lobbying, I would simply register as a lobbyist. I don't want to register as a lobbyist."

After reviewing the complaint, the CFB will determine whether to proceed with an investigation of the matter. According to the CFB, within 30 days, the board will make a public finding of whether or not there is probable cause to believe a violation has occurred.

When Is a Lobbyist a Lobbyist?

City of Stillwater paying $1,500 a month for "legislative consultant" who isn't a legally registered lobbyist. Does it pass the smell test?

By Karl Bremer

Since April, the City of Stillwater has been paying $1,500 a month to what appears by any definition to be a lobbyist to secure state and federal funding and approval for the Bachmann Boondoggle Bridge and other projects. But neither the lobbyist, Mike Campbell, nor anyone else with his firm, the Conach Group, are registered with the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board (CFB).  In fact, there are no lobbyists representing the City of Stillwater registered with the state at this time.

On April 19, Stillwater entered into an agreement with Michael Campbell of the Conach Group in Stillwater for “Legislative support for the St Croix River Crossing extension of the State Trail system, support for the New Armory Project and Phase III of the Levee Wall project.”

IF IT WALKS LIKE A DUCK

According to the contract with the City, the Conach Group is “To secure the required support of the Federal Government State of Minnesota and any administrative Department of either entity for the approval and funding of the pending St. Croix River Crossing at Stillwater” and “To secure Minnesota Legislative funding for the State purchase of the MN Zephyr Railroad Right of Way as an extension of the State Trail system, support for the New Armory Project and Phase III of the Levy Wall Project." According to the contract, “Consultant services will be rendered largely at the Consultant office and the State of Minnesota Capitol.” 

That sounds a lot like lobbying.

According to the CFB’s Lobbyist Handbook, “You must register as a lobbyist within five days after you … are engaged for pay or other consideration and receive more than $3,000 from all sources in any year, for the purpose of attempting to influence legislative or administrative action or the official action of a metropolitan governmental unit by communicating or urging others to communicate with public officials or local officials in a metropolitan governmental unit.”

A penalty of up to $1,000 can be assessed for failure to file lobbyist registration.

The City of Stillwater has paid Campbell and his group $6,000 to date. 

However, according to the novel assessment of Stillwater Mayor Ken Harycki, Campbell isn’t a lobbyist at all, but a “legislative consultant.” There is a “fine line” between lobbying and legislative consulting, Harycki told the Stillwater Gazette. 

“Campbell is a well-connected person and has helped get two bills passed at the legislature, he is getting results,” Harycki says.

That sounds an awful lot like lobbying, too.

Campbell is a former director of intergovernmental affairs for the City of St. Paul, a job also once held by Michael Wilhelmi, co-chair and registered lobbyist for the Coalition for St. Croix River Crossing. Campbell was appointed to that position by Mayor Norm Coleman, He was director of governmental relations (lobbyist) for the Davis Family Holdings, and is former executive director of the Senate Republican Caucus.

According to Stillwater City Councilor Micky Cook, Campbell “advised” Harycki on his mayoral race and has “advised” other members of the council as well.

Harycki has been trying to get Campbell and his group on the city payroll since at least 2007. At Harycki’s request, according to City Council minutes, Campbell pitched the City of Stillwater on a lobbying proposal in February 2007, but the City balked at taking on a new lobbyist at the start of the legislative session.

Stillwater had contracted with local lobbyist Ed Cain in 2006 at a rate of $75/hour, to a maximum of $46,000 a year. Cain, who was also a lobbyist for the fraudster known as "Bobby Thompson,"  had been paid tens of thousands of dollars over the years to lobby on the city’s behalf, mostly for the Stillwater bridge. However, the city appears to have gotten little for Cain’s efforts. Cain last contracted with the City of Stillwater in 2008, according to CFB records.

Michele Bachmann and Stillwater lobbyist Ed Cain

Campbell’s 2007 proposal to the City for “State and Federal legislative services” stated they would “meet with all levels of elected officials their staffs and governmental officials to advocate for the listed and approved legislative agenda,” which included funding for the Stillwater bridge.

That also sounds a lot like a lobbyist.

