During the same week in 2005, Dan Wolter was hired as director of the University of Minnesota’s news service and appointed by Gov. Tim Pawlenty to serve on the Metropolitan Council.
While he said he knew there were going to be points where the two positions would cross over — or even conflict — he didn’t anticipate the extent of the disagreement between the agencies on the Central Corridor light rail line.
The disagreement hit its breaking point last Monday when the University filed a lawsuit against the Met Council alleging their final environmental impact statement on the project did not address the University’s concerns.
Among the concerns is a $200 million research investment in 80 labs set up in 17 buildings along Washington Avenue, where the light-rail line is slated to run. University officials say the Met Council’s measures to mitigate vibration and electromagnetic interference on these labs are not adequate.
The growing tensions between the organizations have created an awkward situation for Wolter, whose position as the Met Council’s vice chairman of the environment committee, its liaison to the Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Commission and regional representative for Northern Dakota County requires him to vote on policy issues such as the Central Corridor.
Since the University is a partner on the project, it raised a “red flag” for Wolter right away.
To address his concerns over working for both agencies, Wolter met with general counsels from each organization to decide on a course of action.
That action was not to take an action, on anything, at least having to do with the Central Corridor. In fact, Wolter rarely votes on anything involving the University, he said.
“I am not at any meetings at the University where decisions are being made about the project,” Wolter said. “So really, when it comes to the Central Corridor, if there is one person who doesn’t have his finger in either side of the issue, it is me.”
Recusal, or voluntarily removing oneself from voting on a certain topic, is an action University General Counsel Mark Rotenberg often advises University employees to take.
In Wolter’s case, Rotenberg advised him to recuse himself to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest.
“There are examples where you really aren’t on both sides of the table but people might think you are,” Rotenberg said. “[Wolter] doesn’t benefit one way or another on this decision, but it could look that way to others because he works for the University.”
Removing oneself from voting on a certain issue is not unusual at the Met Council.
The 17 members who make up the council are appointed, not elected, to make policy decisions about transportation, wastewater, parks and housing in the seven-county metro area.
“The Met Council is a part-time body, and all most all of its members have other occupations,” Steve Dornfeld, spokesman for the Met Council, said, adding that Wolter has consistently stepped aside when the council votes on University issues.
But Wolter’s role as the director of the University News Service is unique in that he often, for better or worse, becomes the face of University decisions, Wolter said. On the Central Corridor project, Wolter has nothing critical to say of either side.
“I understand where both parties are coming from, and they have very different responsibilities,” he said. “The Met Council has to get this done on time and on budget, and the University is a research institution that has an obligation to protect its public investment.”
In the end, Wolter said the difficulty of holding the two positions comes from time constraints, not the Central Corridor. But between the staff at the University’s news service and his iPhone, Wolter said he can handle the load. “Like anyone with multiple professional and career commitments, you figure out ways to manage it.”









Serving the University of Minnesota Community since 1900
4 Comments
To comment, please login.
Perhaps the U is an elephant graveyard?
The smiling countenance of Mr. Wolter (and Nick Coleman) reminded me of something.
Mr. Wolter's appointment to the Metropolitan Council by Governor Pawlenty is not exactly coincidental...
From the U's website:
"Prior to joining the News Service, Wolter served as director of communications for Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty from his transition in December 2003 until late 2004. In that role, he oversaw all media relations for the governor, lieutenant governor and state agencies."
J-School Prof Chris Ison also had an informative article about Mr. Wolter that readers may find of interest:
Opinion: The Closed U
http://www.mndaily.com/2009/03/09/opinion-closed-u
_____________________
A more recent arrival at the graveyard is yet another Pawlenty administration refugee, Matt Kramer. Mr. Kramer served as Pawlenty's chief of staff until this summer when he came to the University to become Director of the University of Minnesota Academic and Corporate Relations Center.
The move meant a raise: Kramer will earn $145,000 a year in his new post, compared to $118,870 in Pawlenty's administration, according to the AP.
It is telling that under a hiring pause we are still able to to feed this elephant and even give him a 25K$ raise. And now lower paid employees who have been at the U for a long time are being laid off.
Seems some pigs (elephants) are more equal than other pigs.
Since Mr. Kramer is a director, maybe this makes him an administrator?
Ah, that would explain it...
Now where are those peanuts?
We don't have any?
Maybe we can lay off some more people?
LOL
Mr. Gleason, I am not refuting anything you are saying about this article or any other article, but damn, is there anyone that you like at the university or anything you are happy with? I mean that lightheartedly...don't get mad. I just never see you satisfied.
Like?
Good question and I am certainly not mad at you for asking it. Now that it is a little harder for the bomb-throwers to make comments on the Daily site, dialog seems to have fallen off. I hope this trend is reversed by comments like yours.
I have really strong feelings about the U because I am a graduate and think that it is a wonderful institution. It could be a lot better.
We have wonderful undergraduates. Many of them have worked in my laboratory doing research. We don't need to continually ratchet up the qualification of incoming graduates by taking people from out of state or elsewhere. But we should be doing a better job for the students we've got. Many of our competitors do a far better job than we do in the retention and graduation rate department, even though incoming student qualifications are no better than ours.
We have outstanding faculty members. Look at the Regents Professors. Many of them are in national academies and are the caliber of people that are the envy of our peers. Many of them are also excellent teachers; a recent example is Professor Larry Que. The chem dept chair, Bill Tolman is an excellent teacher as is Chris Cramer. And both of these folks are world class scientists. (This is not Driven to Discover propaganda...) Although I am a scientist, a strong CLA is also the backbone of a true university. Hampl, Clayton, Rabonowitz? And economics is (finally) being retooled. Psychology, Public Health, Pharmacy, IT - there are pockets of excellence all around the U. The U is not Dunwoody. (And I am not dissing Dunwoody.) So between the quality of the students and the quality of the faculty, I don't think we need to apologize to anyone.
The mission of the institution as written on Northrop is laudable. We are a land grant institution and that means something. We are not Cambridge or the ETH or even Berkeley. Berkeley has 240 members of the National Academy of Science and we have about thirty. This is not going to change significantly despite pompous protestations to the contrary by people like the provost. There is no way that we should be comparing ourselves to the top three universities in the world. A better goal would be to be one of the top schools in the BigTen. But our president describes this argument as that of a doubter.
I could go on, but you get the idea. The message is simple - play with the cards you've got - in the big scheme of things, they are pretty good cards.
Let's all work together to make this one of the best schools in the Big Ten, rather than our vainglorious attempt to be one of the top three public research institutions in the world. Every time I hear the words "ambitious aspirations," I think of student debt, graduation and retention rates and wonder yet again about our priorities.
I hope you realize that some of us who complain about the U do so because we believe that the U could be a lot better place, and lack of money alone is not the only explanation for our failings. It is a question of priorities.
Leadership matters.
Thanks again for your question. Sorry to rant, but you touched a nerve.
Thanks
You make some valid points. I appreciate the response.