SCUTTLEBUTT

A few comments on the last Town Board meeting, held February 10:

If a citizen has a question about building rights, the best practice is to go to the Planning Commission first, and to provide any pertinent information and paperwork to the Clerk ahead of time. To call a supervisor you know personally and be told to come to the Board meeting for a decision on your question that evening is perhaps not a very productive route to follow, as was evidenced at the meeting.

This topic of building rights can include many facets, such as quarter-quarter density caps, legal details about "grandfathered" lots, transfer of building rights procedure, transfer of building rights history, shared "native" building rights, substandard lot dimensions, etc. The Planning Commission cannot give a "guarantee" that a certain parcel is buildable. It can give you a researched answer if they are provided enough time. Persons who assert that they are looking at a land purchase and thus, understandably, time is a critical factor, might be better served to negotiate the buildability point with the seller. No building right, no sale. It is unrealistic and perhaps unwise to expect a "hurry up" decision on such an important matter. Further, sellers might be advised to explore this aspect before putting land for sale. If the groundwork has been done, the whole process is so much smoother.

It was necessary for the Board to once again revisit the Attorney Engagement Policy. There are two attorney contact liaisons on the Board, this year namely Donovan Palmquist and Tim Murphy. Any other Board member, or any Planning Commissioner with legal questions for the attorney, must go through the attorney liaisons. If deemed appropriate, either the questions can be forwarded to Kelly and Lemmons (Township legal counsel), or the individual with the questions can be permitted to speak with the attorney. It is important to keep the other Eureka public officials in the information loop by cc'ing them on the questions and the answers when received. Such copying goes through the Clerk. The purpose of this policy, which has existed for many years, is to conserve resources and prevent duplication. Great reasons!

When I was the attorney contact liaison, I would have needed a very solid reason to decide that the attorney did not need to be contacted in such instances. Apparently, there is a lack of confidence that such a standard would apply by a couple supervisors who have several times each contacted the attorney solely on their own. This is against Board-adopted policy and puts the attorney in a sticky situation with the rest of the Board if he takes such phone calls from unauthorized individuals. These individuals are very unhappy if denied, yet the attorney will not be paid for such unauthorized time. In fact, the attorney in the past has later agreed to remove items from his bill if he took such calls. He is not paid for such time. A few years ago, one of these same "offending" supervisors once contacted the attorney without permission THREE times in one month!

I truly doubt that any official forwarding pertinent legal questions would ever be denied professional input by the current liaisons. It is also better to give the counsel a heads-up before a meeting so the answers can be well considered ahead of time. This repeated refusal by these two supervisors (Can you guess who?) to follow adopted policy is way out of line in my opinion. At the very least, it shows a lack of simple cooperation among the parties. I think it is disrespectful to the attorney to expect him to take calls that one shouldn't have made to him in the first place. Based on their history of complaints filed by them against others, these two supervisors would be the very first to vociferously and emphatically object to anyone else doing even once what they have repeatedly done! Yet they entitled to act this way? I don't think so!

Similarly, the topic of calling special meetings of the Board was addressed. The blog post just before this one commented on this matter. So-called "emergency" meetings have been called that do not meet the requirements for an emergency and the exception to posting these meetings in the usual way. An emergency meeting can be called for reasons such as public safety. Any reasonably informed supervisor should know this. It is part of training and it is a part of the Minnesota Association of Townships Government Manual. Of course, perhaps one would have to take the training or read the Manual to know this! Calling unnecessary special meetings to deal with non-urgent matters in between regular meetings costs you, the taxpayer, money that could have been saved or spent more appropriately on something else. I do not consider holding unnecessary special Board meetings to be wisely managing Township resources.

It was suggested at the meeting that such requests for these non-regular meetings go through the Chair to the Clerk to enable a more orderly process. The two supervisors who have taken it upon themselves to call such meetings, in my mind arbitrarily, objected strongly to this idea. The suggestion was not intended to give the Chair unfettered ability to stymie other supervisors, but to introduce some reasonable order into this matter, in my opinion. There was animosity in the air. Being a frequent attendee of Township meetings, I am used to this unfortunate antagonism, but I wonder what a first-time citizen attendee might think about his public officials. I'm sure most would hope and expect that the elected officials are cooperating with each other to carry out the business of the Township in a reasoned and responsible manner.

