Elvis has NOT left the building!

On December 2, the Town Board held a special meeting. This meeting was originally called to get an early start on work for the 2021 budget. A few items were added to the agenda in time for the official posting. One of these items was to go into a closed session concerning the pending litigation against the Township. Whenever the Township is sued, its insurance “kicks in” and we are represented by the Minnesota Association of Townships (MAT) legal counsel. MAT attorney Paul Reuvers was in attendance at the meeting.

Scotts Miracle-Gro is suing the Township to contest the Township denial of a building permit for a large building. No matter the size, any further development of this nature is prohibited under the settlement negotiated and agreed to by both parties several years ago. Unfortunately, Hansen and Ceminsky, who were not part of this compromise and frankly do not seem to understand it, have repeatedly argued that Scotts should be allowed to build. Yours truly was a Supervisor during this settlement and Planning Commission Chair during a special meeting at which Scotts and its attorney once again unsuccessfully argued the point. I say "once again" because this matter has continued to resurface. I have repeatedly publicly defended and explained the settlement agreement, as has another Supervisor involved in it at the time. The Township has nothing to gain by not following the agreement. Whose interests are being looked out for? Where is the continuity in defending our Ordinances?

Township attorney Patrick Kelly was the legal counsel during the agreement process. Attorney Chad Lemmons has confirmed that the settlement agreement is a “standstill” document to which both parties (Country Stone/Friedges Holdings at the time and the Township) agreed. Attorney Martin Norder of the Kelly and Lemmons law firm has stated the same.



So, back to the December 2nd meeting, the time came for the closed session. After any closed session of the Board, it goes back briefly to an open session at which a summary of the closed session is given. There were four people in attendance in the audience. We intended to stay for the reconvening into open session. We went out into the lobby area. I said I wondered if "some members" of the Board would try to make us “leave the building.” Sure enough, while we were standing there, Ceminsky came out on his way to the men’s room and told us that we were "going to have to leave the building"! (Recall last closed session mentioned on earlier blog how the outside doors of Town Hall were locked during a closed meeting on the same topic. The practice in the past has been that just the inside doors are closed and a notice posted there to not enter.)

Ceminsky stated this directive to leave with all the authority he does not have. We four citizens in attendance are not so easily bamboozled. One of us went into the large meeting room (closed session hadn’t started quite yet) and asserted that “This is a public building, and I am not going to be thrown out of a public building!”

The four of us ended up in the smaller room off the lobby with the door shut. Clerk Ranee Solis came to get us when the Board was about to move back into open session.

A little more important and I think eye-opening background: After the November closed meeting on the same topic, the Board held its regular November meeting. This is the regular meeting Hansen and Ceminsky believed to be "illegal” and THEY “left the building.” A resolution came up during the regular meeting that stated that the Township would grant the building permit to Scotts! This resolution was all ready, so it seems it must have come from the closed meeting. Thankfully, the three remaining members of the Board decided to wait to hear from MAT. Chad Lemmons stated he had forwarded the suit to MAT, but hadn’t heard back yet. He told the Board they had a week from the following Thursday to respond. Again, thankfully, Supervisors Barfknecht, Murphy and Palmquist did not vote on the resolution and agreed to wait for MAT counsel to respond.

Now, when the Board met at the special meeting December 2, Hansen and Ceminsky asked early on if Chad Lemmons were not going to be there. This "Why isn't Chad here?" was asked again by Hansen just ahead of the closed portion. He further stated that the litigation was not pending (it is) and that this matter was “already taken care of.” I imagine that referred to the resolution-that-wasn’t. (Remember he and Ceminsky relinquished their vote when they left the so-called “illegal” meeting.) Apparently they were confident that the resolution granting the building permit was going to be passed even in their absence. It wasn’t.

Now, of course, I wasn’t privy to the discussion during that closed meeting, but I can guess that perhaps the Township financial status was brought up and the argument made that we can’t afford a lawsuit and let’s just give them the building permit. Even though the Township went through great pains (and spent money) to protect its interests in the settlement agreement!


Hansen himself has personal experience with what happens when a suit is brought against the Township or, as was the instance in his own lawsuit, against a Town Supervisor. That is, MAT defends the government under the insurance. The Township Attorney has nothing to do with it and is not included in any special closed meeting concerning such litigation. Yet Hansen wanted to know where Chad was. Hmmmm...

Another interesting piece of information is that there is a cell phone video of Mark Ceminsky in the lobby of Town Hall when the "work group" was having a meeting that they would not open to the public. During that video, Ceminsky threatens to call the Sheriff to remove the two citizens who stated they wanted to wait in the lobby. Does this sound like the kind of public official who "gets it" and performs his duties properly? Would you like to be on the receiving end of such efforts? Does this sound like a public official who understands that we live in a free society and people have rights?

