It’s one thing to take the bait, but you’re jumping in the boat and fileting yourself.

July 23, 2008

TO: Dan Emery, Republican SD 48 Chair
FROM: HD 48B Nominations/Search Committee
RE: Donald Huizenga Web posting matter
The following is the Report of the HD 48B Nominations Committee (Joe Field (Chair),Matt Look and Jeff Weaver) which was recently recalled by SD 48 to inquire into allegations of potential offensive material allegedly written by Don Huizenga, a candidate for HD 48B. The Committee has investigated the matter by partially reviewing two websites: hardcoresledder.com (hereinafter “HCS”) and freedomsledder.com (hereinafter “FS”) and by interviewing Mr. Huizenga. The Committee was also supplied with certain pages from the HCS site which were previously forwarded by Barb Abeler to the Chair of the Committee. It should be noted that both websites contained a “current events” community web posting section which was the only section reviewed by the Committee. The HCS “current events” section contained over 330 pages and FS (which was just created this year) “current events” section contained over 50 pages. The Committee reviewed samplings of these pages but given the time and the voluntary resources of the Committee it was not feasible for the Committee to review each and every page of both websites. The reason two websites were reviewed is because Mr. Huizenga claims to have discontinued using HCS and started using FS this year due to overly restrictive conditions placed by the new owner of HCS on dialogue within that website.
Mr. Huizenga admitted to contributing posts to both HCS and FS. He was identified on HCS as simply “Huizenga” with a member number of “23,010”. Whenever he presented a post on HCS a group picture of him & others at a dinner table would show. On FS he was identified once again as “Huizenga”, with a member number of “21”. His posts on FS would show a picture of a campaign sign stating “Don Huizenga, State Representative.” It appears that his posts to FS did not start until May 2008.
Mr. Huizenga said his posts on both websites were done ‘tongue in cheek’ on a number of occasions given the dialogue and authors submitting their own posts. He says there is a lot of “bantering” which occurs on these sites. The Committee noted that both websites appeared to have a high tolerance for the use of profanity. Mr. Huizenga was no exception in using it though he appeared to diminish its use in the FS website. However, the Committee views Mr. Huizenga’s use of profanity on the FS website, with his campaign banner in full display to be particularly ill-advised and lacking in appropriate judgment. The Committee recommends that Mr. Huizenga curtail his public use of profanity while he attempts to secure a political seat under the Republican Party banner.
With regard to the February 26, 2008 web posting on HCS referencing Klobuchar, Mr. Huizenga admits writing the post but denies putting the “c” word (c- -t), as he referred to it, in the post. He also denied writing the other profane expression there as well (use of the “f” word). He stated, as conjecture, that someone, such as a “moderator” or “contributing member” might have added these inflammatory terms in his posting. He states he does not know how to prove this but claims these individuals have access to the utilities on the website that can make it happen if they wanted to. The Nominations Committee is not in a position to make a determination as to whether his statements were indeed tampered with. This would require some type of ‘forensic analysis’ which would have to be the call of the House District if it wished to pursue it. As to the profanity, while disfavored, that alone should not be determinative of a candidate’s viability to represent a district. Mr. Huizenga’s web postings, while sparsely profane at times, do reveal his passion, knowledge and sometimes naiveté for political issues and process.
The Committee did come across one web posting of concern, in the manner of a banner Ad, that contained Mr. Huizenga’s name as author. The statement is dated April 1, 2008 and reads as follows:
“Yes. What I mean is that I don’t think most blacks have the same mental capacity for “learned” thought in the way we test for it. RE: History, English, Math or IQ even.”
The Committee Chair asked Mr. Huizenga if he wrote this statement. He said he did. He was then asked what his intention was in writing the comment. He stated, in essence, that his intention was to point out that our testing methods are skewed against the cultural heritage that blacks are given. The Nominations Committee believes that this statement was clumsily drafted by Mr. Huizenga and could be interpreted to be a racist remark which, of course, is not what the Republican Party wishes to present in a candidate. Given that Mr. Huizenga denies intending the remark to be racist and given the plausibility of his response, the Committee does not believe his actions in drafting it should warrant sanctions by the House District, presuming that such sanctions were available to the District in this case.
The Committee did review one web posting provided to the Committee Chair by Barb Abeler which contained what appeared to be a number of racial and ethnic slurs which stood alone in the web postings without comment. It was not apparent whether Mr. Huizenga wrote these terms but he did recall that a “test” was done shortly after HCS tightened its content filters to see if these words would get through. It appeared that some writers, at the time, were having ‘some fun’ testing the limits on the new filtering system, according to Mr. Huizenga. No other references to such racial or ethnic slurs were found on either HCS or FS, at least not associated with Mr. Huizenga. Of course, neither website was referenced in its entirety though four hours of searches were conducted on both websites during the process of this investigation.
It is the conclusion of the Nominations Committee that Donald Huizenga did not mislead the Committee in its initial interview and inquiry into Mr. Huizenga’s past regarding whether there were any “skeletons in his closet”. In addition, while the occasional use of profanity by Mr. Huizenga on his web posts is disfavored these uses do not rise to the level of sanctions in the opinion of the Committee. The vulgar term used in connection with Klobuchar does cause the Committee some concern as it unnecessarily and crudely demeans a sitting U.S. Senator from the State of Minnesota. However, Mr. Huizenga has denied writing the offensive remark and submits an explanation which possibly explains how an edit to his posting could have occurred. Even if Mr. Huizenga wrote the offensive remark this does not appear to be a pattern of conduct that he is typically engaged in, i.e., making vulgar references to men or women of political stature. The reference to Klobuchar appears as an isolated occurrence. The Committee notices in particular that Mr. Huizenga also authored references to Obama and Al Franken which, while cutting, did not contain openly offensive and vulgar remarks about their person, at least from those postings read for this Report.
This concludes the Report of the Nominations Committee on Mr. Donald Huizenga.

