DOES THIS SUIT YOU?

One very interesting development to come up (barely) at the Board meeting last Monday was that a lawsuit has been filed against the Board/Township.  I may not get everything exactly right since the information was so sketchy, but here goes:

At the agenda approval time, Supervisor Budenski asked if the lawsuit that had been served to the Board were going to be on the agenda as it hadn't been placed there already. Chair Storlie quickly looked to the attorney, Mr. Lemmons, for help.  Chad advised that it could be mentioned, but not to go into any detail or discussion of it.  It was placed on the agenda.

When it came up later, it was never actually stated what the lawsuit was about. ( I guess the audience of taxpayers and constituents didn't need to know?)  At any rate, from the brief discussion that did occur, and which centered around exotic animals and a recent vote, it would seem that enforcement of the Ordinances might be the issue.  Supervisor Budenski was at great pains to make clear that it was "you three" (Storlie, Ceminsky and Madden) who had voted together on the matter, implying (at least I inferred) that he, Budenski, was not responsible for a lawsuit being served. The "matter" followed a citizen complaint that certain exotic animals were being harbored illegally in the Township in violation of the Exotic Animals Ordinance.  Ultimately, the Board had voted 3-2 that there was no problem with the animals in question because they were part of an agricultural operation. The discussion had been very involved, including DNR definitions of said animals, state statute definitions of said animals, the legal concept of estoppel, and more, such as local ordinances taking precedence over DNR licensing. (Apparently, it is clearly stated on the DNR license that was so belatedly finally submitted to the Township, that this license does not preclude or supersede local ordinances--or words to that effect.) Those in the majority vote had cited parts of Board minutes to support their stand.  Supervisor Miller had joined Budenski in dissent.

It is of interest, however, that when it had come up at an earlier Board meeting that the complainants'attorney had informed the Board that a lawsuit might follow an unsatisfactory addressing of the complaint, Supervisor Miller described that as "A SCARE TACTIC."  At that point, Mr. Lemmons, who as Township Attorney had received the letter from counsel, advised the Board to "take this very seriously."
The Board then decided, since a potential lawsuit was involved, that it would schedule a closed Special Meeting with the Attorney.  What followed at the next regular Board Meeting has been recounted in the "Can You Say Estoppel?" post.

It is also of note that the attorney for the complainants asked Chair Storlie to recuse himself from the decision on the complaint, due to his familial relationship to those connected to the property complained against.  He declined to do so and went on to what I would call "spearheading" the response to the complaint which resulted in the vote to allow the animals.  The audience left that meeting that night in what I would call a very disgruntled mood.

ENOUGH ABOUT THE HISTORY; IT'S HARD TO KEEP IT ALL STRAIGHT--AND I WAS THERE FOR THE ENTIRETY OF IT!
This action will surely result in still further Special Meetings of the Board with the Attorney to discuss this current lawsuit.  The Board has already engaged in multiple Special Meetings with the Attorney concerning its own (forgotten?) counterclaim lawsuit against Ms. Petter concerning her land use. All charges from the counterclaim by the Board and those meetings concerning it are paid for by Eureka taxpayers. (The initial suit from Ms. Petter was covered under insurance.)
Since the Board is now being sued again, the Township will again be represented in this latest suit by Minnesota Association of Townships counsel under its insurance with that group.  (I believe there is a deductible involved --perhaps $1,000 or more per occasion?)
FYI: Did you know that the community of Greenfield is no longer carried by its insurance provider due to the extremely high costs resulting from challenges to its officials' decisions?  Thankfully, Eureka isn't close to that yet...

BUT KEEP YOUR CALCULATORS HANDY, FOLKS...