In his 2007 proposal for “State and Federal legislative services,” Campbell lists himself, former state representative Tom Osthoff and former General Mills and Gelco executive Jack Bell as principals in the Conach group. However, there are no records of state lobbyist registrations for any of them on file with the CFB as far back as 2005. 

COOK GRILLS HARYCKI AND HANSEN

Campbell’s hiring didn’t come without considerable discussion, raised chiefly by Cook, the City Council’s lone Bachmann Boondoggle critic.

Cook questioned the qualifications of the group and suggested that due diligence be done before hiring them. But City Administrator Larry Hansen and Mayor Harycki rose to Campbell’s defense, citing Campbell’s past volunteer work on the Brown’s Creek project and the fact that Campbell has “lots of connections.”

Cook questioned the lack of competitive bidding for the position and, according to minutes from the April 19 Council meeting, Hansen “noted that the City did go through the interview and RFP process for lobbying services a number of years ago and he was not very impressed with many of the candidates and the costs considerably higher.”

Cook also challenged the transparency of the process and the position. She argued that the contract language describing the time devoted to work was vague and ambiguous and suggested that Campbell provide the City with monthly reports on what the group was working on. Cook was concerned that the bulk of the work would be done on the Bachmann Boondoggle at the expense of the armory, Zephyr trail and levee projects, which she supported.

But according to Council minutes, “Mayor Harycki suggested that any published reporting may impede some of the ongoing discussions,” so that was rejected. The contract states only that “The City will rely upon the Consultant to put forth such effort as is reasonably necessary to fulfill the spirit and purpose of the Contract” and that “the nature of the work done by consultant will be reviewed at least quarterly to determine whether work should be deleted or added based upon changed circumstances.”

In the end, the only change to Campbell’s contract was to adjust the time required to terminate the contract from 90 days to 60 days—a move that Harycki initially resisted. The contract sailed through the Council with Cook casting the only dissenting vote.

THE SMELL TEST

With no accountability or transparency, it’s difficult to determine exactly what Stillwater is getting for its $1,500 a month in “legislative support.” It’s even more difficult to figure out how one works “to secure the required support of the Federal Government, State of Minnesota and any administrative Department of either entity for the approval and funding of the pending St. Croix River Crossing at Stillwater” without lobbying.

Mayor Harycki says there is a “fine line” between lobbying and legislative consulting. It will be interesting to see what the Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board makes of Harycki’s balancing act.

Something smells rotten in Stillwater, and it ain’t dead sheepshead on the beach.

UPDATE, JULY 27, 2011:

Ripple in Stillwater author Karl Bremer has filed a formal complaint with the Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board (CFB) over the alleged lobbying of unregistered lobbyist Mike Campbell on behalf of the City of Stillwater. After reviewing the complaint, the CFB will determine whether to proceed with an investigation of the matter. According to the CFB, within 30 days, the board will make a public finding of whether or not there is probable cause to believe a violation has occurred.

Also, a check of federal lobbyist records shows no record of lobbyist registration for Mike Campbell or The Conach Group at either the U.S. Senate or U.S. House of Representatives.

Top photo: Stillwater Mayor Ken Harycki, right, walks lockstep with Gov. Mark Dayton, Michele Bachmann, and husband and political strategist Marcus Bachmann on a tour of the Stillwater Lift Bridge.

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann finds her way back to her district

By Karl Bremer

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann is scheduled to breeze through the district she purportedly represents on Friday, March 18, to pimp for the billion-dollar Bachmann Boondoggle freeway bridge across the St. Croix River. Bachmann will be meeting with Gov. Mark Dayton and Stillwater Mayor Ken Harycki in downtown Stillwater at 12:15 p.m. for a 45-minute tour of the historic lift bridge that crosses the river at Chestnut Street.

Bachmann and her cohorts have been spreading misinformation about the proposed four-lane, 65-mph bridge, and often can't even get their stories straight. But that may be catching up with them.

Bachmann has accused "radical environmental groups" of distorting what her legislation to circumvent the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, the courts and the National Park Service would do. She insists that it doesn't exempt the new bridge from the Act at all.