By the way, another site has posted an analysis of Abeler’s campaign contributions. http://anokacountywatchdog.com/email/2008/08.29.08_update.htm

Here’s the article:

Concern over candidate’s involvement on Web site
Wednesday, 23 July 2008
by T.W. Budig
ECM Capitol reporter

A local Republican candidate may have undercut his party’s support by his activity on a Web site proclaiming itself as devoted to freedom of speech.

Don Huizenga of Anoka is challenging Rep. Jim Abeler, R-Anoka, to represent House District 48B.

Huizenga, 42, often spends 10, 15 minutes a day, he said, adding his opinions or reacting to the commentary of others on FreedomSledder.com , sledding enthusiast Web community “dedicated to complete freedom of speech.”

“We get on there and razz each other and do a lot of stuff tongue in cheek,” said Huizenga, an independent contractor who represents housing owners in insurance matters.

“We kind of consider it a private site, although it’s public,” he said.

While Huizenga’s own comments are probably mild by the standards of the site, the threads of commentary that trails posted news stories can be laced with profanity, sexual content and racism.

MnPublius, a Minnesota political blog, recently commented on Huizenga and posted a link to the FreedomSledder Web site.

Republican officials express concern

Republican officials have expressed concern over Huizenga and the Web site.

Senate District 48 Republican Party Chairman Dan Emery recently became aware of the Web site, he said, when printed copies of its content were given to him.

Emery does not consider the matter of small importance.

“In my mind it’s not,” he said. “In fact, some of the stuff I’ve read (from the site) I couldn’t repeat.”

Rep. Tom Hackbarth, R-Cedar, questioned why a candidate would participate on a Web site that some people could find offensive.

“What a way to run a campaign,” he said.

Democrats surely would use the Web site as campaign fodder against Huizenga should he beat Abeler, according to Hackbarth.

“Not a real smart thing for the guy to be doing in my opinion,” he said.

Minnesota Republican Party Spokeswoman Gina Countryman said State Party Chairman Ron Carey is aware of the Web site and language on it.

Respect for fellow man

“While we have no endorsement in this race, those that seek to represent Minnesotans in the legislature or in Washington, D.C., must show respect for their fellow man and his language suggests that he (Huizenga) does not have the demeanor we expect of our civic leaders,” she said in an e-mail.

