"JUST THE FACTS, MA'AM!"

FIRST, a little background:
While yours truly was still on the Board, I reported to it that, at a County Commissioners meeting I had attended, the Assistant Dakota County Attorney had advised the Commissioners that the Sheriff's Department did not have the authority to enforce local ordinances without a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) between the County/Sheriff and the Local Governmental Unit-- that is, Eureka Township, or any other of our townships.  The Sheriff and his Deputies are empowered by the state to enforce state statutes, but they must be empowered by the County to do so for local township laws as townships do not have authority over the Sheriff's Department..Shortly after that meeting, then-Commissioner Joe Harris came to one of the Eureka Board meetings and officially informed us of that.  He was going to each of the townships in Dakota County to tell them the same thing. The Board then moved forward, with the assistance of the Township Attorney and the Clerk, to explore entering into a JPA with the Sheriff.  This entailed, among other things, sending the Sheriff all the local Ordinances that the Township wished them to enforce for us. They would then determine which of those they would agree to enforce.

During this time, when the updated nuisance/noise ordinance was adopted, I asked that the Sheriff attend one of our Board meetings to be sure it was clear what was wanted with that law and others under the JPA.  Part of this nuisance/noise ordinance provided for its enforcement in a more informal manner that was nonetheless based on Minnesota standards regarding noise. The idea had been to make it more practical to determine whether a violation was occurring in a given instance.  I wanted to be sure this process was understood well by the Sheriff so that ordinance that we had worked so hard on could be appropriately enforced.  The Sheriff did attend, along with, I believe, the Chief Deputy, or perhaps it was a sergeant.  I asked them directly if they had any questions about that ordinance or any of the others; they replied, no, they did not.  They accepted the expanded nuisance/noise ordinance as one that would fall under the JPA.  A JPA was entered into for the course of one year.

The JPA was renewed the following year for another year.  Recently, it has come up again for yet another renewal.  (The renewal requirement is from the County's end of things to allow them to easily make changes as they see necessary.)

Since that time, a number of things have happened:
1. The Township was billed in the thousands of dollars for following up with their investigation of a complaint that was filed.  The rate per hour was $65/hour, so that seemed a little high to those of us on the Board who expressed a comment.  At the advice of the Attorney, however, the bill incurred under the JPA was paid as remitted. Not complaining, just saying.

2. Following a model airplane noise complaint, there was a lengthy conversation at a Board meeting between the Supervisors, the Attorney, and the complainants about the nuisance/noise ordinance as it would apply to this circumstance.  It appeared to be very unclear to the Board, in my opinion, as to how that Ordinance they had passed could be enforced (again, as it was deliberately written and discussed) without having to bring in noise decibel readers..  As then an audience member, I tried again and again to clear this up from my perspective as a former Supervisor and as the Attorney Liaison at the time of the ordinance's passage.  I am still not sure I got anywhere in that effort, as following discussions have since showed me.

3. There have been a number of informal in-person citizen complaints to the Board regarding the Sheriff's Deputies, seemingly to the citizen, not doing much, if anything, to enforce the local laws when called upon to do so.  This citizen reported that he was told a number of times that perhaps he should "just move" if he does not "get along" with his neighbor.  Personally, if this is true, I find that somewhat shocking and certainly not what I would expect from my law enforcement body.

4. On the issue of enforcing the "No Trucks" sign on local Township roads, I spoke to the Sheriff's representative at a recent Board meeting, again as an audience member.  I said that, in the past, Deputies have informed attendees at Board meetings that they are about "education first," before actually issuing a citation for a violation.  Fine; not a problem, sounds reasonable.  However, I said, this sign in question, and others like it, have been posted, collectively, for years already.  Further, the Board has adopted a Resolution regarding the roads in question (enforceable just as an Ordinance is, according to the Township Attorney).  I stated that, if, for example, as I have many times observed, a gravel truck driver on such a posted road heads east empty, returns going west with a load, heads east empty, returns going west with a load, PERHAPS the "education" he needs is that his actions have consequences! The Sheriff's rep immediately agreed with me.

OKAY, SO WHAT'S THE ISSUE, you might ask?
Very simply it is this:

Throughout all this time, various Sheriff's representatives, whether deputies or what-have-you, have shown repeatedly in different venues that they apparently are not quite certain as to what they are being asked to do regarding our various local ordinances and their enforcement!  For example, they have repeatedly questioned (not just at the meeting mentioned above when at least that rep seemed to "get it") whether the "No Trucks" signs are even enforceable at all. This happened most recently at the last Board meeting.  At that time, the Deputy then representing the Sheriff said he was unclear and "confused" (his word) about the "no trucks" signage mentioned above and whether he could actually enforce it or not.  Roll out the "a-Resolution-is-as-good-as-an-Ordinance" explanation from the earlier meeting-again!  He had referred to different state statutes regarding the issue of trucks on roads, but that is not the point of the JPA; our local laws ARE..


Finally, when called upon in the audience by the Chair, I said I was confused myself. Why, after what must be three years' of JPAs, is the Sheriff still confused?  Dave Bellows attended our meeting as I had requested, the Ordinances were submitted to the Sheriff a long time ago, and yet the Deputy is referring to state statutes which they already enforce anyway, rather than our local ordinances.

Now, as I stated at the meeting, my nephew and godson is a lieutenant with the Rice County Sheriff, so I understand they do not have an easy job, and I am really not trying to "beat up on" the Sheriff and his Deputies, but, really, why are we still confused?

I would like the Board to take a more active role in this than they have instead of letting it drag on and on as it appears to me it has done and, at last report, continues to do.  Why not have Sheriff Bellows in again for a chat and clear this up once and for all?  (This regrettably reminds me of the unfortunate frustration I experienced in trying to get the aides in my mom's nursing home to actually do what the nurses in charge had agreed to regarding her care. It's the hands-on people that make the difference!)

I asked the Deputy and I ask the Board that this be resolved once and for all and moved along in as quick a fashion as possible.  In the meantime, the JPA is worth very little to me, my neighbors, and the rest of the citizens if the Sheriff's Department is not enforcing local laws as they are required to do under that agreement.

Respectfully,
MN 4th regiment descendant!