Nobody can accuse Chisholm mayor Mike Jugovich, who is running for county commissioner in the 7th District, of not liking animals. He is a staunch supporter of the nonprofit Precious Paws Humane Society, volunteering time and labor to their animal shelter. During Polar Bear Days, Chisholm’s annual winter festival, Mayor Jugovich gets behind a bar and serves drinks to customers as a celebrity bartender, with all of his tips going to Precious Paws. So you certainly can’t fault him for not caring.

The animal shelter was established in Chisholm in 2011, and each year the mayor and city council have approved Precious Paws’ animal-control contract with the city. Currently, the city pays Precious Paws $1,100 a month for their services, plus an additional stipend when the number of animals exceeds 100.

On Sept. 28, 2016, the board of directors of Precious Paws published a letter in the Hibbing Daily Tribune supporting Jugovich for county commissioner.

“During his tenure as mayor of Chisholm, Michael Jugovich has been a staunch supporter of our organization,” wrote the board. “He has been helpful and supportive of us since we moved to the City of Chisholm, obtained the city animal contract and purchased our building. He graciously donates his time to our organization by plowing our parking lot, working at our fundraisers and volunteering at our open houses….We support Michael Jugovich in his bid for St. Louis County Commissioner District 7 and know that he will do a wonderful job for all of us.”

Jugovich was pleased. He posted the letter to his campaign’s Facebook page, saying, “Thank you. It’s a pleasure.”

Which is all very nice, but there’s only one problem: Nonprofits aren’t allowed to endorse candidates.

This is not some arcane restriction that I’m digging up because I like to harass helpless puppy dogs. This rule is very well known, a central requirement of nonprofits. The website of the Minnesota Council of Nonprofits states, in bold letters, “a 501(c)(3) organization can never endorse, contribute to, work for, or otherwise support or oppose a candidate for public office.” Especially not when that candidate has voted to grant your organization funds.
This restriction is so well known that I am baffled that neither Precious Paws nor the mayor seem to have been aware of it. Precious Paws’ endorsement may not be scandalous, but it is certainly illegal.

On October 25, when I called Precious Paws for comment, board president DeAnn Abate denied that they had endorsed anyone. She said that the board of Precious Paws had sent a “letter of support” for Jugovich to the newspaper that “supported him as a volunteer,” but the paper had incorrectly described the letter as an endorsement.

“We did not know that we weren’t allowed to do it, but it wasn’t an endorsement,” said Abate. “As soon as I was advised that we should not support or do anything like that during elections, we pulled everything. We pulled it off Facebook. I called the Hibbing paper and let [the editor] know that I wanted everything pulled….It was not intended to be an endorsement letter. We did pull everything. That was done immediately.”
I was a little confused by this explanation, since the first sentence of Precious Paws’ letter read: “It is our pleasure to write a letter of support for Michael Jugovich in his bid for St. Louis County Commissioner District 7.” That certainly sounded like an endorsement.

When I brought this up, Abate again denied that any endorsement had been intended, and asked me, “I’m just wondering: What are you going to do about it now?”

“I’ll write that there was an endorsement and I’ll write your response to that,” I said.

Abate: Well, I would really prefer that you not use the word ‘endorsement.’ We never used the word ‘endorsement.’ Never.

Ramos: A letter of support for Jugovich for county commissioner is an endorsement.

Abate: But you’re using the word ‘endorsement.’ We’re not. So you’re making it look like we, you know, endorsed him for that.

So there you have it: Precious Paws supports Jugovich for county commissioner, but that is not an endorsement. Make of it what you will.

DNT shortens subscriptions

On September 10, I picked up the Duluth News Tribune and read a column by publisher Neal Ronquist, in which he alerted subscribers to an exciting development: The News Tribune was going to launch a new special section, called DNT Extra. The new section would be devoted to “premium” journalism, with the low-grade fodder that the News Tribune normally ground out replaced by cuts of fine journalistic sirloin. The new section would be published on a to-be-determined schedule, in the print edition of the newspaper only.

