By: kdellen on 11/4/09
FANTASTIC! Owatonna made an excellent choice. Congratulations Raymond.

By: Brian_Sanburn on 11/4/09
We'll see.

By: pookah on 11/4/09
Not good... This is NOT the change I wanted.

By: ss_observing on 11/4/09
Agreed, Pookah - just more of the same good ol' boys club except now we're even worse off than before because Falk is gone.

By: Racer on 11/4/09
I really feel that if more of the younger voters got out to vote, This would never have happened.

By: doitnow on 11/4/09
I will be interesting to say the least. Mr. Truelson has a son that works for the Park and Recreation Department. Are we going to see any cuts there?

By: igor74 on 11/4/09
A lack of voter turn out says it all.

The vast majority of the community simply doesn't care how things are run. By the time they wake up and realize the consequences of their indifference it will be too late.

This is an absolute guarantee of a continuation of business as usual and probably even worse. Both Truelson and Burbank are true denizens of the "system".

By: hawk on 11/4/09
Just a clarification, Tim Truelson park and rec. is Raymonds nephew, he is the son of Raymonds twin brother Roland. Raymond is a heavy supporter of the park and rec. and has made substantial personal donations. Good or bad there is a personal interest vested with Raymond, I would agree that based on this information, the park and rec. will be safe in Raymonds world for what ever they want.

I agree with the above, shame on the people who did not get out and vote we will live with the decision for the next four years.

For those of us that have worked personally with Raymond we know the out come, for those that haven't, you will.

By: Mr_Kite on 11/4/09
Looks like the majority of those that post here are the minority when it comes to voting.

By: slundber on 11/4/09
You said it, Mr_Kite! Also, the majority of those who post here probably didn't do anything to help their preferred candidate EXCEPT posting here!!! If they wanted change, they should have worked to get their preferred candidate(s) elected. Just flapping one's lips (or, in this case, fingertips) is not quite enough.

And obviously if anyone who posts here DID get out and doorknock, host a neighborhood meet-the-candidate party, or somehow else actively work for their preferred candidate, this message does not apply to them.

By: ss_observing on 11/4/09
Give me a break! Motivation and giving a crap are internal, not external. Obviously too many people don't care or the voter turnout would have been much higher. My door knocking, or lack thereof, isn't going to make that horse drink the water.

For those who missed the point, you can lead a horse to water (provide the opportunity to understand the candidates, where they stand on the issues as well as the privilege to vote for said candidates), but you can't make him drink (you can't make them understand, you can't make them care, and, obviously, we can't make them vote).
Because, if more people were paying attention (understood), or cared, they would have voted.

By: Dagny on 11/4/09
Nothing says "We're mad as hell and not going to take it anymore" like electing someone who has been involved in government for a few decades. Seriously, just reading his bio and knowing nothing else about him, this guy isn't about to rock the boat any time soon. Way to go, folks. More of the same.

By: ss_observing on 11/4/09
Additionally, the lack of voter response, and, ultimately the results says to the "minority" we are happy with overspending, high taxes, incompetence, bail outs, hand outs and lack of overall concern for the American people. Status quo at it's best.

"If you do it the way you have always done it, you'll get the results you've always gotten" - don't know who said it

By: msw1 on 11/4/09
I didnt really see any of the candidates really doing much in the community, there wasnt any hand outs giving any information about what there all about, unless im way out of the loop, but i didnt see anything other than what the opp printed and to be honest, i would have liked more information.

By: Mr_Kite on 11/4/09
I didn't think this group of candidates generated any interest, contributing to the low turnout. The remarks they made in the paper were safe, the budget was always the answer. No solid plans. Some ideas presented didn't seem very thought out. The flyers I saw again were nothing to draw interest. One I thought interesting gave no history or qualifications, only stated the obivous about the issues. I just didn't think we had a great group to choose from. I hope those elected prove me wrong.

