At its January 3rd, 2012 meeting, the Eagan City Council approved a measure (4-0) which created a domestic partner registry for its residents. A recent Letter to the Editor appeared in Thisweek which questioned the necessity of the registry and chalked it up to political pandering and purposeful pot-stirring to further the political ambitions of the mayor.

From the Letter to the Editor:

So what is the point? Eagan Mayor Mike Maguire has decided to champion a cause whose purpose is unknown to its residents. This idea to create a Domestic Partner Registry is most befuddling. There was little public discussion of the proposal and even less of a demand to have it enacted.

[...]

The mayor should just do his job and stay out of the personal lives of the citizens of Eagan.

While it’s certainly true that mayors of our cities should certainly stay out of the personal lives of their respective citizens, in the case of Eagan’s Domestic Partner Registration process, as it’s an opt-in registry, it can be argued that the process is definitely not meddling in the personal lives of the city’s residents.

At the meeting Eagan’s City Administrator Thomas Hedges provided background on the reasoning for the ordinance (relevant section of which is at the top of the post):

Back in July of 2011 we did have a request made at a meeting of the City Council and that request was to consider a domestic partner registration as a service to members of the community who meet the Purpose stated in the Ordinance.

After a bit of discussion about the history of the research done by the city for the ordinance, the fee structures associated, and data privacy issues the council then opened the discussion up to residents who wished to speak about the ordinance:

1. Tim Lewis, an Eagan resident, asked the council what benefit the ordinance provided to the city.

2. Phil Duran of Outfront Minnesota, a LBGT advocacy group, spoke about the benefits to citizens who partake. He noted it provides companies operating within city limits a way to provide non-traditional and same-sex couples a way to get insurance (health and auto for example) by having legal documentation about their relationship.

3. No other members of the public came forward to speak for or against the proposed ordinance.

—

It is fairly clear from the information provided by the City Administrator and Mr. Duran of Outfront Minnesota that Eagan’s Domestic Partnership Registry is not meddling in the lives of its residents and the city provided opportunity for those who wanted to speak for or against it to step forward. While the City Administrator did admit that it took a couple of months to do the research to prepare the ordinance based on the work done by other cities and the League of Minnesota Cities, something which taxpayers may not appreciate for the admitted few who may utilize the ordinance, it’s fairly clear that it was a requested service and one that may be of benefit to many non-traditional couples who learn of the ordinance’s existence. While this is simply opinion, at no time did Eagan’s mayor appear to be pandering nor did he appear to engage in any political posturing. Lazy Lightning concludes that the author of the Letter to the Editor is almost entirely off base in his submission.

Do you agree that Eagan and other cities around the South Metro should have registries for domestic partnerships? If you were in a non-traditional relationship would you seek out such a registry in an attempt to gain more universally accepted insurance benefits for your loved one? Do you believe that motives other than care for the staff expense required and meddling in people’s personal affairs for the creation of this ordinance was at the heart of Dan Rossini’s Letter to the Editor? Whatever you have to say about this one go ahead and comment on as I’d love to hear your thoughts.

According to this Dakota County Criminal Complaint, a man found the person who broke into his wife’s car at Buck Hill and stole her $500 purse and wallet containing $400 in gift cards and cash after doing his own detective work at Burnsville Center Mall nearby.

From the complaint:

On January 13, 2012 at approximately 6:03 p.m., Burnsville police officers were dispatched to the Buck Hill ski area in the city of Burnsville, Dakota County, Minnesota, on the report of a theft from vehicle. The victim, D.A.A., told officers that someone had broken out the window on her vehicle and removed a Coach purse, Coach wallet, and miscellaneous other items which belonged to her. The purse also contained $200 cash and a $200 Macy’s gift card, and the purse and wallet themselves were valued at over $500.

[...]

While in route to Burnsville Police Department, the victim and her husband stopped at the Burnsville Center to look into some of the charges since it was on the way to the police station. D.A.A.’s husband stopped at the T-Mobile store where they knew that D.A.A.’s credit card had been declined for a charge of over $600. The clerk at the T-Mobile gave a detailed description of the two females associated with that declined transaction. D.A.A.’s husband then saw a woman outside the store matching the description of one of the two women who had been involved in the declined transaction. He also noticed that she was carrying a purse of the same style as his wife’s stolen purse. D.A.A.’s husband then approached the woman, later identified as Jennifer Elizabeth Martin, DOB: 12-10-75, hereinafter referred to as defendant, and asked to see her purse and explained how his wife’s purse was recently stolen.

[...]

When he asked her about the Macy’s bag and merchandise she had with her, as his wife’s card was fraudulently used at Macey’s and he thought the circumstances were suspicious. The defendant told D.A.A.’s husband that she bought the items at Macy’s with cash. The victim’s husband then took a distinctive hat that the defendant was wearing to the T-Mobile store and the clerk identified it as the same hat she was wearing during the transaction. At about this time, Burnsville security saw the conversation between D.A.A.’s husband and defendant and stopped to see if anything was happening. Defendant then changed her story and told D.A.A.’s husband that her friend has thrown away his wife’s credit cards and belongings in a garbage can in the food court at the mall. D.A.A.’s husband then called police and Burnsville Center security held defendant until police arrived.

The defendant has a long criminal record including five arrests in Dakota County since 10/10/2010 (10/10/2010 (TXT), 11/17/2010, 12/11/2010, 3/8/2011, 1/13/2012) two of which have resulted in felony charges and one which gave her a three month taxpayer funded vacation in Dakota County Jail which was supposed to last up through 6/14/2011.

If someone stole your belongings would you take it upon yourself to do detective work on your own or would you leave it up to the police? If you did your own detective work would you confront the person yourself or would you call the police and wait for them to question the individual instead? What do you think about someone who has been arrested on criminal charges four separate times which led to a jail sentence one time and felony charges another? Are you surprised this person continues to re-offend in the area where they continually get caught? Whatever you have to say about this one go ahead and comment on as I’d love to hear your thoughts.