Report any Elvis sightings to the local Elvis hotline for follow-up!

And just when I thought the downward spiral COULDN'T keep going!

On November 12, the Town Board held a closed meeting on pending litigation at 6:00. This was followed by their regular meeting scheduled at 7:00. I, along with several other Eureka citizens waited at the locked outer door of the Town Hall in the cold and windy weather right up until just past 7:00. To be clear, the Board can, of course, close a meeting for this reason. In the past, however, it was enough to post "closed meeting" on the inner doors to the meeting room. People could wait in the lobby area until the closed meeting was over. I guess someone was concerned about being overheard from the lobby. ???

Finally, the door was unlocked by Mark Ceminsky who stated on his way leaving the Town Hall that he didn't think there was even going to be a meeting. He further stated that he wasn't going to attend an "illegal meeting." He left.

Close on his heels was compatriot Butch Hansen. The others asked what was going on. I said that I thought it had to do with Supervisor Palmquist attending the meeting remotely, and that the two leaving just didn't understand (or want to) that this is perfectly legal. I stated that The Minnesota Association of Townships (MAT) publishes articles in its newspaper about how to do this correctly.

So, two of your elected public officials left, leaving their duties for others to attend to.

When the regular meeting opened, statements were made for the record showing that all the requirements of MN Statute 13D.02 were met. (Click on link for the particulars.)

Backing up a little, at the previous meeting, Supervisor Barfknecht also attended remotely. In both these instances, these two Supervisors were out of town on business. I think they should be commended for taking the trouble to do so to still participate. The meetings were posted correctly and all other requirements were met. However, Ceminsky and Hansen objected to this perfectly legal procedure. Why? They want fewer "opposition votes" to their motions? They can't understand the attorney's explanation of the statute? Do they know what they are doing?

Interestingly, this meeting finished around 9:30, unusually early for the average Town Board meeting. And Hansen has admonished the Chair in the past for calling on me when I have something to offer and complained that the meetings were long because I was recognized! Cause and effect. Also interesting is that at this particular Board meeting, I spoke twice-once at public comment and once as an agenda item. STILL the meeting was done early. Who is really "dragging out" meetings???

The public comments I made had to do with the totally incorrect information given by Hansen and Ceminsky regarding driveway offsets. (See blogs right before this one.) It was suggested by some that maybe the real reason they left is that they couldn't stand sitting there listening to someone who Hansen once called "just a citizen" expose how off the mark they really are!

Below are my public comments from that evening. They also appear in the minutes of the meeting.

Nancy Sauber, 9445 225^th Street W, Lakeville

My comments concern recent discussion and proposed action on the topic of driveway offsets for driveways on different sides of roads. This topic arose, as you know, when the Clerk/Zoning Administrator was told to deny a driveway permit based on distance.

Ceminsky and Hansen have insisted that such a requirement exists. They assert this is for safety reasons.

There is no such stipulation in the Ordinances. However, Hansen publicly insisted that it IS “in the Ordinances” because of the Town Board’s charge to protect health, safety and welfare of the public. It is NOT in the Ordinances. Without any parameters? How does that work?

How about as a policy, as claimed by Ceminsky? No, not on the website list of Town Board approved policies. A “policy” wouldn’t be the appropriate mechanism for such a regulation anyway.

The statement from Ceminsky that “it’s always been done that way” evidences what, in my opinion, is a gross misunderstanding of governmental procedures. This is dismaying in a public official. And who says it’s always been done that way besides Hansen and Ceminsky?

When, at their November meeting, the Planning Commission questioned the directive from the Board to discuss this and set a date for a public hearing to address it, they met with resistance from Hansen. After asserting once again that safety is the issue, he blurted out, “Why don’t you just call Butch McConnell at the County? HE’LL tell you it’s fifty feet!” Hansen also declared that his own driveway is where it is because of this County regulation.

Always willing to learn, I took up Hansen’s suggestion and called Butch McConnell, who issues right of way permits along County roads.

Mr. McConnell told me that there is no such offset and, in fact, the County prefers that driveways on opposite sides of a roadway line up with each other! When I asked him why that was, he stated it is for safety reasons! He went through a scenario illustrating the point.

What is going on here? Supervisors should be educated in the different aspects of government. You have an obligation to inform the public and your colleagues with correct information. I believe the input from Hansen and Ceminsky falls far short of even the most modest of expectations from the public. Citizens deserve better!

Thank you to Zoning Administrator Solis for standing up for what is proper procedure.

Thank you for this opportunity.