WAIT FOR IT, W-A-I-T FOR IT...!!!

Recently, on July 26, I attended the Roundtable meeting between the Town Board and the Planning Commission. The purpose of this meeting/workshop is the chance for the Board and the Commission to go over ground rules, bring everybody up to snuff on the issues of government, and ask questions about areas of concern.

Some issues that the two bodies received information on were:

The statutory requirements for sending a letter to let an applicant know that his application is incomplete.


How this letter affects the 60-Day Rule.


What is a legislative action by the Board and how this is viewed by the courts as a rule.

What is a quasi-judicial action by the Board and how this is viewed differently by the courts. The reason this type of decision goes to court more often.

Why Finding of Facts (for IUPs and CUPs for example) is perhaps best left to the attorney as it is a legal document and one that the attorney is familiar with and able to produce quickly. Why it makes more sense to delegate this finding to the attorney with PC and TB final approval than to leave it up to what is essentially a group of volunteers with no legal training. That the omission of even one fact could be crucial if something is challenged and goes to court.


What is meant by the "Finding of Facts." They are facts (not opinions) based on the Ordinance, not a "vote" from the public hearing on how many were for or against the IUP or CUP application being reviewed. (Commissioner Novacek spoke and seemed to think that it is the case that something is granted, at least in part, on whether the neighbors are okay with it or not. The reasons someone may be for or against something are what is important. If based on the Ordinance and what it allows or doesn't allow, that's one thing. Just because they don't like it or, conversely, they are willing to live next to it should not enter into quasi-judicial decisions.)

When a question arose about publishing notices in Eureka's official newspaper since the free copies do not go out "automatically" any more, the two bodies were reminded that this is a statutory requirement for public hearings. The idea put forth by Hansen that "We already send postcards" is probably not sufficient and probably does not reach the statutory requirement. The suggestion was made that the attorney be asked about how the Township can meet the requirement in today's situation.



Do these seem like important subjects to you? I think they are!

NOW....

Let me tell you how this information came up during that meeting.

Before the meeting, Butch Hansen mutters to Chair Tim Murphy that "we don't take comment from the audience at this meeting" or words very close to that.

Guess what? I was the only member of the audience!

Once the meeting started, I sat quietly listening to the discussion. When I first raised my hand just to offer some of the above important information, Hansen says, "I thought we all agreed that we weren't going to take audience comment!" (Or words very close to that.)

I said, "Even when it is informative?" And, "No, Butch, that was just you before the meeting talking to Tim." (There was NO discussion of this by the Board. Where does he get "we all agreed" from? Once again, said with such authority!!)

Then Mark Ceminsky chimes in with what I saw as negativity towards my offering information. I indicated that if I were a former male Board member sitting there saying that Mark wouldn't have any problem with it.

Next, Al Novacek chimed in with something else negative. Big surprise.

Chair Murphy called on me anyway, apparently to Hansen's "discomfort." Murphy asked him if he (Murphy) were in charge as the Chair or not. Hansen told him he actually was not. !!!

The next time I raised my hand and was called on by Chair Murphy, I prefaced my comment with, "At the risk of offering information..." After that the threesome stopped giving me grief about trying to help them out, but I don't think they were too happy.



What would give a sole audience member the "audacity" to offer all this information? 

Being a former Board Supervisor, a former Planning Commissioner and Chair, and a member of various task forces, I mentioned these points as I thought they were important, helpful, and would be welcome. After all, no one else was raising these points.

In the normal course of things, one might think Hansen, Ceminsky, and Novacek would be appreciative of such important information to help prevent them from breaking laws, help enable them to meet requirements, and assist in keeping the Township out of legal jeopardy.

That's what I would want any supervisor/commissioner to do: Inform himself. Especially since these three persons perhaps have gone to one information session/training seminar amongst all three of them!!!! What do you think your supervisors/commissioners should do?

Yes, this is an excellent reason for each and every one of you to be engaged in your local government and be informed!