"WHAT WE'VE GOT HERE IS A FAILURE TO COMMUNICATE!"

At the March Annual Meeting there was a citizen-passed motion to stop spending money on looking at Commercial/Industrial use until a referendum could be held at the next Township election. This was not even brought up by your Board at its April 8th meeting. These citizen motions from Annual Meetings are actually not binding on the Board, but I believe they merit some discussion as to why they may be pursued or not. Another citizen present on April 8th even asked about this, but the Board did not respond to that individual specifically about the motion.

Such motions have been touted by Butch Hansen as "the citizens have spoken," even when he has incorrectly represented what the motions were! (Supported by recent meeting discs and the Annual Meeting minutes from just a couple of years ago.) In the case of this C/I motion, however, this doesn't seem to hold much weight for him. In fact, the C/I "work group" has continued with its meetings since the Annual Meeting. There was never discussion of  "perhaps we should check with the Board as a body before we continue with these meetings because of the motion by the citizens." "What we've got here" is a lack of responsiveness to the citizens of Eureka. Why not at least ASK about this?

Well, perhaps when the current limited and already Board-approved effort (actually covered by contract, I believe) has ended, the Board will determine whether it should listen to the citizens and continue or not. In attending these C/I meetings, I and others have been left with the impression that those involved on the "work group" don't fully understand the concept, are weak on the process, don't have answers to questions from the public, seem to be of dissonant intentions (evidenced by specific questions from some of its members over time) and they have even rejected informed recommendations by the planner. For example, the planner told them that two zones would be enough; there really wasn't enough room for four. The group, however, insisted on four. The planner told them that they needed maps to show the specific areas under consideration. They've been dragging on that idea. (You may recall that their maps have been somewhat vague and arbitrarily drawn, in my opinion.) Is it helpful to have an experienced planner asked for by the citizens if the "work group" (read Special Committee) pushes her advice aside? "What we've got here" is a failure to acknowledge our own limitations.

After the Round Table meeting on May 6th, I was still at Town Hall when the four members of the C/I "work group" convened for a meeting. This meeting was not posted, was not on the website and was admittedly impromptu as it was for the purpose of "going over the paperwork" that was just received that day from the planner from TKDA.

"What we have here" is a failure to recognize the Open Meeting Law.

At that meeting, Butch Hansen stated that "she [the planner] screwed it up again" and "she has to go back to the drawing board." Mark Ceminsky stated that what they received "does not look like what we talked about." You should know that this isn't the first time that the planner's work has met with rejection by this group. They have not only rejected her advice, but seem to be having quite a bit of difficulty communicating to her what their thoughts are. Or having a discussion with her about her recommendations and the reasons for them.

Now, every time she has to rework the planning end of the effort, I would imagine that costs more money. Money the citizens voted they didn't want spent. And all because the group can't bring themselves to accept the professional's recommendations. Which of them is a planner?

The group wanted to go through the paperwork because it wanted to ask the Board at its upcoming meeting to schedule an Open House at the end of May. I certainly hoped that the Board would not take such an action UNTIL it sees all of what this group is going to present!

Another person who hung around after the Round Table meeting asked if there were a public copy of what the C/I group was looking at. Hansen: No. (Emphatic.) Unfortunately, "what we've got here" is a Supervisor who does not understand/accept the idea (and has repeatedly strongly argued against this concept) that this "work group" is actually a Special Committee, under the Ordinances, as they were appointed by the Town Board to do this exploration. As such, not only is it one person shy of the minimum of five members required by Ordinance, but it is absolutely subject to Open Meeting Law. That means it cannot hold meetings that are not properly posted. It means public copies of all materials should be available at each and every meeting. There should be the legally required sign-in sheet. Per policy (not law) there should be recordings made of each of these meetings. Minutes should be posted in a timely manner on the website. Hansen has publicly argued this with me on several occasions. No one of the Board seemed to want to comment much on this.

Here is the Ordinance on the subject:

Chapter 4: Special Committees and Task Force

       

The Town Board may create such committees, standing or special, as it deems necessary. Such committees shall perform such duties, as the Town Board may require. Any matter brought before the Town Board for consideration may be referred by the presiding officer to the appropriate committee or to a special task force appointed by him/her for a written report and recommendation before it is considered by the Town Board as a whole. The special committee or task force shall consist of at least 5 individuals appointed by the Town Board. The Town Board shall determine the maximum number of individuals to serve on the task force. Each special committee or task force report shall be signed by a majority of the members and shall be filed with the clerk prior to the Town Board meeting at which it is to be submitted. Minority reports may be submitted. Each committee or task force shall act promptly and faithfully on any matter referred to it. Each special committee or task force shall have a defined mission and time for expiration of the mission.

"What we've got here" is an incomplete understanding of our Ordinances. In spite of the correct information being presented multiple times, the Board does not go below the surface misconceptions that seem to exist and continues to not address this matter in any depth. Any comments made are along the lines that it is  a "work group" (define that!) and it is [only] an ad hoc committee. Outside of standing committees, ALL committees are ad hoc! If the Board appoints the committee members, it is a Special Committee. What does [only] an ad hoc committee mean, anyway? We don't take them seriously?

Then the other person in attendance besides me at this impromptu meeting asked if it were going to be a "productive meeting" as she had another commitment elsewhere. She was told by Hansen that it wasn't going to be productive and that she might as well go home. Of course, when he said that, I decided to stay until the end! It wasn't productive. but it was observed.


At the Town Board May 13th meeting, Mark Ceminsky represented the C/I group before the Board. It was noted that the information submitted to the Board at that time (public copy???) was incomplete because of another "redo" by the planner still out. Ceminsky said the group was asking the Board to approve an Open House on May 30. Planning Commissioner Julie Larson correctly pointed out that the public does not have any access to minutes, correspondence or other materials from this committee because the committee simply refuses to provide public copies and post minutes, etc. The Board has allowed this incorrect practice of not posting this information on the Township website for all to see.

Past such committees have always kept minutes and posted them and other information on the website. How is the public to arrive prepared at any Open House with questions? Hansen stated that that is what the Open House is for--asking questions -once the public receives the info at the meeting, I guess. Does this mean that the group doesn't want citizens to come prepared with questions? They did a poor job of answering questions at the first Open House. They didn't even write down the questions asked during that occasion nor did they record the meeting so as to have a record of the questions. They dismissed several of the questions as not appropriate for them to address. Why do the public the disservice of expecting them to read through any materials for the first time at the Open House? Is "what we've got here" an attempt to keep the public in the dark? It sure doesn't feel right to me!

I asked the Board why, as the appointing body, they would not expect a complete report from this "work group" BEFORE it presents anything to the citizens. Why would it even allow them to schedule an Open House when the Board doesn't even know all of what will be presented? Hansen then suggested that the Board could be sent the updated information from the planner later, but before the Open House. I replied that that would be outside of a meeting, so the Board could not discuss or amend what might be presented. What's the point?

The Board then moved that this (complete) information would be presented and discussed at its June meeting.

In the meantime, a Special Town Board Meeting was called. One of the agenda items was the C/I information. Now, the correct person to call Special Town Board meetings is the Chair. https://mntownships.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/TM7000-Town-Board-Administrative-Policy.pdf   See page 3, number 3.

Since the Chair was actually out-of-state, it is doubtful that HE called this meeting! So who did? Whoever it was, he was not following proper procedure. Is this the tail attempting to wag the dog again?

Since there was no quorum, (Supervisors Barfknecht and Murphy were also unvailable), this "end run" Special Meeting was canceled.


                              "What HAVE we got here?"