ED. YOU. KAY. SHUNNNNNNNN!!!!!

At the August Board meeting, a motion was made by Chair Tim Murphy concerning training sessions open to all Board Supervisors and Planning Commissioners. His purpose was to pre-approve the attendance costs for any and all members to go to any and even possibly all of the three sessions most recently sent in an email from Government Training Services (GTS).

GTS is a non-profit organization that has been around for a long time. It offers informative sessions with excellent, experienced presenters who are experts in various areas about which public officials need to be educated. I have personally attended many of these sessions and have found them to be of great help in understanding the jobs of Commissioner and Supervisor. They are instructive on issues of governmental law and function. I have always felt that without such exposure, what is essentially a local, amateur volunteer in a public office is apt to flounder and make errors along the learning curve. This is unacceptable. Those applying for or running for office have an obligation in my eyes to know what they are talking about and to correctly base all decisions on facts. Trainings such as these and those offered by the Minnesota Association of Townships and other organizations are vital to doing a good job and serving the Township as it should be served.

Do you know that there are Supervisors/Commissioners now and in the past who have NEVER taken even ONE such class? As a Supervisor I endeavored twice to make at least two sessions during a three-year term mandatory for all of Eureka's public officers. I failed both times as others on the Board shied away from the idea of "mandatory." Puzzling to me, but there you go. So there were and are still those who did not avail themselves of any training or any to speak of.

When Chair Murphy made his motion, both Supervisors Hansen and Ceminsky seemed to take issue with it. Being uncomfortable with a motion without a dollar amount was suggested as the reason to be against this suggestion. Now, really, even if all officers went to all sessions (Your Role As A Planning Commissioner, Basics of Planning and Zoning, and one about development) would that not be money well spent? Since the motion referenced only these three sessions, it was self-limiting anyway. Until attendance by whom and for which sessions in September would be decided, the dollar figure is not precise. In my mind and as expressed by two Supervisors (Palmquist and Barfknecht) and an audience member (not me) such opportunities are a very positive thing!

Eventually the motion passed with, I believe, an arbitrary cap on the money to be spent. Wonder WHO will actually go?? As a citizen, you can see that information if you look at how your tax money is spent. Such invoices would show up on the financial report.

Recently, I have witnessed and heard many things said at meetings that I believe are way off-base. Things such as two Supervisors pushing for Interim Use Permits (IUPs) to be passed at meetings for uses that are not even allowed! An IUP must involve a public hearing held by the Commission, followed by a recommendation, then and only then followed by a Board decision. The possible IUPs are limited by Ordinance.

Since these proposed uses were not even allowed under Eureka's IUPs, it would be necessary for such uses to go through a Text Amendment process started by the person or persons desiring them. That process also involves a public hearing, etc. If such a proposed amendment to the Ordinances were to be enacted, then that use would be eligible to exist anywhere in the Township-not just for the property of the amendment requester- but anywhere, maybe next door to YOU!

Acting as a legislative body, the Board is totally within its authority to deny such uses in text amendments simply because "We do not want that use in the Township." The courts tend to back up legislative decisions should there be a challenge. A Local Government Unit (LGU) can legislate as it sees fit as long as it is not less restrictive than County or States laws. The LGU can be more restrictive.

Now, if Supervisors don't take classes and try to do something that isn't quite kosher, they could at least learn from that mistake and not try to repeat it. I have seen the opposite occur at very recent public meetings. MAYBE because to do so takes an open mind and the understanding that the Supervisor doesn't know all there is. To know what one doesn't know is a valuable thing.





I have sometimes heard the argument put forth that it is "only common sense" that something be allowed. Fair enough, except if it isn't in the Ordinances, it isn't allowed. Where would we be if the Township just started allowing things simply because someone asked or someone advocates for the supplicant regardless of the interests of Eureka as a whole? The results could be problematic...

It is possible for an LGU to change an Ordinance to reflect a community's evolving sensibilities, but until an actual change is enacted, the Board must make its decisions based on the law in effect at the time of the request.