But Harycki, the bridge's biggest local cheerleader, on March 14 argued that nothing can be done about building a bridge without an exemption from the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. He also claimed that traffic on the I-94 bridge would be "gridlocked to St. Paul" without a new bridge at Stillwater.

However, Harycki's hyperbole failed to convince the Stillwater City Council to pass a resolution supporting Bachmann's legislation. It was tabled until the next meeting.

Michele Bachmann, bridge advocates play loose with the facts on the St. Croix River

Bachmann fear-mongers about 'radical environmentalists' while pro-development bridge coalition cites phony precedents.

By Karl Bremer

A river of misinformation and smears is flowing from Congresswoman Michele Bachmann and other proponents of a massive new freeway bridge over the federally protected St. Croix River at Stillwater.

Bachmann charges that opposition to the new bridge is coming from “radical environmental groups.” She took time out from the Tea Party rubber-chicken circuit last month to breeze by the capitol and drop a bill in the hopper to exempt the St. Croix River from the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.

Meanwhile, the fledgling Coalition for St. Croix River Crossing, a pro-bridge consortium of St. Croix Valley government and business groups on both sides of the river, is touting two previous projects exempted from the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act as being comparable to the proposed Stillwater bridge when, in fact, the exemptions weren’t even for bridges. They were for projects designed to preserve the fisheries of two protected rivers and had absolutely nothing to do with transportation.

But that hasn’t stopped the coalition from perpetuating this myth through the media, presenting it as precedent for exempting the Bachmann Boondoggle from the Act.

‘RADICAL ENVIRONMENTALISTS’
Alarmed that “radical environmental groups” were in our midst, I decided to contact one of them: the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA). The NPCA was established in 1919—three years after the National Park Service came into being—to serve as an advocate for the protection of America’s national parks. The NPCA Midwest Office oversees 48 National Park sites in 11 states, including the 93,000-acre St. Croix National Scenic Riverway.

“We aren’t an environmental group,” says NPCA Midwest Regional Director Lynn McClure. “We were established in 1919 by the director of the Park Service as an independent organization fulfilling the function of advocate/watchdog for the parks. We did some educational outreach for the Park Service originally. But today, we’re the only dedicated national group that is the voice of the National Parks in Washington.”

Just how radical are they?

“I’d wager we have more Republicans on our board than Democrats,” McClure says. “It’s pretty darn close. We have a lot of fiscally conservative Republicans on our board. But they understand the preservation side of things and they will stand with the parks. They’re not banging the radical environmental drum.”

The NPCA was one of 26 state and national organizations that sent a letter to Governor Mark Dayton last month urging him to “shelve plans for a new bridge that would cost over $640 million, damage the Riverway’s scenic and natural resources, and accelerate sprawl into rural western Wisconsin. Instead,” the groups asked, “we urge you to quickly seize this opportunity to identify, with leadership from the Minnesota Department of Transportation and in collaboration with stakeholders, an alternative proposal for a new, modestly-scaled bridge – one that would dramatically reduce the impact on the Lower St. Croix, while serving the needs of Minnesota and Wisconsin residents and saving taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. At the same time, we urge you to oppose efforts to move the current unworkable proposal forward.”

Dayton responded that “all possibilities have been reopened for consideration” with regard to bridge options.

“Our first instincts are to find the best solutions that both protect the national parks and bring a local community together around it,” says McClure. “We understand the role national parks can play in economic development. But sometimes, you have to say you need to weigh in on this picture.”

The St. Croix River long has been considered one of the more unique rivers in the Wild and Scenic Rivers system because of its close proximity to a major metropolitan area.

“That’s primarily the reason we got involved in the bridge issue,” McClure explains. “The St. Croix is an extreme point of pride for the National Park Service.” When she’s in Washington, McClure says, the St. Croix is often mentioned in the same breath as Yellowstone or Glacier national parks. “The director understands the critical nature of this bridge if it were to go in.”

The Wild and Scenic Rivers system, created in 1968, protects more than 11,000 miles of 166 rivers in 38 states and Puerto Rico—barely more than one-quarter of 1 percent of the nation's rivers. The Upper St. Croix, from its source to Taylor’s Falls, was among the first rivers designated under the Act; the Lower St. Croix, from Taylor’s Falls to Prescott, WI, was added to the system in 1972.

