AND THE LUMP OF COAL GOES TO...

The topic of this post should be of concern to all in the Township, no matter what your philosophy or political leanings, in my opinion.



As I hope you know, the Township has a "Citizen Input Policy" which is stated on the website under "Policies." Citizen Input Policy  This Policy states in brief:

Citizen Input

Individuals or groups wishing to address the Township Board are encouraged (emphasis mine) to complete an Agenda Request Form and request that an item be put on the agenda for discussion at a regular Township Board Meeting (emphasis mine).  The deadline for such requests is noon on the Thursday preceding the meeting of the Township Board.  Public comment at Board meetings is defined by the following procedures.

It is requested that anyone bringing written materials to the meeting have seven (7) copies available--five for the Board, one for the public, and one for the official record.

As I have done in the past, I submitted a request in writing to Linda Wilson during the Planning Commission meeting on the Monday before the Board meeting, more than satisfying the deadline. Receiving no further

communication on this, and the agenda not being posted on the website as is the normal procedure, I arrived at the meeting and took an agenda.  I had asked to be put under "Citizen Business, Land use information."  There was no such agenda item.  However, under "Public Comment" near the top of the agenda I saw my name! "Public Comment"(very brief opportunity for public for speak before the rest of the meeting) has always been determined by asking those in attendance if there is any public comment.  Those indicating they wish to speak are given a few minutes to do so. This is done on the spot; no one "signs up" for it ahead of time.

I went up to Chair Pete Storlie before the meeting started and very nicely told him I had requested to be placed on the agenda and this was not done. He said I was on the agenda under "Public Comment."  I said I had asked to be placed on the agenda per the policy. He looked me right in the eye and said, "I am following the Citizen Input Policy." (Note the use of the first person!) I told him that a citizen can request to be placed on the agenda, I had done so, yet I was not on the agenda.  He restated that he "was following" the policy. (No, Mr. Chair, you are not.) I told him him he needed to amend the agenda to include my request.  He then started the meeting.

At the end of my "regular" public comments already posted on this blog concerning the CUP application, I added the comment that I had requested the agenda item and this was not done or corrected.  I felt this was a blatant attempt to silence me (or restrict my input) and said so.  I said I had information about land use on a property adjoining my own and this affected my property and demanded to be able to speak on the topic as requested. "Thank you, Nancy" was my bland "response" from the Chair.

Later in the meeting, the property in question and its building use came up.  I raised my hand and told the Chair that this was the matter that I had requested to speak on the agenda about. Since it affects my property, I said, I ask that I be heard before the Board takes any action on the matter. The Chair did not respond to me. As it happened, the Building Inspector had not yet filed his report (which I understand now has been done) so the Board was not able to take any action and the item was put off until the January meeting.

So we don't know if Mr. Storlie would have eventually seen fit (the rest of the Board?) to allow a citizen to speak concerning the effect on her own property when an adjacent land use was discussed.

How does a public official seemingly see himself as so powerful that he can apparently single-handedly attempt to ignore and thwart adopted public policy?  I subsequently learned from another citizen that he had also requested to be placed on the agenda the preceding month and had been told by the Clerk that she "wasn't sure she could do that."  Has someone directed the Clerk to NOT place people on the agenda as requested and as covered by policy?  This has always been done as a matter of course in the past. Whose "agenda" is at work here?  Is it the public's agenda or an individual's agenda? 

Pete Storlie has already admitted publicly that he told Commissioner Hansen to tell a property owner he could "ignore" the Building Official's letter on a closely related topic even though Pete does not have the authority to do so. ("Closely related" because although the use has remained, the ownership has changed.) If you haven't listened to the meeting recording accessed through the "Your Public Officials At Work" post, you really should do so.  It is eye-opening about some things that have gone on in this Township.

If an elected public official can do something like this unimpeded, no one should rest comfortably!  If you are "out of favor" with a Board Chair can you be gagged from speaking about your own property? What would the Minnesota Association of Townships advise the Town Board to do?  What would its insurance branch advise the Board? Do you as a Eureka citizen wish to be subject to this?

This action by the Chair rates not just a lump of coal, I think, but a whole scuttle's worth!