Almanac; No. 543; 1989-07-07

<v Speaker>Almanac is a production of K T.C.A. <v Speaker>TV for stations of the Minnesota Public Television Association. <v Jan Smaby>Well, we've looked at the TV Guide tonight, and believe me, there's nothing else on but <v Jan Smaby>bad reruns. And we have plenty to keep your attention. <v Jan Smaby>We'll jump into the big fight over whether Hudson, Wisconsin will get a dog racing track. <v Jan Smaby>Then St. Paul Mayor George Latimer will square off with State Human Rights Commissioner <v Jan Smaby>Stephen Cooper over St. Paul's much contested firefighters test. <v Jan Smaby>We'll even take a bite of what may be the last chunk of the salmonella story. <v Jan Smaby>All that and sports geek J.G. Preston too its another of Friday fun we call <v Jan Smaby>almanac. <v Speaker>Funding for Almanac is provided in part by Larkin, Hoffman, Daly and Lindgren attorneys

<v Speaker>at Law. Serving clients from offices in Bloomington, Minneapolis, and Coon Rapids. <v Speaker>Norstan Inc. A distributor for telecommunications equipment products including <v Speaker>IBM. Grant Thornton. <v Speaker>Accountants and management consultants for America's middle-market. <v Speaker>Our business is knowing yours. <v Speaker>Minnesota's credit unions. People helping people. <v Speaker>Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota providing more than a million Minnesotans <v Speaker>with the care behind the card. <v Speaker>And Gabberts Furniture and design studio of idina. <v Speaker>There is no place like home, and there is no place like Gabberts. <v Speaker>Art's reporting on Almanac is presented through a grand from Super America and <v Speaker>its ninety five employee-operated stores throughout Minnesota. <v Mark Pearson>Hello, I'm Mark Pearson, farmer and agricultural commentator for Almanac. <v Mark Pearson>For most of my life, I've been involved in agriculture. <v Mark Pearson>I've been through the ups and downs of the cattle, hog, corn and wheat cycles.

<v Mark Pearson>I've also seen various government farm programs come and go. <v Mark Pearson>Some years the government wants us to produce more corn, or more soybeans or more wheat. <v Mark Pearson>The next year, they tell us to plant less corn, less soybeans, less wheat. <v Mark Pearson>I'm afraid these simple, carefree days are over. <v Mark Pearson>It was announced and signed into law by the head of the Environmental Protection Agency <v Mark Pearson>this week that the use and production of asbestos would be outlawed over the next seven <v Mark Pearson>years because the relationship between exposure to asbestos and cancer. <v Mark Pearson>Now, let me tell you about the economic impact of government mandated reductions in <v Mark Pearson>agricultural production. And I assume this is going to be true for asbestos when farmers <v Mark Pearson>reduce production of crops. Pretty soon, the small rural communities begin to feel the <v Mark Pearson>impact. The seed salesman sells less seed. <v Mark Pearson>The fertilizer dealer sells less fertilizer, farm equipment store sells less farm <v Mark Pearson>equipment. Pretty soon there are fewer hogs and cattle going to market and then fewer <v Mark Pearson>farmers. The impact of government bans and production reductions is called the ripple <v Mark Pearson>effect. And now asbestos producers are being hit not just with the reduction,

<v Mark Pearson>but a total ban. I shudder to think what the impact this ban is going to have <v Mark Pearson>on asbestos producers and their allied industries. <v Mark Pearson>Asbestos is in everything, our schools our homes our churches our offices. <v Mark Pearson>It's used everywhere and now it's banned. <v Mark Pearson>Think of the impact on asbestos mining areas and the asbestos manufacturing hubs around <v Mark Pearson>our nation. But the real loss of asbestos will reach deep into the fiber of America's <v Mark Pearson>health care communities. Terribly out of work. <v Mark Pearson>Oncologists respiratory therapist will be joining the ranks of the homeless, fighting for <v Mark Pearson>space on a park bench with university medical researchers. <v Mark Pearson>The ripple effect of the government asbestos ban could wreak total havoc on the nation's <v Mark Pearson>huge medical industrial complex. <v Mark Pearson>Why? if we're not careful. Major medical insurance rates might actually decline. <v Mark Pearson>God forbid there might be fewer lawyers. <v Mark Pearson>What would that mean to the state's economy? <v Mark Pearson>How would they fill office space in the World Trade Center? <v Mark Pearson>Now there's still time for action. I formed an activist group called Save Our Asses <v Mark Pearson>Bestos. We can't let the government ban asbestos before you know it. <v Mark Pearson>They'll try and ban something as safe and innocuous as cigarettes.

<v Eric Eskola>Well, here are some of the news items that Minnesotans we're talking about this week, a <v Eric Eskola>national news story, of course, predominated the news Monday, Supreme Court ruling on <v Eric Eskola>abortion. And we'll be talking more about that later. <v Eric Eskola>St. Paul police officer Robert Coon's made news this week and I bet he wishes <v Eric Eskola>he didn't. The head of the St. Paul Police Union, Coon's, was suspended after testing <v Eric Eskola>positive for DWI after having a car accident on the job last weekend. <v Eric Eskola>And several other police officers are under investigation for their handling of the case.

<v Eric Eskola>The threatened Wednesday strike by MTC drivers did not materialize this week. <v Eric Eskola>A last minute offer by management was accepted by the union's board, and drivers now <v Eric Eskola>will vote on it this weekend. In cultural news, thursday, Ado Dewaart <v Eric Eskola>signed on for another term as the conductor of the Minnesota Orchestra. <v Eric Eskola>And we start tonight with another story making the rounds today. <v Eric Eskola>St. Paul Mayor George Latimer announcing that he wants to thaw the hiring freeze <v Eric Eskola>of 25 St. Paul firefighters. <v Eric Eskola>The hirings were put on hold last summer after a lawsuit was filed by the state <v Eric Eskola>charging that the fire department has a test that is unfair to women <v Eric Eskola>candidates. Mayor Latimer says the department needs the firefighters now. <v Eric Eskola>And George Latimer joins us this evening, as does the state human rights commissioner, <v Eric Eskola>Stephen Cooper. <v Eric Eskola>Say, Mayor, you're short staffed on a fire department and there's been this story about <v Eric Eskola>nine, one, one, and you need more people for that. <v Eric Eskola>But this has been brewing for months and months now. <v Eric Eskola>Can't you two guys get together, write a test that the commissioner will accept and ha-

<v Eric Eskola>hire some women and go put out the fires? What's holding this up? <v George Latimer>Well, it's very complicated. <v George Latimer>The negotiations have gone on between the attorney general's office and the city <v George Latimer>attorney's office. And there's always hope something might come out of that. <v George Latimer>Meanwhile, we've got a city to run and we've got to make sure the public safety is <v George Latimer>protected. And it's pretty clear that we now have 30 openings <v George Latimer>not filled. We have the risk of as many as 60 <v George Latimer>going into 1990 that will be unfilled. <v George Latimer>That comes to almost one third of the number of people on the street putting <v George Latimer>out fires and and helping people who need medical help. <v George Latimer>So what we've got is a combination of the prospect of increased <v George Latimer>stress and the paramedics. We now have a shorter number of <v George Latimer>people available, an awful lot more money paying for overtime, <v George Latimer>which is incredible amount of cost. <v George Latimer>Last August, when we were before the court, the court, we <v George Latimer>asked if we could hire the twenty five and then go on with the litigation.