“You don’t grant exemptions to the Act lightly,” McClure stresses.

FISHERIES PROJECTS AREN’T BRIDGES
Which brings us to the exemptions hailed by the Coalition for St. Croix River Crossing as precedents for granting an exemption to the Act for the proposed four-lane, 65-mph freeway bridge at Stillwater.

William Rubin is executive director of the St. Croix Economic Development Corporation (EDC) in Hudson and a member of the Coalition for St. Croix River Crossing. The Coalition was incorporated in Minnesota in December 2010 and lists the Stillwater City Hall as its address.

The St. Croix EDC website features a news release detailing the pro-bridge coalition’s goals and notes that two previous exemptions have been granted from the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Other news reports about the Coalition state that the two exempted projects were “similar” to the proposed Stillwater bridge, or that they actually were for bridges.

When I asked Rubin for specifics about the previous two exemptions from the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act that his group cited, he didn’t have a clue as to what they were.

“Maybe you should ask the Department of Transportation,” he replied.

When reminded that the reference to the exemptions was information put out by his group, and not the Department of Transportation, Rubin became irritated.

“We deal in economic development here. Maybe our journalistic skills aren’t all that they should be,” Rubin says.

There’s a good reason why Rubin wouldn’t want to talk about the exemptions: because they don’t even remotely resemble the proposed Stillwater bridge project, and couldn’t under any reasonable circumstances be compared to it.

According to Dan Haas, U.S. Fish & Wildlife planner who sits on the federal Interagency Wild and Scenic River Coordinating Council, “There have been only two exemptions to the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act after the fact.” Neither of them were bridges, nor were they even transportation-related.

One exemption was for a sea lamprey barrier on the Pere Marquette River in Michigan. This electric fish barrier features bottom-mounted electrodes on a wooden deck. It works in conjunction with a fish bypass channel and lamprey trap to block upstream migration of Atlantic sea lamprey into trout spawning habitat on the river. The lamprey are diverted, trapped and electrocuted, eliminating the need for chemicals to rid the river of them.

The other exemption was for a temperature control tower built upstream from Cougar Dam on the South Fork of the McKenzie River in Oregon. The tower takes in warmer waters from the surface of Cougar Reservoir above the dam to maintain consistent temperatures downstream from the dam. This allowed for the return and revitalization of Chinook salmon populations on the South Fork of the McKenzie, which had stopped migrating up the river due to cold waters flowing out from the bottom of the reservoir following construction of the dam in 1963. The reservoir was drained for the tower’s construction but once it was refilled, the tower was submerged.

The only bridges that have been built over designated Wild and Scenic Rivers have been built in the same corridor as the old bridge, and then the old bridge was torn down upon completion of the new one.

BACHMANN NEEDS A HISTORY LESSON
Rubin and the Coalition for St. Croix River Crossing aren’t the only bridge proponents misrepresenting the facts. Not surprisingly, Bachmann is playing fast and loose with them as well.

Besides painting opponents of her billion-dollar boondoggle as “radical environmentalists,” Bachmann also claims her critics are lying about what her bill would do.

“It has also been claimed that my bill exempts the Lower St. Croix from the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act,” says Bachmann. “This is wrong. My bill points to the 2005 National Park Service decision stating the proposed four-lane bridge construction is consistent with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act … These groups and I may never agree on what the river crossing should look like, but I am calling on them to stop lying about my legislation.”

Evidently, Bachmann’s pals in the Coalition to Support St. Croix Crossing didn’t get her memo. In its news release, it states that the group “will work with federal legislators from Wisconsin and Minnesota and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to exempt the river crossing from the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.”

While Bachmann would prefer that the history of the National Park Service and the Stillwater bridge began in 2005, the fact is, the NPS opposed the bridge in 1996 before it supported it in 2005. It’s no coincidence that the NPS reversed itself during the Bush Administration, yet Bachmann was silent on that flip-flop.

In a lawsuit filed by the Sierra Club, U.S. District Judge Michael Davis ruled in March 2010 that the NPS 2005 policy reversal ignored its 1996 decision against a similar bridge and must be revisited. Upon review of the 2005 decision, the NPS announced last fall that it had determined that the bridge as proposed could not be built without causing “direct and adverse effects that cannot be avoided or eliminated,” a violation of Section 7(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.