By: kdellen on 11/4/09
HEY BRAINIACS!....after reading these posts I wonder how in the world did Raymond win? Are you all just keyboard tough guys who never leave their parent's basement long enough to vote? Try using your voice to make the change you are complaining about.

By: slapshot27 on 11/4/09
I for one did not vote. The main reason was I really didn't know ANYTHING about any of the candidates. Like msw1 said I knew nothing except for what was in the paper and since I do not have a subscription to the paper I only got bits and pieces. I never once heard of a meeting to learn more about where the candidates stand nor did I see or hear about anyone spreading the word about where they stand.

Most of my "information" can from all the posts on the various articles I have had time to read. Since the majority of the people who post to articles on this site would be unhappy and complain no matter what the situation is, I take all their opinions with a grain of salt.

By: pookah on 11/4/09
I voted for Wacek. He was the only one who actually didn't skirt the issues.

As far as complaining goes, I have worked it as much as I can. I think my work speaks for itself. Also, I am only one person, not 10 people.

Really sad. If everyone was that upset about things, then why vote for Truelson. That makes no sense.

GL to everyone who continues to live here. I really feel badly for everyone. I don't feel badly for us. I feel badly for everyone and their pocketbook.

Your margins just got smaller today.

By: charliebrown on 11/4/09
I voted for a fiscal conservative. I helped one person hand out flyers and I know he knocked on almost 2000 doors, sent out 1000 flyers and had an ad in the paper for about a week.

In my ward there were only two votes, councilman at large and the candidates for my ward. I chose a conservative C at Large and a newbie for the other one. I wanted a new council with new thoughts.

Thanks to all the council and best of luck to the new group. Please keep in mind you represent US and your opinions should represent your ward,not your own.

By: Thuljunior on 11/4/09
The six way race didn't help either. All of us conservatives split the vote just enough for Truelson to win.

By: quinn on 11/4/09
I've gotta agree with Mr_Kite it was a pretty lack-luster group to choose from. All around. Seemed to be alot of pandering to the issue of the day, and not much content or new ideas.

You are, when it comes down to it, responsible for one vote; your own. You may not agree with how others exercise the privilege, but there it is.

By: Mr_Kite on 11/4/09
Junior you're correct. 6 running for one position hurt. You'd think out of 6 there would be one stand out and there wasn't. I unfortunetly in both case voted against someone more then for someone. Seems to be a growing pattern for me.

By: pookah on 11/4/09
Wacek stood out. Anyone who can read his answers and listen to him gets it. I have no idea on why someone can't see the light.

By: indian on 11/4/09
6 people running for one position did not affect the outcome. For months everyone claimed to be upset about ongoing flooding, the city management, the waterpark among other issues. On election day where were these people? I voted at 5:45 and was number 369 to cast a vote at that location. Don't complain about how things are done and then when you have a chance to help bring about change you choose not to. If you really thought that things were bad you missed your chance to try to get it fixed.

By: texas42 on 11/4/09
After digesting yesterday's election results, I have reached a conclusion. That said, let me say there is no scientific basis for this conclusion and I will not be submitting 1,000 pages of documentation supporting my opinion.

It seems to me that the regular contributors to this site who are against absolutely any use of their taxes for public "wants" (exception -- walking paths for the disabled) are definitely in the minority.

Truelson won the Alderman at Large race with 35% of the vote to Welker's 34%. I'm not sure of Welker's stance when it comes to the budget but two of the more conservative candidates got 10% (Wacek) and 6% (Thul). I realize 65% of the voters voted against the winner but then 90+% voted against the most apparently most conservative candidates.

By: wireless on 11/4/09
First of all i voted , I wish more people would have voted also, There is something very wrong in this town with the people that yell and holler and then don't show up and control the only thing we can control, Seems to me people here wanted a low turnout , Now Owatonna has what they want , "The Good OL' Boy network . None of the candidates that i saw really interested me or sparked any kind of new idea's . They all say budget this budget that but didnt give any way's that they could fix it , so here we go again more of the same , spend spend spend.....Congrat's to all of us that voted !! (sarcasm) Maybe next time we can get it right!!