<v George Latimer>The court said that they wouldn't they would hold the hiring at that <v George Latimer>time. The court left open the possibility that if the matter got <v George Latimer>worse or grave, that we should come forward. <v George Latimer>We're now doing that. And that's the issue now. <v Jan Smaby>Commissioner, Mr. Cooper. Yeah. Given these dire problems, would you try and stop this <v Jan Smaby>effort to lift the freeze, at least on a temporary basis? <v Speaker>Do you think public safety is a joke? <v Stephen Cooper>Well, I think there's two very important points. <v Stephen Cooper>The first important point right now. St. Paul has more firefighters per capital per <v Stephen Cooper>capita than does Minneapolis. <v Stephen Cooper>St. Paul claim that they have a shortage of firefighters is far from persuasive, <v Stephen Cooper>particularly to the fact that it was a very similar ploy that was used years ago when the <v Stephen Cooper>court ordered breakdown of racial discrimination in St. Paul. <v Stephen Cooper>And after that time, when a bunch of people were hired, supposedly the next test was <v Stephen Cooper>going to be fear. It was six or seven years later before the next hiring took place. <v Stephen Cooper>The second thing I'd like to point out is it's been, as was pointed out in your initial <v Stephen Cooper>question. It's been almost a year, actually, more than a year now since the inaccuracy <v Stephen Cooper>of this test came to light. The city's own consultant said the test is no good.

<v Stephen Cooper>The court concluded the test was no good. <v Stephen Cooper>Our investigation concluded the test was no good. <v Stephen Cooper>It would take St. Paul about a month to do the test. <v Stephen Cooper>Right. It could have last June had new firefighters if it needed. <v Stephen Cooper>Last August, last, you know, each and every month. <v Stephen Cooper>Right now, if the city of St. Paul is serious about having a shortage of a shortage <v Stephen Cooper>of firefighters. Mayor Latimer and myself. <v Stephen Cooper>And go get a beer afterwards, sit down and talk this thing through. <v Stephen Cooper>I have the real problem is that St. Paul has basically taken no action <v Stephen Cooper>to correct this problem as long as they take no action. <v Stephen Cooper>The problem's going to continue. <v Speaker>Fellows are come from the St.- neither of you wants discrimination against women. <v Speaker>You fight your whole careers for end of that type of discrimination. <v Speaker>Mayor, why can't there be a test where some women firefighters can be hired? <v Speaker>What's the problem? <v Speaker>The intention was, in fact, we had 19 applicants and I had every hope <v Speaker>that there'd be all kinds of people would pass. <v Speaker>Women didn't pass. May I make a few comments about the last few comments <v Speaker>the commissioner made? Go ahead. It's unfair to compare with Minneapolis. <v Speaker>Minneapolis does not deliver paramedic service.

<v Speaker>You should understand that. You should understand, therefore, that comparison of the <v Speaker>personnel available is not accurate. <v Speaker>Secondly, they might not the bit about the 10 second. <v Speaker>Shall I stop? Now, how are you doing? <v Speaker>The second point is that the court did not determine that the test was in fact <v Speaker>wrong or false. <v Speaker>The court said that there's probable cause sufficient. <v Speaker>To undertake the trial, we want the trial to occur. <v Speaker>The trial is taken longer than I ever hoped. <v Speaker>I would love to see the test approved if the test isn't approved. <v Speaker>Then I say, let's get on with it. I'm happy to have a new test administered if there's a <v Speaker>bad one right there now. I'm happy to see everybody go to work that we need to go <v Speaker>to work right now. There isn't any reason you shouldn't agree with us. <v Speaker>Let the twenty five be hired. There'll be plenty of jobs open, including the lid again <v Speaker>that you represent. So why don't you agree to that? <v Speaker>We'll get on with. <v Speaker>There's actually that there's there's some excellent reasons, George. <v Speaker>And let's go back a couple of things you just said.

<v Speaker>First of all, it's entertaining to me that you give the same test for paramedics and for <v Speaker>dispatchers as you do for firefighters right off the top. <v Speaker>You know, you've got a problem there. Second of all, it's interesting to me that you <v Speaker>changed what the court actually said. <v Speaker>We were going for an injunction in court, not the right to go to trial. <v Speaker>We already had the right to go to trial when we went for the injunction. <v Speaker>You presented your evidence. We presented ours. <v Speaker>You read the court's finding. The court's finding was that the evidence was there to <v Speaker>conclude that an injunction should be issued. <v Speaker>And why did they conclude that they concluded that? <v Speaker>Because, as you know, you've got a terrible test. <v Speaker>You don't have a bad test. You have a terrible test. <v Speaker>You have a test. <v Speaker>No, we don't. We have a test to see if it's serious work. <v Speaker>You know, honestly, you know, we worked on that test for a year and we'll find out <v Speaker>whether good or not when we go to trial, we know you don't have a good test. <v Speaker>Why no women then? But but that has got to bother you Mayor Latimer, again given your <v Speaker>history <v Speaker>Isn't fair to say why no women. <v Speaker>I know I have a good test and we haven't trained the women well enough to pass it <v Speaker>and we had to do better at training. Don't throw out the test until we have finally ruled <v Speaker>on it. We haven't had that ruling yet. And by the way, you added one more outrageous

<v Speaker>statement. You just said there's something terrible about training for a paramedic <v Speaker>or firefighter. <v Speaker>You know, there's something terrible about it. <v Speaker>Said you say something deeply wrong. <v Speaker>Using the same technique, do people get something terribly wrong? <v Speaker>No. What I said was one of the five years I was saying take a number. <v Speaker>All three major functions. Now, let me let me finish. <v Speaker>You you quoted the consultant. The consultant said that cross training now <v Speaker>going on is the best in the nation. <v Speaker>Training them for all. And you're saying that we shouldn't be doing that? <v Speaker>Doesn't make any sense. <v Speaker>Somebody said to Commissioner Cooper, you said in your opening comments that the two <v Speaker>of you could go out after the show and probably reach some agreement. <v Speaker>What would you want me or Latimer do to agree to that would allow you to stop <v Speaker>fighting? <v Speaker>Maybe we can make a deal. <v Speaker>The first thing I'd want Mayor Latimer to agree to is what the city refused to do before <v Speaker>the city, when we attempt to negotiate it before, refused to discuss any of the key <v Speaker>issues. They first of all, refused to discuss whether or not the 25 people <v Speaker>who passed this faulty test would or would not be hired.

<v Speaker>They, second of all, refused to discuss whether or not rank ordering would or would not <v Speaker>be used. And what's the rank ordering is the decision that when you have that in <v Speaker>order for a test to be able to be drawn and quartered, you have to show that somebody <v Speaker>with a ninety one, in fact, is better able to do the job than somebody with a 90. <v Speaker>This test was not a test that you can say that about. <v Speaker>Those are the first two issues. The third issue and perhaps the most important issue is <v Speaker>let's decide now what we're going to do to make this test work in the future. <v Speaker>Let's not do what George says, which is give us everything we want now. <v Speaker>We'll talk to you later about what you want. Let's put it all on the table. <v Speaker>Let's hammer it all up and let's get this thing done. <v Speaker>We should've done you know that a month ago, the Supreme Court in the Birmingham <v Speaker>case said that a third party litigant can come forward <v Speaker>and vacate a settlement agreed to. <v Speaker>I am prepared to make a deal with you right now in front of maybe a hundred thousand <v Speaker>people who ought to be out fishing instead of listening to us. <v Speaker>And here's the deal. I'm willing to recommend that we hire the twenty <v Speaker>five people that we arbitrate. <v Speaker>What a perfect test is. And we proceed to hire anyone who pass