But Huizenga said there’s nothing wrong with what he’s doing.

FreedomSledder is a great source of information, he said, as the news stories posted on the site are often those overlooked by the mainstream media.

People from both the political left and right post on the site, he said.

“I’m not going to sit back and defend, or even feel I have to defend, what other Americans put on a Web site,” said Huizenga.

“It’s completely open to free speech. The site makes that real clear.”

While there are probably conversations in which a political candidate should not engage, Huizenga rhetorically asked whether there are conversations Americans should not engage in out of fear or threat of retribution.

Probably not, he said.

“There’s three very important rights we have,” said Huizenga, citing the rights to bear arms and own personal property.

“One is freedom of speech. Which one do you want to get rid of?”

Huizenga classified a lot of the commentary on FreedomSledder as theory, speculation.

“There’s a lot of name calling and mud slinging, but that’s part of what makes for us that site fun,” he said.

Huizenga finds it curious that his participation on the Web site has drawn attention.

“There’s going to be a lot of great opportunities for people to come at me in different ways,” he said,

One of his comments concerning U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar was altered — a practice the regulars used to do, Huizenga said.

“But to me at the end of the day if that’s what we’re going to focus on, we’re going to continue with the same old, same old in government,” he said.

According to Huizenga, he would continue to follow the site.

Now, RMW. Based on your spelling and grammar, I can only assume you’re a public school product. Your example of a teacher phoning in a bomb threat at a Catholic grade school is bogus and proves nothing except your bias and lack of logic. I know I can find dozens of incidents where teachers at public schools committed many more, and much more damaging acts to their schools. Feel free to leave an email where I can contact you to provide these examples.

I went to both private and public schools. I put my 3 kids through a Catholic grade school and both private and public high schools, including Anoka. I have personal experience with at least dozens of teachers in both environments. My daughter has a friend who taught in a public and now in a private school. The teachers in private schools may not have the higher salaries and pensions of the public school teachers, however, they do know they have the support of the parents and administrations and that is a very satisfying and empowering environment to work in. I know many private school teachers who say they’ve worked in both environments and would not go back to public school teaching.

And now, I await the inevitable inane sarcasm from Typical Frightened Right Wing Guy, or BS from Two Putt. Bring it…

You should all know that on FS we berate and belittle each other in fun as only close friends can. Don is an exceptionally honest and thinking individual. Seeing you have a choice between Abler and Don H., and you know that Abler is a petty criminal with no ethics (as his stunt at the fair proves.)…you should be damn well GLAD Don H. is there to help your state. You could do a lot worse. A LOT worse.
Glad to call him a friend.

Richard in NH.

A school system with more choices, better or more applicable educational programs, and decisions in the hands of teachers and parents collectively, would be the optimal way to educate…but the “system” doesn’t seem willing to do that, which again leaves us with the conclusion that it isn’t REALLY about whats best for our children.

The $15 million (or so) question was to cover a gap between the needs of the general fund to provide the current level of education and what was known at the time that the State of MN would provide in FY2009. In other words, the known increase in state funding was inadequate, not non-existent.

It is not unreasonable that people would vote down the third and fourth questions on a referendum. It strikes me as a balance and reinforces the fact that we do live in a democracy with a collectively attentive electorate.

Don, it has been fun thinking deeply with you as our democratic process unfolds.

I have seen many papers, propaganda, etc, that said that the district was receiving no additional money from the state. Let me ask you this…what was the reasoning behind the $15 mil additional levy that was passed? And, why do the reduced busing and reduced sports fee’s continually lose in the levy votes? Wouldn’t you think that a levy question that directly affects so many parents would be voted yes? Seems odd?

Do you know if Tom Heidemans son is running for Mayor? How old is he?

Here’s the source of 2008-9 budget numbers:
http://abcnewspapers.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3127&Itemid=26

Personally, I’ve never heard the district say that there was NO increase coming from the state, although they may have said something similar in the years when the state kept the basic per-pupil formula frozen, a 0% increase. (A-H was lucky then to have increasing enrollment.) I have heard the district say that it can’t depend on the state for increases that come close to matching inflation. The numbers that were presented to, and amounts asked from, the voters in the last referendum fairly represented the known 1% increase for 2008-9.