“DNT Extra will focus on a single topic, allowing our talented reporters the opportunity to explore subjects in greater deal, while also showcasing the work of our fantastic photographers and designers,” Ronquist wrote, adding hopefully, “Readers will enjoy the engaging stories, the riveting photos and energetic design.”

I applauded the News Tribune’s decision to practice journalism. More reporting equals a better-informed public, which is always a good thing.

I read on. DNT Extra would cost subscribers an additional $2.50 per edition. Unless you called up and opted out of the new arrangement, the newspaper would automatically subtract the $2.50 from your existing subscription. Mr. Ronquist explained that this would “result…in an earlier expiration date for your current newspaper subscription.”

That was considerate of them, I reflected—the way they just took care of that for you. It was just another little gesture by the Duluth News Tribune that showed how much they appreciated their loyal readers.

City names Jean Duluth Dog Park

Duluth’s newest and largest dog park, at the far eastern edge of the city, has been officially named the Jean Duluth Dog Park. The Parks Commission recommended the name on October 12, and the city council voted to accept the name on October 24.

It has been a long time coming. While the east Duluth dog park was being planned and built, members of the Duluth Dog Park Facebook page conducted a survey among themselves to consider names. The top two suggestions were “Lynch Field,” to honor volunteer dog park builders extraordinaire Bill and Denette Lynch, and “Wiggly Field,” a whimsical name that some felt would be appropriate for a fun place like a dog park. In the end, the dog park group combined the two names and submitted “Lynch’s Wiggly Field” to the city for consideration.

The city’s naming committee is staffed by city department heads and a few citizens with backgrounds in Duluth history. They meet very infrequently, perhaps once a year, to consider proposals to name public assets after people.

On September 7, the naming committee rejected the proposed name without explanation. In a letter to the dog park group, chief administrative officer Dave Montgomery suggested that they name the park based on its location, like Keene Creek Dog Park and Observation Dog Park elsewhere in the city. Because the dog park was located near Jean Duluth Road, Montgomery suggested they name it the Jean Duluth Dog Park.

Denette and Bill Lynch weren’t thrilled by the suggestion. “We thought it would be fun to name it something fun and happy,” Denette told the Parks Commission on September 14.

On September 26, the parks department put out a press release: “Duluth Parks Seeking Input on Proposed Dog Park Name.” They posted the Naming Committee’s letter online and asked the public for suggestions. In the next two weeks, 108 people responded. The most common suggestion was Jean Duluth Dog Park, which 43 people said they liked. The remaining 65 respondents came up with a wide variety of other names.

On October 12, the Parks Commission once again took the matter up. Denette Lynch was in the audience, of course—she and Bill have hardly missed a commission meeting in two years. Denette gave a last-ditch plea: “I don’t think it should be named after a road. I think it’s dull and dreary and unimaginative, and I don’t know why we need to keep naming things after people or events or things that may have existed a hundred years ago….To name it after a road…can you imagine what things will be in a hundred years, if we keep using the same names over and over again?...I just think we could do better than naming it after a road.”

Commissioners were clearly uncomfortable at having to vote against Denette, whose tremendous work on behalf of dog parks one after another of them acknowledged. They wondered aloud whether they might run a new survey where people would be given a few choices to choose from, rather than allowing Jean Duluth to define the discussion.

But they also liked Jean Duluth. Perhaps it was a bit dull, but it was informative—people would instantly know what you were talking about.
“To me, Jean Duluth is not just a road,” said council liaison Joel Sipress. “It’s a huge landmark for everybody who lives on this end of town, and people will hear Jean Duluth Dog Park [and] they will immediately visualize, ‘Oh, that’s where it is.’”

“A nice, general name is maybe not everyone’s favorite, but I don’t think there’s much harm done to anyone, either,” commented commissioner Tjaard Breeuwer.

It was a safe, conservative choice, and there wasn’t any truly awful reason to oppose it. The Planning Commission voted, unanimously, to accept it. Two weeks later, the city council made it official.