<v Speaker>that test, including the people you represent. <v Speaker>So no one be unfairly prohibited. <v Speaker>And I'm ready to do that. Now, if we do that tonight, with or without beer, you can have <v Speaker>beer. I for my part. <v Speaker>Water has always been fine for me. <v Speaker>But anyway, if you're to be serious, if we agreed on that, you know, <v Speaker>the Birmingham ruling and you know that the firefighters union will have a separate <v Speaker>cause of action to bring against us for any people who are not hired <v Speaker>because of a violation of a collective bargaining agreement or because of any other rules <v Speaker>the union can implement. Now, you know, that's the rule under Birmingham. <v Speaker>Anything there he just said that you could agree with? <v Speaker>So how do you how do you act out really just public deals? <v Speaker>Me when you know, I'd be happy to make you agree with anything that you just laid on. <v Speaker>Absolutely not. <v Speaker>As he well knows, first of all, once again, you started off with give me everything I <v Speaker>want first and then I'll talk to you about what you want. <v Speaker>That's not a deal. Tell me about the settlement. Let me finish. <v Speaker>And I talk. Let's talk about the Birmingham case in this particular action. <v Speaker>The union is a party. Let's also point out the fact that we were supposed to go to trial <v Speaker>this week. It wasn't because the state didn't want to go to trial.

<v Speaker>It's because the union in the city wanted to continue to October. <v Speaker>We were ready to go to trial three days from now. <v Speaker>We still are ready to go to trial three days from now. <v Speaker>It's you guys that aren't. Now, I'm telling you, you know, this telephone's well, we'll <v Speaker>get union reps down there, too. But the reality is, as you know, the unions are not <v Speaker>interested in settling this. <v Speaker>And I'm not too persuaded the city is interested in settling, the union believes that <v Speaker>we're going to prevail on all the points. <v Speaker>The union has got the local ordinance on its side and they want to proceed <v Speaker>all the way. We can make any kind of an agreement we have, as you know, and it's not <v Speaker>going to hold up if the union doesn't stand. <v Speaker>That's why we want to have an early hearing. <v Speaker>Far as I don't think I can argue with you about how long the lawyers have taken, I <v Speaker>haven't been involved in all that. Your lawyers have had all kinds of depositions and <v Speaker>they went on forever. <v Speaker>So I'm not going to argue with you or the guys who wanted to continue it. <v Speaker>Not us. Well, I don't think that we asked for a continuance joining the unions. <v Speaker>It doesn't sound like we've reached an agreement this evening. <v Speaker>But may I ask one final question before we close out? <v Speaker>And that is on a different topic. <v Speaker>Mayor, as long as we have you here, are you satisfied with the way in which the

<v Speaker>police department handled the arrest of Officer Coon's? <v Speaker>And do you believe there is a wider problem of drinking among police officers? <v Speaker>I don't. I don't have any evidence that there is any kind of a wide problem <v Speaker>of drinking in the police department. And as far as the way it's being handled, the <v Speaker>process is working very well. The chief has stepped in, suspended <v Speaker>several people, is calling for an internal investigation. <v Speaker>I have no judgment to make as to who acted well or badly. <v Speaker>And I think it's premature for anyone, the public or anyone else to assume <v Speaker>guilt. And if the process will work and I can guarantee you it will work well. <v Speaker>Little late developments in both instances. <v Speaker>Thanks, fellas. Appreciate extravagance. <v Speaker>Well, the dog days of summer came a bit early this year to the town of Hudson,

<v Speaker>Wisconsin. For months now, town residents have been snarling over <v Speaker>whether their town should have a dog racing track. <v Speaker>And the resulting dog fight has brought about a lawsuit. <v Speaker>A recall petition against the mayor and police officers detaining members <v Speaker>of the city council. You might say, in fact, we're sort of forced to say <v Speaker>that life in the normally relatively quiet Wisconsin town has gone <v Speaker>to the dogs. If only the issue was lighthearted. <v Speaker>Is this. With us tonight to talk about the proposed racetrack is Bruce <v Speaker>Muffett, a leader of the anti track group CCR D. <v Speaker>Burt Nordstrand is also here. A Hudson businessman, Nordstrom heads <v Speaker>Croixland Properties, the track developers. <v Speaker>Gentlemen, thank you for joining us. <v Speaker>Mr. Nordstrom, could we begin with you? <v Speaker>Could you briefly outline what the plan is for the dog racing track and Hudson? <v Speaker>Yes, I'd be happy to. The plan is a 400 acre site that <v Speaker>we have developed. That's got to be right off Carmike later.

<v Speaker>Change and new area change that has long been planned for the city of Hudson. <v Speaker>It's a unique opportunity in the fact that this land is available <v Speaker>for commercial industrial development. <v Speaker>Play on our property has long been planned to be developed that way by the city <v Speaker>of Hudson and Criden Properties, which is <v Speaker>proposing dog track called St. Croix. <v Speaker>Meadows is offering the acre to make that happen. <v Speaker>We have the city as committee, a commitment to put in a bypass <v Speaker>off of this interchange. <v Speaker>That bypass would have to be paid by the taxpayers. <v Speaker>If they didn't have a major anchor like Sacremento. <v Speaker>And so what we're doing, what we're proposing is a <v Speaker>large development for the people of Hudson, for the city of Hudson. <v Speaker>It's going to lower the tax base in the city. <v Speaker>We have one of the highest tax bases in the nation, a hundred thousand our home <v Speaker>in the city of Hudson. The taxes on that is thirty one hundred dollars. <v Speaker>Experts have told us that this proposal will lower that by 20 percent.

<v Speaker>We're going to create five hundred jobs just for the dog track itself, total economic <v Speaker>development during a total economic impact of one hundred and thirty five million <v Speaker>dollars. It's a significant development. <v Speaker>I've been a developer in Hudson for 20 years. <v Speaker>I've been involved in the historic district in downtown Hudson Bay, commercial <v Speaker>district on the Hill. And I know what the people of Hudson need. <v Speaker>I listen to a lot of street. <v Speaker>Each day I know the people. And this proposal is an opportunity to <v Speaker>keep a lot of the commitments the city has made. <v Speaker>And and we're very proud of it. <v Speaker>Mr. Moffitt, why are you raining on this parade? <v Speaker>It sounds like it's the greatest thing ever to hit your town. <v Speaker>Well, I don't think the facts actually are as well represented in <v Speaker>in racing boards, environmental assessments, summary as Burt would suggest. <v Speaker>And that is that there's going to be no tax advantage to the <v Speaker>local residents. And that is stated clearly. <v Speaker>And to suggest that there is property tax relief just is not correct and fair.

<v Speaker>That's a promise that won't come true. And the racing board has put that in their summary <v Speaker>assessment of the allocation. <v Speaker>The racing board feels that with the investment that the city and the services that <v Speaker>will be required will wash out any windfall tax relief. <v Speaker>The other thing is that it's important to realize in the state of Wisconsin that there's <v Speaker>an equalization that occurs. So as you increase your tax base, that equation changes. <v Speaker>And so you really can't necessarily develop your way out of property tax <v Speaker>or into property tax relief. <v Speaker>Is it dog racing? Let's say that you're opposed to or is it a development of this size <v Speaker>that would suck up these resources that you. <v Speaker>I think our opposition is is well, based on what the the racing board has said in their <v Speaker>mind, mental assessment summary, and that is that we'll have traffic conditions <v Speaker>similar to what you experienced in downtown St. Paul during rush hour. <v Speaker>We will have no tax advantage. The suggestion that just this interchange and road <v Speaker>leading to the site, in fact, would be paid for the developer is simply not true. <v Speaker>The obligation from the city is in excess of eight hundred thousand dollars.

