It shouldn't happen. It has happened too often. Sorry to see it happen yet again. And these people should know better...
Before the February Board meeting, at 6:00 p.m., there was an open session of the Board addressing some baseless and really time-wasting complaints that had been lodged against Commissioner Julie Larson. Former Commissioner and current Supervisor Butch Hansen had expressed a verbal complaint against Larson, alleging that she had "defamed" him with her comments at an earlier Board meeting referenced in the post immediately before this one. Usually, the Township does not consider any complaint unless it is written and signed. Why the departure, I didn't understand and I still don't.
Two other citizens, Terri Petter and former Commissioner Al Novacek, "joined forces" with Hansen and entered written and signed complaints against Larson as well regarding the same instance. (They spoke at this session, thus revealing their identities.)
Many errors were made in these complaints:
Larson's comments were addressing her concern with the appearance of a conflict of interest whereby a Supervisor who had represented Petter on numerous occasions before the Eureka Planning Commission, the Eureka Town Board, The Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization Board (as her "contractor"), and even Brad Becker, then of the Soil and Water Conservation District of Dakota County, did not recuse himself. Instead, this Supervisor was present at closed meetings with the rest of the Board and the Township Attorney concerning the Petter litigation. Julie asked the Board to put this matter out front, discuss it in public, and weigh in on it. Neither the Board, nor even the Township Attorney, can "make" Hansen recuse himself even if they strongly believe he should. He acts on his own on this and bears any consequences that may ensue.
But then, to my knowledge, Hansen has never attended ONE SESSION of training with either MAT or Government Training Services (GTS) during his tenure as a Commissioner and now as a Supervisor. (If it can be shown that he has as of this date, I will gladly correct the record.)
Larson also questioned why Hansen met out of sight and hearing with Petter at the Hastings courthouse ahead of a legal proceeding there involving the Township v. Petter.
Hansen vehemently denied meeting behind closed doors with Terri Petter and her attorney at the courthouse in Hastings. What he very neatly did not deny on more than one occasion was the fact that he had so met with Petter at the courthouse that day before the procedure started.
Ask yourself: Why does a Town Board Supervisor meet alone with the opponent in a legal proceeding with the Township he is supposed to be representing? What was the purpose? WHO authorized him to do so? Why does he think it is okay to so brazenly do so? If he is going to attend such proceedings, isn't his role on the side of the Township and its lawfully adopted Ordinances? It appears to me that Mr. Hansen is more than a little confused about what his role is supposed to be. He still has not explained himself in my opinion.
Getting back to the other two complaints.
One alleged that Larson had not followed "proper procedure" by speaking about this at a public meeting. This complainant stated that he thought Larson had "prevented the town board official from his right to a closed hearing."
FACT: There is no "one way" to raise objections and questions. As I mentioned in my testimony that night, one can take out an ad in the local newspaper to complain if one so wishes!
But an elected official needs to operate in the light of day. Shouldn't Hansen's constituents be aware of what he might being doing?
The other complaint said that Larson had made "uneducated" comments and made the Township look "petty and foolish." This complainant couldn't even get it straight in the complaint whether Larson was a Commissioner or a Supervisor. Well,...!
Now the Memory Lane part:
Not that long ago, then-Commissioner Hansen, then-Commissioner Novacek, and then-Commissioner Cleminson all filed similar complaints against their fellow then-Commissioner Jennings. (Again, they identified themselves publicly.)
Their complaint? That Jennings had violated Open Meeting Law (OML) by sending out information to help them do their jobs better without going through the Clerk and should be removed from office. (Do you see a pattern here?)
You may remember that Jennings elected to have the meeting in public. After a lot of discussion without a lot of clarity from the complainants, the Board voted in the majority not to take action against Jennings.
However, then-Supervisor Mark Ceminsky still maintained publicly right after this vote that Jennings had violated the Open Meeting Law!!! She'd been exonerated, but that wasn't good enough for Ceminsky. Evidently, this "witch hunt" (my term) hadn't been resolved in the way he wanted, in the way he had voted. He still has to go on record saying she was guilty of a violation.
Folks, this is a heavy accusation. Why not understand that perhaps one doesn't have the facts straight instead of still asserting on your own in your official capacity that then-Commissioner Jennings was guilty?
Do you want to guess how much training former-Commissioner and former-Supervisor Ceminsky had had from the above-mentioned agencies?
Let's have the humility to acknowledge that training is needed for non-professionals. One might say that public officials really have a duty to educate themselves in these matters; there is a LOT to learn. (Let's also acknowledge that this is at no cost to the training attendee: the Township will pick up the costs.)
Be advised that this post touches on just two situations these antagonists have had their hands in. There have certainly been others. Where is the spirit of cooperation, of working together for the good of Eureka citizens? Some of these same people have actually publicly scolded their "targets" as not being "good neighbors." One should not attribute negative ill-will to those individuals who simply have made efforts to assure that they are doing their jobs forthrightly and to a high standard.
Why this desire to "sweep house" of those who apparently don't agree with you?