So Bachmann not only is seeking to exempt the bridge from the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act by declaring its most recent application null and void, she apparently is trying to exempt the project from judicial review as well.

Last year Bachmann sent a letter to House Natural Resources Committee Chair Nick Rahall sounding the alarm about “the growing trend of radical environmentalist groups like the Sierra Club abusing the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to pursue their ideological ends” and suggesting “possible revisions to the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to ensure it is not misused.”

Bachmann’s legislative end-run on the courts, the NPS and the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act is only the latest salvo in this long-running battle to preserve the St. Croix River and the integrity of the Act itself. Bachmann introduced essentially the same bill last year and attracted no co-sponsors. This year, Wisconsin Republican Sean Duffy and Wisconsin Democrat Ron Kind have signed on.

Bridge opponents can take heart in the fact that despite her high visibility as self-appointed Congressional leader of the Tea Party caucus, the ineffective Bachmann has not passed one piece of legislation in her entire congressional career; her tenure in the Minnesota State Senate was equally nonproductive.

There’s also the niggling little detail of the bridge’s $700 million-and-climbing price tag, which flies in the face of Bachmann’s alleged fiscal conservatism. The federal government is hardly flush with cash these days, and neither Minnesota nor Wisconsin has a few hundred million lying around for anything, let alone a bridge whose need is dubious.

Ironically, a little over a year ago, Bachmann wrote in an op/ed article: “When will the President and Democrat (sic) leadership learn that spending money we don’t have isn’t always the remedy to fix whatever problem confronts us?”

And while Bachmann now claims that the new bridge is needed to create jobs, in that same op/ed piece, she railed against President Obama for making the same claim:

“A federal spending surge of more than $20 billion for roads and bridges in President Obama's first stimulus has had NO EFFECT on local unemployment rates, raising questions about his argument for billions more to address an ‘urgent need to accelerate job growth,’" Bachmann wrote.

If the latest pronouncements from disingenuous pro-bridge forces are any indication, the arguments for building the Bachmann Boondoggle are likely to get even more specious.

"I don't see Michele and that group backing down," says the NPCA’s McClure. But she remains optimistic given the latest turn of events.

“I think it would behoove everyone to take a step back and look at the transportation issues,” says McClure.

She points to alternatives like the replacement bridges that were built over other Wild and Scenic Rivers—called “low and slow” bridges because they cross at river level rather than bluff level, and are built for slower traffic speeds to minimize their impact on the river.

“I do think there’s a solution out there,” she concludes.

TOP PHOTO: Visualization of proposed four-lane freeway bridge over the St. Croix River as seen from a Wisconsin aerial view. Image by Minnesota DOT.

MIDDLE PHOTO: Sea lamprey barrier on the Wild & Scenic Pere Marquette River in Michigan.

BOTTOM PHOTO: Cougar Dam Temperature Control Tower on Cougar Reservoir on the Wild & Scenic South Fork of the McKenzie River in Oregon.

HERE ARE YOUR 'RADICAL ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS'

The following organizations signed the Minnesota Environmental Partnership letter to Gov. Dayton urging him to oppose the Stillwater bridge as proposed and seek less intrusive alternatives. Judge for yourself how "radical" they are:

1000 Friends of Minnesota

Alliance for Metropolitan Stability

Alliance for Sustainability

Carpenter St. Croix Valley Nature Center

Conservation Minnesota

Duluth Audubon Society

Environmental Law and Policy Center

Fresh Energy

Friends of the Mississippi River

League of Women Voters Minnesota

Mankato Area Environmentalists

Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy

Minnesota Food Association

Minnesota Ornithologists Union

National Parks Conservation Association

Parks and Trails Council of Minnesota

River Alliance of Wisconsin

St. Croix River Association

St. Croix Scenic Coalition

St. Paul Audubon Society

Sierra Club John Muir Chapter

Sierra Club North Star Chapter

Smart Growth America

Take Action-Conserve Our Scandia

Transit for Liveable Communities