<v Speaker>That's quite an impact. The core issue here is that the Hudson residents <v Speaker>simply don't want a dog track. <v Speaker>And that was true when we surveyed them and had a market research company tabulate those <v Speaker>results back in August when when Bert made his initial proposal, those that had an <v Speaker>opinion at the time, seven out of 10 said they didn't want this type development. <v Speaker>Now, we also have had the recent results on May 23rd of the referendum, which Bert and <v Speaker>the mayor tried to block for an excess of 10 months to keep that from being a part of the <v Speaker>racing board's consideration. The results there were 62 percent of the residents said <v Speaker>that they don't want this and only 38 percent said they did. <v Speaker>And let's also understand, the Bern North Strand started a citizen's group called <v Speaker>Citizens for Fair Government, which the treasurer was one of the Croyle employees. <v Speaker>They contributed nine thousand dollars to persuade people to. <v Speaker>Buy into this being credible or viable development? <v Speaker>Well, the fact is they outspent, outspent citizens that were opposed to this on a <v Speaker>12 to 1 ratio and still were only able to come up with 38 percent. <v Speaker>What about well, this is just simply not true.

<v Speaker>We're just hearing more of the same stuff that we've been listening to for a year. <v Speaker>The Croixland and Stankiewicz Mattos has developed over 18 feet <v Speaker>of documents, 18 feet of reports. <v Speaker>We've been in front of various bodies all over the city, all over the state. <v Speaker>And the facts speak for themselves. <v Speaker>We've presented our proposal to the city of Hudson after <v Speaker>hundreds of hours of study by the city city council. <v Speaker>They said yes to cry and they said no to Mr. Moffitt. <v Speaker>They said no to CCR D. <v Speaker>What about this advice? VRD advisory referendum? <v Speaker>Apparently went against you? <v Speaker>The advisory referendum is like going out and voting <v Speaker>for something that's already happened. <v Speaker>You like vote for the sick people of Hudson to go out and vote whether or not to have <v Speaker>ST's or not. We are there already there. <v Speaker>The dog track had already been approved. Why go vote? <v Speaker>It's amazing to me that we got 40 percent of the people to vote for an issue that was <v Speaker>mute. But this let me say far. Let me say it's something else. <v Speaker>We not only got approval from the city of Hudson, we got approval from the state of <v Speaker>Wisconsin, the state racing board. But a c.s.i. <v Speaker>doo doo doo doo. They sue small group of people with a

<v Speaker>lot of Minnesota lawyers decide to sue the city of Hudson. <v Speaker>They sue the racing board. We call the DNR. <v Speaker>We asked for air quality permit. <v Speaker>The DNR says yes to cry land. They say no to CCRC. <v Speaker>SICAD sues the quote to the governor. <v Speaker>The governor listens to them. The governor says yes to crime. <v Speaker>And he says, I believe in the process. Bruce Moffet criticizes the governor in the <v Speaker>newspaper. We go to the D.O.T., the D.O.T. <v Speaker>does the same thing. They approve our plans. We move forward. <v Speaker>I respond to some of a small group. <v Speaker>It is not a fair assessment. We have over 400 people that have supported us and given <v Speaker>to me and talking about who these people are and $20 contributions out of their pockets. <v Speaker>And this has been over the course of about fifteen months. <v Speaker>These are solid citizens. These are business people. <v Speaker>Certainly some are lawyers, people that are concerned about the future of Hudson. <v Speaker>And for them, the future of Hudson simply does not include a dog track. <v Speaker>One of the issues I think that is drawing people to it more so than simply is there going <v Speaker>to be a dog track or not is simply the corruption of the process.

<v Speaker>And an example of that would be that, in fact, when the land site was deemed <v Speaker>inappropriate by a bonified planning commission, a couple of things happened. <v Speaker>One is that the developers attorney, David Fleck out of Milwaukee, in fact, rewrote the <v Speaker>city ordinances. Now, he has publicly acknowledged that and that is on the record. <v Speaker>He has not. That simply is not OK. <v Speaker>And so in the middle of the game, our ordinances were rewritten. <v Speaker>Now, the interesting thing is the ordinances that were rewritten were the same ordinances <v Speaker>that were broken by the mayor and the council in their December 19th meeting. <v Speaker>And that meaning that the planning commission had said this is not appropriate land use. <v Speaker>Why did they say that? Because it's a residential neighborhood. <v Speaker>There's a YMCA camp that entertains 10000 children across the street from his proposed <v Speaker>site. But the important thing is this. That's a corruption of the process. <v Speaker>When you go re-writing city ordinances to accommodate accommodate a developer ahead of <v Speaker>the interests of the constituents of the Hudson community, where this is simply has most <v Speaker>outraged the citizens of Hudson, where it will stand. <v Speaker>Well, let me let me. We have been out. We've been approved by the city. <v Speaker>Women improve by the state. We've been through the city process three times. <v Speaker>We gave her to the zoning with the planning commission and the city council.

<v Speaker>Three times I said yes. All three times has been approved by everybody. <v Speaker>We're gonna be an under construction in a month. <v Speaker>Mr. Mr. Nordstrom, though, in the face of what may be some sizable <v Speaker>if not a majority of citizens of Hudson in opposition to <v Speaker>this, why Steven Hudson? Why not pick another Wisconsin town that may welcome you with <v Speaker>open arms? <v Speaker>First of all, I think, as I said, I'm a developer and husband for many, many years. <v Speaker>I think it's a unique opportunity to the people of Hudson, to our already tried to <v Speaker>crowded schools to get the kind of tax relief that we need. <v Speaker>I'm committed to Hudson. I've been involved in Hudson for most of my life. <v Speaker>I'm a Wisconsin person and I am not interested in the people that 3M <v Speaker>move in here, have their homes and then want to put a fence up around the city and say <v Speaker>that that's enough. <v Speaker>Well, anyway, you can stop them. Yes. <v Speaker>That's going to be my final question to you very much to answer the same question. <v Speaker>The question is, is one and the same. <v Speaker>Please, Burt, consider the Hudson community, the urban <v Speaker>community.

<v Speaker>We have less sleazy idea. What would let me draw. <v Speaker>The Hudson community has documented evidence through ten long, tortuous <v Speaker>months that they simply don't want this development. <v Speaker>Find a community that will embrace you. Please withdraw your proposal and you stop it. <v Speaker>Can you stop it? There will be no dog track in the Hudson. <v Speaker>Well, we'll have to wait and see. They'll be under construction in a month. <v Speaker>Right. Mr. Moffitt, Mr. Settle, another man on Almanac, I guess. <v Speaker>I guess not. But thank you both. Okay. <v Speaker>Thanks. <v Speaker>Right now, we're going to talk to the man who many say has the weirdest body