%#@$&
On that topic generally, the "drama" that has gone on at many of our public meetings is unseemly. At the last meeting, for example, Ceminsky and Hansen each used vulgarisms that really have no place in polite conversation, much less at a public meeting. Why do they seem to think it is okay to subject the public to this? Using such language does not impress anybody, does not lend any weight to their points (in fact, quite the opposite!), is disrespectful, and totally unnecessary. And this was probably the least of the unseemliness. Show a little more respect for your audience!!

CITIZENS HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW IF THEIR TAX DOLLARS ARE SPENT WISELY!

Is it always wise, necessary and cost effective to schedule a Special, Emergency, Continued or Closed meeting? 

                                                                                                                         

Regular Meeting

TB $410 flat rate

PC liaison $50 flat rate

Attorney $250 for first 3 hours, then $135/hour

Treasurer $26.25/hour

Clerk $22/hour

3 hour meeting cost $854.75

4 hour meeting cost $1038

5 hour meeting cost $1221.25

Special Meeting

TB $360 flat rate

Attorney $250 for first 3 hours

Clerk $22/hour

3 hour meeting $676

+ $157 for each additional hour

+ $26.25/hour if Treasurer is present

Meetings, other than regular Board meetings, can be called for legitimate reasons.  As noted above, calling Special, Closed, Recessed and Emergency meetings can add a large expense to the budget. Refer to the information below which indicates types of meetings and the reasons they can be called.  Emergency meetings are TRUE emergencies such as could affect life and limb; a bridge or a road is washed out and needs immediate attention.

Of recent times, some have questioned the need for some of the meetings called (but not held due to a lack of quorum) and some of the special meetings that have been held. Were the reasons for calling a special meeting really valid? Data Practices requests are to be dealt with by the Clerk and the Board Compliance Liaison. It is not necessary to spend money for full meetings of the Board to address such matters.

Open permits, which have been on the agenda for certain special meetings, should be handled at regular meetings, in my opinion. Is an open permit that urgent that it cannot be dealt with at the next regular meeting? Trying to call closed meetings on pending litigation is uncalled for if there has been nothing new reported by legal counsel.
Attorney contacts can discuss with the attorney regarding whether another meeting is necessary.

Meetings outside of regular meetings have been called for a number of times by supervisors, not the Chair. It would seem a normal and usual function of the Chair to be the one to do so. Any other supervisor wanting to call such a meeting could certainly discuss this with the Chair for him/her to request.  Money SHOULD NOT be spent
holding meetings of the full Board unless warranted. In those cases, it is money well spent. But when the topic can and should be addressed otherwise through process already established (such as Data Practices requests) holding a meeting of the full Board is a waste of taxpayer dollars.

Special and Closed meetings can be held immediately before a regular Board
meeting to save on meeting costs as long as there is less than an hour gap between meetings.

I believe if Supervisors are prepared for the Board meeting and the agenda items
to be addressed are clearly stated, there is no reason for a meeting to last until
midnight and then be continued to another date. This also requires the attorney is paid additionally after 10:00 and then again for a continued meeting. Very costly to the
taxpayers.

In 2019 I noted there were 11 meetings held that were scheduled on days other than the Regular Board meetings. This includes the Re-organizational meeting, the Round Table meeting and the Board of Canvas meeting which are held after every election. Were
the remaining necessary or could the meetings be held immediately before a regular Board meeting to save on meeting costs as long as there is less than an hour gap between meetings. Another 3 special meetings to be held in February other than the regular Town Board meeting! Two are on the same evening.

Perhaps the Board could adopt a policy that extra meeting requests are either made by the Chair or are made through the Chair.

Types Of Meeting Supervisors Can Request And Under What Circumstance!

 See generally, Minn. Stat. 13D.04, for Notice of Meetings under Open Meeting Law.