By: JonathanM on 11/4/09
I was one of those Thul voters...

I was suprised to see how well Welker did. I think it points to name-recognition being the overwhelming driving force behind these results. Welker and Truelson were both by far the most recognizable names, and both got the most votes, Scott rather surprisingly so IMO.

What can be said about the pathetic turnout that hasn't already been said? Sigh. I'm in my early 30s and haven't missed an election at any level since turning 18. To say I feel 'obligated' is an understatement.

It seems trite to go into a speech about men and women giving their lives for us, so that we could live in a country where we are given the right to vote, so I won't. But that is the reason I never miss an election, ever.

I think for the most part, whatever we say here about people needing to vote is probably going to be a waste of time. I would guess that the vast majority of OPP posters and probably a good chunk of the newspaper readers voted yesterday.

By: Thuljunior on 11/4/09
Not just name recognition (which I certainly lacked) but also money. Campaign finance reports are due by next Tuesday, and I think we will see Welker and Truelson each spending well over $3000 of their own money.

While they have the right to spend as much as they want, the question is why?

By the way, my campaign site will be up for a while if any one has any constructive criticism, www.dave4owatonna.com.

By: pookah on 11/4/09
3K for city council? YIKES! City council should take alot of door-knocking, earned media time, and thorough understanding of the local issues during the candidate forum.

Networking is everything. Spending 3K for this position is a waste of money.

By: NoteTaker on 11/4/09

I submit that it wasn't a "waste of money" but rather an "investment," at least from the perspective of some of the candidates.

To me it's rather like someone "investing" (hundreds of?) millions of dollars to win the office of the U.S. President when the job has an annual salary of...what...about $400,000? It's the "bennies" that are the big payoff...well down the road: the speech tour, book deals, sitting on the boards of this or that corporation, etc.

Payback IS a b***h, at least for us taxpayers.

By: ss_observing on 11/5/09
Thuljunior: This is the first time I've seen that you have a website regarding your campaign. A suggestion for next time - post your website address before the election. I think it's a great way to get your name out there without having to door-knock, or spend money on a brochure (different candidate) that immediately went in the trash. If you've posted it previously, and I just didn't see it, my apologies. It never occurred to me that a candidate might have a website (which makes me feel quite dense, actually, but if I didn't think of it, possibly neither did a lot of others).

By: creegers on 11/5/09
What do you armchair quarterbacks expect! a council is a group of people ( one voice ) who collectivly look at issues and facts. and try to bring resolutions to issues for the good of us all. I've served on the board of directors of other companies with a wide array of issues, but those issues are decided on the basis of whats good for the owners and the co. In this case it's us! THE TAXPAYER. even with one stand out person! They collectivly have to work together for all of us. I pray they can do there jobs in the best interest of all of us and with our support and contributions. like being able to call and talk to them and express your concerns about issues. And yes I voted!! I also served 2 branches of the military, So WE the people can exercise our freedoms. thank a vet. next election put your name in and see if your feet fill the shoe's and you stand out among your peers.

By: charliebrown on 11/5/09
I wonder if Ray being on the board is a conflict of interest since his nephew is an employee for the P&R? I wonder how impartial he will be.

By: Thuljunior on 11/5/09
Thanks for the advice SS. I put the web address on the few lawn signs I had, and mentioned it every time I talked to the Peoples Press and at the candidate forum, but if it still wasn't common knowledge then I needed to do something else.
Jillian Schiell also had a website, but I think we were the only ones, which surprised me, since they are so cheap to put together.

Which two branches Creegers?

By: slundber on 11/5/09
charliebrown - If being related to a city employee was a conflict of interest, I would guess 33% of all people in Owatonna would be ineligible for local elected office on that basis. In a smaller town like Ellendale or even Blooming Prairie I would guess more than 50% of the residents are somehow related to one or more of their city's employees.