<v Speaker>in all of sports, and he's often seen playing with his twins. <v Speaker>And this week he received a wonderful touching honor by a narrow margin. <v Speaker>His fans selected him as the starting center fielder on the Al Haircut team. <v Speaker>J.J. Preston. <v J. G Preston>I just got this haircut today. How did you know to say that? <v Speaker>Do you bring your own bowl? <v J. G Preston> You get a discount. $2 off if you bring your own. <v J. G Preston>What's wrong with this hair, anyway? <v Speaker>It stinks. <v J. G Preston>Hey, I got as many hits this month as Mike Schmidt. I don't see any reason why I couldn't <v J. G Preston>be starting center field. <v Eric Eskola>What about that All-Star balloting? <v Eric Eskola>Canseco and Schmidt making the team? <v J. G Preston>What's the big to do? I mean, I just don't see where it's worth. <v J. G Preston>Like devoting your life to some passionate, heated outburst to how awful <v J. G Preston>the process is. [Eric Eskola: And what about our twins? <v J. G Preston>Speaking of-.] I'm going to play Canseco's not going to play. <v J. G Preston>So what? <v Eric Eskola>Then let's get passionate about our twins. <v Speaker>Boy can you know, I've been on vacation for two weeks of still haven't changed clothes <v Speaker>since I got back. [Jan Smaby: We noticed.] Thank you. <v Speaker>I have showered, though. You did. <v Speaker>Just stunning its a stunning outfit. <v Speaker>Yeah, that's what they tell me. And as I read the box scores in the paper in the <v Speaker>Huntington, West Virginia Herald Dispatch, I couldn't help but notice the twins swept

<v Speaker>Oakland and we're five and a half behind. And I was tempted to kind of call back here and <v Speaker>see if people were excited to do a little random conversation about the twins. <v Speaker>But then I saw the oth-. The other kicker. The thing that always got me was fifth place. <v Speaker>I don't care if you're two games out. Fifth place is tough. <v Speaker>Fifth place is bad news. And so then I guess that California series came and I was glad I <v Speaker>was out of town for that one. Mike Dyer, at least you got his name right. <v Speaker>Unlike Hartman, who insists on you can't tell him, apart from Jim Dwyer, apparently he's <v Speaker>on dwired dwired wire saying it's dire. <v Speaker>OK, you got it. Is he the answer? No, he's not at all. <v Speaker>Martin Guthrie. Good kid. <v Speaker>I had a nice time talking to him for a story earlier this year, but I don't think he's <v Speaker>ready quite yet. Besides, he's not a left hander. <v Speaker>You've got four left handers out there who are all basically the same kind of pitcher. <v Speaker>That's what they and the twins do any better than hope to finish in fourth. <v Speaker>I think third is not out of the question. Second might even be achievable. <v Speaker>What? Well, you know, it depends on what happens to other teams. <v Speaker>But First. No t-wolves a draft. <v Speaker>Pooh Richardson. We are touched still on the table? <v Speaker>No. Well, I was kind of surprised. I guess they told me that the Timberwolves people <v Speaker>think Pooh Richardsons a heck of a ballplayer. And I'm got to defer to them on that one,

<v Speaker>because that really came out of the blue to me. I thought there were three or four guys <v Speaker>at that particular position ahead of pooh on the list. <v Speaker>And I also didn't think was really a point guard they wanted. <v Speaker>But I have to say that by the time they got past about the seventh or eighth pick, I <v Speaker>guess about the eighth pick. Then there weren't the kind of guys to get excited about the <v Speaker>way those first eight were. So I'm not sure they could have picked anybody who was gonna <v Speaker>be a real barnburner. You have an athletic report. <v Speaker>Get the questions are so easy tonight, I just. <v Speaker>Topic? Let's do it like Karnack. OK, probation, no death penalty. <v Speaker>Well, it's bad, doesn't it? That Really looks bad. <v Speaker>I mean, I don't I don't know what to make, of course. They don't let me in the smoke <v Speaker>filled room. <v Speaker>Lou Holtz with the five C-notes to the intermediary to get to the bat. <v Speaker>They're not gonna NCW sanctions. <v Speaker>Do you think will come? It's so hard to tell. I really don't know. <v Speaker>I mean, I really don't know. It's clearly not at the level of Kentucky basketball program <v Speaker>was either way. I was fairly stunned. Final question. <v Speaker>With John McEnroe lost in the quarter. <v Speaker>Did he really have the semifinals excuse me, at Wimbledon? <v Speaker>Any words about John? <v Speaker>Well, you know, it's kind of like like it's like the pot calling the kettle black,

<v Speaker>because people who don't know me think that I must think of me the same way they think of <v Speaker>John McEnroe, just a really nasty, evil guy who just does cruel, stupid <v Speaker>things just to be a jerk. I'm not that way. <v Speaker>J.G. Preston writing his own epitaph right here on Almanac. <v Speaker>Cressman, my gut. <v Speaker>If you haven't done it already, it's time to scratch cheese off your dangerous <v Speaker>food list. Yesterday, state epidemiologist Michael Osterholm announced <v Speaker>that the salmonella outbreak is over and it is OK to eat cheese again.

<v Speaker>Actually, it was never absolutely proven that she's caused the outbreak. <v Speaker>Michael Osterholm joins us. And so does Joel Haugland with the Minnesota Grocers <v Speaker>Association. <v Speaker>Did I miss pronounce your name? You've got to just. <v Speaker>Right, right. Michael Osterholm, KSTP Channel 5 tonight that their 5 <v Speaker>o'clock news, they broke what they called was an exclusive story. <v Speaker>They gave the name brand of the cheese that's been causing all the trouble and they <v Speaker>claimed it was Crystal Farms. Is that accurate? <v Speaker>No, it's not accurate in two respects. First of all, it was not an exclusive story. <v Speaker>A number of news media sources have that today and all claiming it was exclusive, more or <v Speaker>less. <v Speaker>Second of all, as we made it very clear, Crystal Farms is a distributor <v Speaker>of cheese in Minnesota, a large distributor of cheese. <v Speaker>They buy all of their cheese at various plant in the upper Midwest <v Speaker>and the finger cheese of the many kinds they sell that happened to be involved. <v Speaker>Here was one that is also sold by no other packers, no other brands in Minnesota. <v Speaker>So as far from the problem and it's just a part of this larger problem.

<v Speaker>So media wrong again. <v Speaker>And given, however, the statements that have been repeated in recent <v Speaker>days that there have been over 4000 samples of cheese taken and not <v Speaker>one of them has shown to be infected with salmonella. <v Speaker>Are you still positive that cheese is indeed the source of this recent outbreak? <v Speaker>We're positive that cheese is the source of this outbreak. <v Speaker>And I might even take you back to a program. I was on hearing almanac about five <v Speaker>weeks ago in which I said at that time that it's very possible that we could test <v Speaker>thousands of cheese samples and not find this particular bacteria until we were able <v Speaker>to get it in exactly the piece. <v Speaker>We have every reason to believe that it could be as simple as a small part <v Speaker>of one slice of cheese that's contaminated. <v Speaker>This is very sporadic relative to the epidemiologic data, which are scientific <v Speaker>data themselves. This state is as strong implicating cheese as was tampons and toxic <v Speaker>shock syndrome or aspirin and rice and or any other study we've ever done. <v Speaker>We've now completed three separate studies, all looking at cases

<v Speaker>and, well, individuals. And out of hundreds of items we looked at, we didn't look just at <v Speaker>cheese. We looked at all kinds of items, everything from toothpicks to pepper to <v Speaker>fruits, vegetables, meats, etc. <v Speaker>Cheese inconsistently cheese has been the only thing that's come up and come up very <v Speaker>strongly. And we are not done with the investigation yet. <v Speaker>And I think that we're getting much closer to actually linking it back to specific plants <v Speaker>or flows of cheese that have come through a multitude of different processors. <v Speaker>Mr. Harlan, there was a advisory against eating certain types of uncooked processed <v Speaker>cheese, but there was no recall of any brands. <v Speaker>And I wonder if you felt from the retailer grocery retailers a point of view. <v Speaker>Was this handled properly from point of view, your business? <v Speaker>Well, food safety is our number one concern, and we're glad that this current situation <v Speaker>is over. This is only the third in the last four months. <v Speaker>First, we were dealing with apples. <v Speaker>And we're dealing with grapes and then cheese. <v Speaker>And we're getting a little concerned about the way, in fact, this <v Speaker>information is being conveyed to consumers, because

