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.