Strictly speaking, the numbers in my last post didn’t include numbers of pupils, so there is no way that you could calculate a per-pupil cost without plugging in a number of your invention. Dividing the 2008-9 numbers by YOUR estimate of 38,500 students you get: $10,743 for the general fund, where students are educated, or $12,486 by incorrectly using the total of all funds.

If people want to be informed citizens, they need to make a distinction between what is spent educating students and what isn’t. The general fund is the cost of educating students attending district schools as well as providing bussing and some special ed services to students at private and religious schools within the district. Combining community education with general education leads to misrepsentations. If I enroll in an adult cooking class, or an adult foreign languate class, and pay tuition for it out of my pocket and at my choosing, it is foolish to look at this as, say, helping to fund 7th Grade Science. Similarly, if stockholders of 3M wants to know how its medical division is doing, they should not include numbers from sandpaper.

I didn’t lie by omission; the FY2009 increases I mentioned were in HF0006 passed in the 2008 session and are increases over FY2008. This bill contained nothing special for A-H, which makes me wonder what the 6% allocation to A-H is. It must have been in previous years, maybe a combination of several previous years.

You are typical of the people who tell us how underfunded they are in the schools, and nobody believes it anymore. The dissention in this district is high, very high. Dont be surprised if the 1999 levy re-steal fails this fall. I am sure the district will ask to renew it…no? And, with Sullivan due to retire next year, and Dr. G on his way out, we are ready to bring fiscally responsible people into those seats.

Still no response on Mr. Abelers actions at the fair? Keep on eye out on the news for it.

Overall district expenditures combining ALL funds are:
FY2003 - $367.2 million
FY2009 - $480.7 million

It is important to distinguish between the general fund and other funds. The general fund is used only for student instruction and district operation - heat, light, transportation, building maintenance, etc. Other funds serve other purposes. The school lunch fund is run as a business, and must pay its own way. The community education fund is kept separate, since it serves the entire community by providing classes for all people from birth to old, old age.

The increase in general fund expenditures is under 44% for the six-year period, or about 6.5% annually.
The increase in all funds is just over 29%, or about 4.5% annually.

Please compare apples to apples and you’re more likely to use correct numbers.

Also, in the year just past, the legislature approved a one-time-only expenditure of $51 per pupil for FY2009. This is an additional 1% on top of previous law, for a total of 2%. In this case, please use the right numbers.

Is your next contention that diesel fuel is the reason for an 80% increase in spending? Look, proportionately, at the amount spent on transportation costs and energy costs in the budget. It has risen 4% per year. Thats all. Care to try again? Give me some SUBSTANTIAL REASONS why the budget has grown so much, with a decrease in students?

Lastly, on BOTH levies the free busing issue was on the ballot and BOTH TIMES it was defeated. Do you think the union had anything to do with that? The question was to REDUCE, thus costing the district MORE, the cost of busing for everyone. Had the measured passed, the transportation portion would be in the red more than it is now. Correct?

For your information, one of my kids goes to Meadow Creek, and the other to Fred Moore. I drive the one, and the other takes the bus. Do you have any OTHER wrong information you would like to spread? Please, learn the facts FIRST…then talk about them after. You are looking a tad foolish here.

Jim Abeler was instrumental in the additional taxing of over 7 BILLION dollars last year alone. Thats whos really in your wallet.

RMW.
D11 Budget in 2003 - $280 Million to educate 41,000 students.
D11 Budget for 2009 - $500 Million to educate 38,500 students.

Does this represent “inflationary pressure” of over-spending?

The legislature approved a 6% PPU increase and a $51 PPU increase.

I was told, in two different levy pieces, that the state was not going to give them an increase and that is why they needed the levy.

I know that nobody in the private sector has had an 80% increase in their cost of doing business over the last 5 years.

Would you care to justify that to us? Wait, dont bother…I dont want to hear the “unfunded mandate” words again.

Some Abeler info for you all….look under “News” http://www.donhuizenga.com/