<v Speaker>I guess we're concerned about the fact that all of a sudden people are hitting with <v Speaker>a new item every month or every other month. <v Speaker>And after a while, the consumer is going to start to wonder whether or not this is real <v Speaker>or whether it's concieve type of thing. <v Speaker>And I think we have to be very careful about the way we talk about the different items <v Speaker>that are being thrown out. <v Speaker>What should he have done differently in this case, if anything? <v Speaker>Well, I guess we're concerned. And what I'd like to see, though, like a Geiger <v Speaker>counter of food safety. <v Speaker>You know what is more or less important or dangerous or that type <v Speaker>of thing. Now, he issued the Health Department and Agriculture Department's issued <v Speaker>advisories on this particular situation, and they advised that you should properly heat <v Speaker>cheese products, particularly mozzarella and processed cheese. <v Speaker>It's very difficult to heat processed cheese. <v Speaker>So that makes it kind of a difficult message. <v Speaker>But I think what we need to do is properly communicate to grocers are <v Speaker>like our members and communicate to the consumers.

<v Speaker>Second, so that we have a chance to get in this whole thing. <v Speaker>What was happening was that we were finding out from our customers. <v Speaker>And as a result, we were caught off guard wondering what was happening. <v Speaker>And these guys kept me in the loop. <v Speaker>In fact, they are. And I think the issue that Joel raises a very legitimate one, though, <v Speaker>in terms of the air of communication today, when you have information about <v Speaker>risk and specifically and the kinds that we had. <v Speaker>Timing is everything. The media will criticize you if you waited more than two hours <v Speaker>because you were derelict in duty. <v Speaker>On the other hand, and the consumer will do the same thing. <v Speaker>And how do you communicate basically to 4.2? <v Speaker>Minnesotan's in a way that allows for that loop to take place, and I think that's a <v Speaker>legitimate concern. I think even the issue of food safety is a very important one. <v Speaker>We have concerns. We're back into that summer season again. <v Speaker>We're starting to see the problem with the bloody diarrhea and the hamburger. <v Speaker>Based on the e. coli outbreak that we had last summer, we're seeing that again, we're <v Speaker>seeing problems with eggs and salmonella. Right now, we're seeing problems with a lot of

<v Speaker>different food items. How do you best communicate that to consumers? <v Speaker>At least it's clear now that cheese is safe to eat. <v Speaker>To the degree that we can say something safe. <v Speaker>Yes. This outbreak of salmonella jobby on it is not ongoing at this time. <v Speaker>But I have to say that to learn an awful lot about the communication system, there's a <v Speaker>tremendous opportunity here because the food industry is so diverse and has a <v Speaker>infrastructure in itself and we have the potential to access that. <v Speaker>I'm going to have to cut you both off at this point, but we thank you both for joining us <v Speaker>very much discussion. <v Speaker>Well, this summer, the Walker Art Center in Minneapolis is featuring an exhibit called <v Speaker>First Impressions. It is a collection of the first published prints by 46 <v Speaker>contemporary American artists. <v Speaker>Printing presses have been used for centuries to reproduce images, but it wasn't <v Speaker>until the 1960s that printmaking was considered a legitimate artistic <v Speaker>media. Now, one of the artists in the show, Steve Sorman, works out of a studio <v Speaker>beside the St. Croix River Almanacs.

<v Speaker>Jim Bickell visited Sorman in his studio and learned some of the techniques <v Speaker>of printmaking. <v Speaker>This 1978 print is called the first building project, according to what plan, <v Speaker>Sorman says it's about his first impressions of working in a full scale professional <v Speaker>print shop. Actually, his first prints were made quite simply in his own studio. <v Speaker>In the beginning, the pieces that I did were done essentially <v Speaker>by rubbing the back of a piece of damp paper over over <v Speaker>an eight plate and done by hand. <v Speaker>So what I would do is cover the whole thing with ink, wipe the ink back so that the ink <v Speaker>was in the spaces between, take a damp piece of Japan <v Speaker>paper, place it face down on the ink plate and then <v Speaker>place sheet of poly behind this and rub <v Speaker>the back with an instrument like this. <v Speaker>This is a baron. <v Speaker>Over the years, Sorman has used many other print making techniques news work, including

<v Speaker>dry point etching, which involves drawing on a copper plate with a needle and you can <v Speaker>only get maybe a dozen or so prints from a plate. <v Speaker>Because what happens when you are cutting away that line? <v Speaker>This is the surface of the plate. <v Speaker>When you cut into that plate with that tool, what you are doing is cutting. <v Speaker>Like that and leaving a little burr. <v Speaker>And so the burr on the plate. <v Speaker>When the ink goes in here and catches on the bird, you have kind of a fuzzy rough line. <v Speaker>Well, a few times through the press in that burs worn, worn off. <v Speaker>Another example of intaglio printing <v Speaker>is the engraving. <v Speaker>An engraved plate will hold up for many, many, many more printings <v Speaker>because what you are doing is putting a V shaped <v Speaker>line in there that that pretty much holds its edge and maintains that, <v Speaker>you know, that is filled with.

<v Speaker>Well, we've just seen at least a little bit about how the print making process works. <v Speaker>Liz Armstrong joins us from the Walker Art Institute. <v Speaker>Welcome back, Liz. <v Speaker>We're going to take a look at for prints out of the many that are in the show, <v Speaker>and we'd like you to describe them. <v Speaker>I think the first one is by Chuck Close, and you can tell us a little bit about him. <v Speaker>And particularly in this piece, he uses what is known as the message tent process, <v Speaker>which is quite difficult. Right. <v Speaker>Not only is it quite difficult, but it's a very archaic medium that hasn't really been <v Speaker>used much in the 20th century, which is one reason Close wanted to use it. <v Speaker>He wanted to challenge himself and he wanted to challenge the printers as much as <v Speaker>possible. <v Speaker>Now, why, by the way, did he call this Keith? <v Speaker>Is that a self-portrait of closer? No, no. <v Speaker>It's a portrait of his friend. All right. OK, so there's the answer. <v Speaker>All right. The next one we're going to take a look at is by Andy Warhol. <v Speaker>And this is called the cooking pot. <v Speaker>And this is from the early period. <v Speaker>Is this the period we should take more most seriously in terms of Andy Warhol work?

<v Speaker>I think it is this most important period. It's when he first began to <v Speaker>appropriate images from the mass media. <v Speaker>And in this case, you can see he took a newspaper ad, which is kind of ironic cause <v Speaker>he made a print of a print that already exists. Is that art? <v Speaker>You bet. He called it a print and it's all just a print. <v Speaker>The third one we're going to take a look at is by Edward Rucci. <v Speaker>And this is called the Standard Station. <v Speaker>What is unique and different about this? <v Speaker>Well, at the time, he used silkscreen, which is a medium <v Speaker>that had only been used commercially until this 1960s, and he was one of the first artist <v Speaker>to adapt it to fine art print making. <v Speaker>The garish orange and blue sky in the background is what's really notable about it. <v Speaker>It's a technique called the rainbow roll. <v Speaker>And it was a commercial technique also that really by the end of the 60s became a cliche <v Speaker>of fine art printmaking. <v Speaker>All right. And finally, we're going to take a look at a local artist. <v Speaker>And this is T.L. Saleen. And it's called The Three Sailors.

