SILENCE! OR "What You'll Never See in the Board Minutes..."

Any Eureka citizen can place him/herself on the Town Board agenda (or the Planning Commission agenda, for that matter) to discuss an item of concern. See Public Agenda Request Form.  That is what I did for the July Board meeting.  I asked to speak about 1) Data Practices, 2) Complaint Policy, 3) Agenda Items, and 4) Non-Ag>11 Acres and Accessory Buildings--all in regard to what I viewed as some very unfortunate happenings that occurred at the June Board meeting.

But then something even more egregious in my opinion happened before I even had a chance to open my mouth at the July meeting!  WHAT was that?

Supervisor Mark Ceminsky tried to DELETE MY items from the agenda during the agenda approval time!  I viewed this as a very high-handed attempt and said so at the Public Comment period.  Why would he think he is able to silence a citizen who wishes to appear before the Board and requested to do so through the proper channels under the Board's own policy?  Wisely, the rest of the Board let my items stand, and I received my chance to address them.

HOWEVER, you will never know from the minutes WHAT I SAID!  Why not?  Because the Board has elected to have my and other's comments reduced to the likes of "So-and-so, 12345 Nowhere Avenue, made comments" when it comes to the minutes.  They are able to decide what "level of detail" they would like in the minutes when it comes to non-motion items, so they can do this.  In the past, they have had the practice of including the gist of what an individual said, even during the public comment period.  Somehow, what I have said on two former occasions and what another stated on another occasion, seems to make them uncomfortable, to the point of "sanitizing" us out of the minutes.  What does it say when the Board can broker no disagreement, when they do not even respond to the comments of the citizen before them, when they keep the content of a person's statements from the public minutes, when one of them even puts his fingers in his ears while I am speaking to him as an elected public official?  I can scarcely believe what we seem to have come to.  I think we still live in America--don't we?  Engaging Eureka in Governance : Steve Madden--Listener:

What did I say that was so controversial?  Well, in brief, I let them know they need to do a much better job:

1) Data Practices:  At the June meeting, Chair Storlie had demanded that the "citizen who put the exotic animal complaint on the agenda" step forward publicly.  The Data Practices Policy protects that person's identity, unless he chooses to reveal it.  Why did Chair Storlie think he could demand that the person "out" himself?  Why did he refuse to discuss the matter unless that person did?  Why did others on the Board just sit there and not point out his error?

2) Complaint Policy: I stated that the Board's own policy has time frames within the procedure to be followed, yet one complaint is nearing its third-year anniversary!!!  I questioned why the exotic animal complaint on the agenda was not discussed as was proper at the June meeting, and how the Board can justify not moving ahead on complaints in a more timely manner.  Supervisor Budenski had tried unsuccessfully to get the Chair to address the complaint. The Township Attorney had even drawn up and submitted materials for the Board's use regarding the exotic animal complaint as he (quite naturally) had thought they would address it and told them that they could address it.  STILL Chair Storlie would not allow the Board to address it and no one else on the Board spoke up.  Don't you wonder why not?  The Ordinances are worth less than nothing if they are not enforced. 

3) Agenda Items: At the last meeting, the agenda had the item "Housekeeping" on it.  At the time during the meeting that night that the agenda can be amended, the Chair stated that he wanted to add the 200%-25% Ordinance and the Agri-tourism Ordinance to the agenda under "Housekeeping."  Again, they can do this, but I asked where is the transparency and the forthrightness in government that the citizens of Eureka have an expectation of and, I believe, a right to?  I further stated that, since both those items were somewhat controversial topics as was shown through public hearings input, the public might see this manoeuvre as an means to avoid discussion by not alerting them ahead of time by having those items on the published agenda.

4) Non-Ag > 11 Acres and Accessory Buildings:  I again for surely the fourth or fifth time (at Planning Commission meetings, at Board meetings, and during the public hearing) pointed out a big loophole in the new ordinance the Board pushed through at the June meeting, even though the Planning Commission as a whole had not completed its work on it.  That loophole, which did not exist in the ordinance that was replaced, is that there are no limits on accessory structures on non-ag parcels greater than 10.999 acres.  I stated as I have before that just because a parcel is greater than 11 acres does not make it ag; its USE makes it ag.  Is anyone there???  Supervisor Kenny Miller asked permission from the Chair to speak to me  (Did I notice a reluctance?) to tell me that he (at long last) has recognized my point and is working to address it. 

What does all this say to you?  To me it says "Exercise the right that others have fought for."
VOTEVOTEVOTEVOTEVOTEVOTEVOTEVOTEVOTEVOTEVOTEVOTEVOTE
Submitted by Nancy Sauber