By: FYI on 11/5/09
Let's look at a few facts.

All of the At Large canidates expressed a desire to not raise taxes and showed a consertive slant to varying degrees.

Five canidates lost the election.

Three canidates spent money on the election and three did not.

Why is it that only one canidate is making excuses that the vote was split among to many conservatives (they were all conservative)and complaining about canidates spending money on the election?

I have alyays considered myself a republican. I am embarrassed to have the co-chair of my party acting that way. As a party co-chair, he should be above that. If that is the future of the party, I am not sure that I want to be a part of It.

As for the rest of the bloggers here, Let's give Mr. Truelson an opportunity to start his time in office before we cruicify him in the blogs.

By: civiltongued on 11/5/09
When I voted at 5 PM there were only 261 voters in my ward. Everyone who voted has the right to continue to complain. If you did not vote, you have no right to complain. And Pookah, you voted for Mr. Wacek but didn't you write a letter supporting Mr. Ventura in the paper? I'm confused. I agree let us give Mr. Truelson a chance.

By: hawk on 11/5/09
FYI and civiltounged
AS MENTIONED ABOVE

For those of us that have worked personally with Raymond we know the out come, for those that haven't, you will.

By: RealityCheck on 11/5/09
My candidate did not win, yet I am willing to give Mr. Truelson a chance. Perhaps a person who claims to have learned from experience really IS the person for the job. Time will tell.

By: charliebrown on 11/5/09
I agree Reality...

By: creegers on 11/6/09
U.S Army and U.S Air Force, also Army Reserves with Honorable Discharges. and thanks for your service Thuljunior!!!!!!

By: hawk on 11/6/09
RealityCheck, looks like we will need another election to deceide which one of us "learn from experience" should have the job. There are at least 50 or more of us that agree on this one that have personal experience within a few hundred feet of each other. Being naieve, shame on us for thinking your candidate (and maybe ours)would win and that everyone else would be as educated in their vote. I am glad to hear though that you had a different candidate in mind for the job. You must have seen or heard something that made you feel that way.

By: pookah on 11/7/09
I would give Truelson a chance, but the problem is he's a lifer and experienced at doing one thing - agreeing with staff and keeping your taxes higher than need be.

Our house sold this week. I guess, in one way, I can bail out and not worry about it. On the other hand, I actually do care about what happens to my hometown.

That being said, I think anyone BUT Truelson would've been better. Sorry, but think about the guy he is replacing, Jeff Falk. You think Truelson can measure up to the conservatism and outspokenness of Jeff Falk? Me thinks not.

If it wasn't for Falk, Allina would already be raiding our pants by now for more money. Truelson wouldn't have stepped up and stopped the madness that was "subsidize our cash flows and net deficit." Too big too fail was already an option for them.

I am not mad that my candidate lost. I didn't think Wacek could win. The bottom line is the candidate that won was the person out of all of them who would continue to see things run as it does now.

If everyone clamored for so much change, then how do you reconcile this particular situation:

Current Spectrum

Falk, Moen, Thompson, Abraham, Svenby, Ellingson, Wittrock

Future Council Spectrum

Moen, Dotson, Burbank, Abraham, Svenby, Truelson, Wittrock

Now it doesn't appear so bad, but look at what's happened. Falk was replaced by Moen (not sure if Dotson will take up Falk's mantle just yet). I like John but I think he needs to step up now.

It's possible there will be strong reaction to be more fiscally conservative. I think Burbank getting elected was a huge plus since he's worked for an excellent department run top-to-bottom as efficiently as possible under all of the constraints they face.

However, I don't think Truelson can make up the ground and move his philosophy past Abraham's. If that's the case, there could be gridlock, and if there's gridlock, expect them to side more with staff than less.

That doesn't bode well for those advocating change.

Disclaimer - These are just thoughts and are not the opinions of all other Owatonnans.