<v Speaker>It's a print that was actually made here in Minneapolis at the Vermillion Print Editions <v Speaker>Workshop. And it sort of shows the resources that are available <v Speaker>to artists who started making prints in the 1980s. <v Speaker>It's very complicated, technically combining lithography and screen printing <v Speaker>and intaglio all in one print. <v Speaker>Well, it's got that mirro influence is so pervasive in this is this medium. <v Speaker>Seriously? Why? <v Speaker>Why did you choose to to isolate sort of the first works of all these artists? <v Speaker>Wouldn't they be more crude and primitive at that time? <v Speaker>Not as developed to sophisticated as fine? <v Speaker>Well, I make the analogy more to say an actor's first take. <v Speaker>Maybe there are some flaws, maybe not, but there's that kind of energy and enthusiasm of <v Speaker>a new endeavor. The first time you do something always turns up kind of interesting <v Speaker>results and it really doesn't. Printmaking. <v Speaker>Are the prints popular among collectors? <v Speaker>I mean, is it recognized as one of the media of of art? <v Speaker>Does oils or other painting is concerned?

<v Speaker>Well, it is very much so today. But that's really only happened in this country over the <v Speaker>past 30 years. And that happened to allow it to flourish. <v Speaker>Do you think? I'll tell you partly it was the pop artist getting involved and making <v Speaker>prints in the early 60s. And that's where the show begins, because pop art was accessible <v Speaker>to people. They were images. People understood. <v Speaker>And once pop art started selling prints, prints that <v Speaker>they made, it became interesting how many copies of a print can you get off of one? <v Speaker>I know what it played or whatever. <v Speaker>I mean, can you get hundreds or thousands or you can get hundreds now techniques for that <v Speaker>develop. But usually with the kind of prints we're looking at, it's maybe 50 to 100 at <v Speaker>the most. <v Speaker>Lewis Armstrong, how long does the exhibit run at the Walker Art Center in Minneapolis? <v Speaker>It runs through September 10th through September 10th. <v Speaker>All right. Well, thank you for joining us. Thank you. Thank you. <v Speaker>I appreciate it. Great. <v Speaker>Well, just a minute, fellas.

<v Speaker>The story that dominated the news this week was, of course, the decision announced Monday <v Speaker>by the U.S. Supreme Court allowing states more latitude in passing restrictive abortion <v Speaker>laws. And while many eyes quickly look to Minnesota as a state where early abortion <v Speaker>legislation could take place on Wednesday, Governor Perjurious said that he might <v Speaker>not call a special session unless legislators already have reached agreement on abortion. <v Speaker>Well, how much control could the governor and or our legislative leaders have over these <v Speaker>special session agenda? <v Speaker>Well, let's ask a couple of legislative leaders. <v Speaker>Robert Banaszak, DFL speaker of the Minnesota House. <v Speaker>And Bill Schreiber's here as well. The are House minority leader. <v Speaker>Mr. Speaker, what about it? <v Speaker>If you've got some hardcore people on either side of this issue are bound and determined <v Speaker>to bring up an abortion bill in the September special session on property taxes. <v Speaker>Can they do it or can the leadership or the governor say no? <v Speaker>Well, there's nothing in in the House rules or Senate rules that can prohibit <v Speaker>any member of the legislature from introducing a bill during a regular session or during <v Speaker>a special session so any member can put their own bill together, whether it's on abortion

<v Speaker>or any other issue, and have it ready for an adoption the first day of a special session. <v Speaker>Normally what we try to do when we're in a special session situation is <v Speaker>that we like to have agreement on what the agenda is going to be ahead of time. <v Speaker>And we'd like to have the session last for a short period of time, usually a day or two. <v Speaker>I think you've got to go all the way back to 1971 to find an exception to that. <v Speaker>That kind of a situation from occurring. <v Speaker>And so I think you'll see an effort on the part of the legislative leadership as well as <v Speaker>the governor to try to come to some kind of agreement to limit the agenda. <v Speaker>I would like to see us focus on taxes. <v Speaker>That's the reason why the governor is considering calling us in special session in the <v Speaker>first place. <v Speaker>Would you guys just say, Reverend Schreiber, do you think it's possible to have <v Speaker>an agreement to not touch abortion during this special session or the abortion <v Speaker>issue is going to be before us in a special section? <v Speaker>And in my judgment and and particularly as it relates to the house and <v Speaker>the fetal viability legislation, it's had its public hearings.

<v Speaker>It's been amendments were offered in the House floor. <v Speaker>It was adopted during the regular session, sent over the Senate, said it did not take <v Speaker>action this during the regular session. <v Speaker>You know, I'd be amazed to not have that bill before us on the House side. <v Speaker>Both of you both of you are pro-life, publicly known as pro-life people in <v Speaker>terms of your position on the abortion issue. <v Speaker>But does each of you would each of you want the abortion question to be handled <v Speaker>slowly, perhaps allow it not to be dealt with until the next year? <v Speaker>Or do each of you support it being dealt with right now, right up front in this special <v Speaker>session, starting with you? <v Speaker>Well, I I have a real concern as it relates to precinct caucuses. <v Speaker>The abortion issue really polarizes people. <v Speaker>It's difficult for legislators to deal with with polarized folks. <v Speaker>We're accustomed to compromise. It's not unusual for us to tell people that disagree that <v Speaker>you're going in the back room. <v Speaker>We're going to lock the door and you. Right. You don't come out until you reach an <v Speaker>agreement. But as it relates to those real zealots on either side <v Speaker>of the abortion issue, unless you gave them food, water, those folks die before they ever

<v Speaker>come out, you know, they just can't reach an agreement. <v Speaker>And that makes it difficult for for legislators to deal with that issue. <v Speaker>Well, the governor said it would be could be days and weeks if if you let abortion go in <v Speaker>and with without a prior agreement ever, you'll never get agreement on <v Speaker>on a bill between the various groups that are interested in the issue. <v Speaker>What I would hope is that you'd get an agreement on the process. <v Speaker>And I think that there are some complexities in this most recent Supreme Court decision <v Speaker>that would do us all well, I think to spend some time looking <v Speaker>at just what that Missouri decision means, how it affects Minnesota. <v Speaker>The issue of, say, public hospitals, I think it's not so clear cut in this state because <v Speaker>it's not real clear just what a public hospital is in Minnesota as compared to, say, a <v Speaker>state like Missouri. And I would rather see us take some time, hold <v Speaker>some hearings and be more deliberative rather than acting hastily and getting something <v Speaker>brought up in a special session just for the sake of passing a bill.

<v Speaker>And one side looking good. <v Speaker>My my judgment as it relates to the Supreme Court decision is that both sides are <v Speaker>overreacting and reading more into that Supreme Court decision than what sexually. <v Speaker>They're the one. The one thing. <v Speaker>Yes, I do agree with Bill on that. I think if you really look at the impact of that <v Speaker>decision on the number of abortions that are going to be performed in this country after <v Speaker>the decision compared to before, it's not going to be that great. <v Speaker>The one thing that that is for certain, in my judgment, is that there is going to be a <v Speaker>tenfold increase in the amount of litigation that's going to take place, because <v Speaker>both sides are going to continue to try to fill the court out and find out just where the <v Speaker>lines are. <v Speaker>We had the bizarre specter this past week of a waiter in a topless bar crossing <v Speaker>the street to rescue a flag that was. <v Speaker>Being burned by pro-choice demonstrators now, is this <v Speaker>an example, an extreme one of how far out it's going <v Speaker>to get and how Mr. Schreiber commented on it earlier? <v Speaker>How do you rein in a political process that's going to get wrapped up in this highly

<v Speaker>charged emotional issue? <v Speaker>Well, I can think of no issue or very few issues that <v Speaker>create as strong and emotional feeling and people as the abortion issue does. <v Speaker>And as Bill said earlier, it's one of those where there is no compromise. <v Speaker>People are either on the people that are interested in the issue are usually very <v Speaker>strongly held positions on one side or the other. <v Speaker>And they're not interested in compromise. <v Speaker>And I guess I don't really see how you how you try to turn that into <v Speaker>something other than what it is. And what I want us to see, <v Speaker>as I said, I want us to have make sure we have a process in the legislature that's going <v Speaker>to allow everybody a chance to be heard. <v Speaker>Before we take action, because no matter what we do and even if we do nothing, <v Speaker>there is going to be a tremendous number of folks in this state that are going to be <v Speaker>unhappy with us. And the very least they deserve is their opportunity to be <v Speaker>heard before the legislature makes a decision. <v Speaker>And I agree with with with the speaker in saying that they have public hearings and so <v Speaker>on. But personally, I would get I would like to get as much accomplished in the special

<v Speaker>session as possible. We have precinct caucuses coming up in February. <v Speaker>And my fear is that if both those sides are so dominating precinct caucuses <v Speaker>that other people that are interested in environmental issues, tax issues, economic <v Speaker>development and so on will stay away from the precinct caucus, because some of those <v Speaker>folks will say, I don't want to hear the abortion debate for an hour and a half. <v Speaker>I want to go there for my issue. It's not going to be heard. <v Speaker>So I won't even go to the precinct caucus. <v Speaker>And that's a bill where both parties, whether we do something in a special session or <v Speaker>not, we're going to have the abortion issue back before us in that 90 session. <v Speaker>And it's going to be before Snowe's precinct caucuses and it's going to go right on <v Speaker>through the election cycle. I I hope that it isn't to the detriment of other important <v Speaker>issues that ought to be discussed in that 90 election. <v Speaker>But it's going to be a it's going to be with us for some time to come. <v Speaker>Good. Thanks, fellows. Appreciate it. We'll see what happens with the special session <v Speaker>occurs. Thanks. <v Speaker>The Almanac junkies call this part of the show.

<v Speaker>The IFS, the index file section. <v Speaker>Well, I call it the GTRNTEOTP,  the goofy time right <v Speaker>near the end of the program. So last week's if question had to do <v Speaker>with this photo, which we told you was the Minnesota Supreme Court circa January 1975. <v Speaker>Now, we went on to tell you that something happened then to cause the entire group to <v Speaker>resign. We added the hint that the resignations had something to do with the wild versus <v Speaker>Rarig case. Our question, what happened that made these nine members of the nineteen <v Speaker>seventy five Minnesota Supreme Court resign? <v Speaker>Now, many of you did well on this one, but others should have settled out of court. <v Speaker>The case had something to do with lawyers and judges receiving <v Speaker>honorariums for doing something for anything off the bench and <v Speaker>they felt they weren't making enough money without being able to do this. <v Speaker> All Nine justices quit the Supreme Court and <v Speaker>went into the research project at the U of M to try and stimulate hair growth. <v Speaker>All nine judges of the Supreme Court of Minnesota recused themselves

<v Speaker>from hearing that case because the lawyer who represented one of the parties <v Speaker>had so angered them in a variety of contentious <v Speaker>litigations previously that they all felt they couldn't be fair to decide the case. <v Speaker>The Ruling that the Minnesota Supreme Court judges made was on the retirement age <v Speaker>for the judges, and they were all over that age. <v Speaker>So they retired. <v Speaker>No, it wasn't a case of group retirement, actually, as 11 of you <v Speaker>recalled. These men were the judicial equivalent of Kelly Temporary. <v Speaker>The reason all nine justices resigned is because the original nine justices all had <v Speaker>conflicts of interest with boards involved in the litigation. <v Speaker>So they stepped down and appointed nine special judges to hear that case. <v Speaker>Once the case was over, those nine justices resigned. <v Speaker>That's right. The case of Wild vs. Rarig involved a lawsuit brought by Dr. John Wild <v Speaker>against the Wilder Foundation. James Otis, who was on the state Supreme Court at the

<v Speaker>time, was one of the trustees of the Wilder foundation. <v Speaker>So the entire court decided to disqualify itself and appointed a temporary court <v Speaker>to hear just that case, incidentally. <v Speaker>J. G. Glen Kelly, who was on that temporary court, is now a regular <v Speaker>member of the Supreme Court. So he may go down as the only Supreme Court justice to <v Speaker>resign from the court twice. All right. <v Speaker>Enough courtroom drama this week. <v Speaker>We're calling upon you to identify for us a certain place in Minnesota. <v Speaker>And here is some info. The town we're talking about was incorporated in 1926. <v Speaker>And that's not unusual. But this is all of the street names in this town have a single <v Speaker>common theme. And here's some more fodder. <v Speaker>The town in question once hoped to be the home of a Minnesota university. <v Speaker>And all the town streets are named for famous luminaries. <v Speaker>So your mission, if you decide to accept it, is to tell us the name of this mystery <v Speaker>town and what the street names have in common. <v Speaker>Now, the magic number that connects you with our answering machines is 6 1 2 2 2 9 <v Speaker>1 4 2 8. And even if you don't know the answer to the question, call

<v Speaker>us anyway and tell us what you think of this week's show. <v Speaker>That number once again is 6 1 2 2 2 9 1 4 2 8. <v Speaker>Now, last week, many of you called in to add your comments about our discussion of the <v Speaker>new state law toughening up fines for stores who sell cigarettes to minors. <v Speaker>Several of you voiced this opinion. <v Speaker>What about the availability of cigarettes to minors in <v Speaker>the cigarette machines? There must be some big power behind this to have <v Speaker>the state legislature knock it down. <v Speaker>This is a very simple thing to do is to take the machines out and only control <v Speaker>them through the stores. <v Speaker>Well, once again, we want to know what is on your mind. <v Speaker>If you found yourself talking back to the TV set during tonight's show. <v Speaker>Get over to the phone and talk to a machine that listens. <v Speaker>Our answering machines can be reached at 6 1 2 2 2 9 1 4 2 <v Speaker>8. Well, that should wrap things up for this week. <v Jan Smaby>In fact, it does and just in time for Eric Leslie Escola. <v Jan Smaby>I'm Jan Gritz Smaby. Good night.

<v Speaker>Funding for Almanac is provided in part by Larkin Hoffman Daily and Lindgren attorneys <v Speaker>at law serving clients from offices in Bloomington, Minneapolis and Coon Rapids. <v Speaker>Norstan Inc, a distributor for telecommunications equipment products including

<v Speaker>IBM, Grant Thornton, accountants and management consultants for <v Speaker>America's Middle Market. Our business is knowing yours. <v Speaker>Minnesota's Credit unions. People Helping People. <v Speaker>Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota. <v Speaker>Providing more than a million Minnesotans with the care behind the car. <v Speaker>And Gabberts Furniture and design studio of Idina. <v Speaker>There is no place like home, and there's no place like gabberts. <v Speaker>Arts reporting on Almanac is presented through a grant from Super America and its ninety <v Speaker>five employee operated stores throughout Minnesota. <v Speaker>Almanac is a production of K T.C.A. TV for stations of the Minnesota Public Television <v Speaker>Association.