WATCH THE SAUSAGE BEING MADE...

It may not be pretty, as they say, but it IS important!

Among other things, Supervisors Ceminsky, Madden, and Miller will deliberate what they deem to be appropriate "disciplinary action" regarding Commissioner Jennings.  (See previous blogs about people in glass houses.) Yours truly will be very interested in how they reconcile this with their own past actions, and many in the very recent past--as in last month! What will be the rationale?  Will they even offer one?

Supervisors Behrendt and Budenski have already disagreed with the other three.  It remains to be seen if reason can prevail in this matter.

Show your support for Commissioner Jennings and attend the Board meeting. The Board members are there representing you; are they making decisions you would deem proper and fair-minded? Our responsibility as citizens doesn't end at the voting booth, as you know. Let the Board understand that they do not act in a vacuum and that they are making these decisions "in the light of day!" Public meetings are for the public.

                                 Enough said...

     TODAY, TUESDAY, OCTOBER 14TH, 7:00 P.M.

SWEEP IN FRONT OF YOUR OWN DOOR...

My mother was known to say that when any one of the six of us would come to her complaining about someone else.  It sure wasn't what we wanted to hear, but many times it was probably appropriate!  There are other apropos folksy sayings I am sure you are acquainted with: "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones."  "When you point a finger at someone else, there are three fingers pointing back at you."  There's even one about "throwing the first stone."

Earlier posts have addressed why some of us opine that these sayings might apply to the three Commissioners who formally complained against Commissioner Jennings recently.  Please, feel free to review at will!

But let us turn our attention to the three Supervisors who have since decided that Jennings' behavior merits disciplinary action, a topic that they will discuss at their next regular Town Board meeting. Those three Supervisors are Madden, Ceminsky, and Chair Miller. Even though Supervisor Budenski stated that, "The meetings are what they are.  [Sometimes we become upset with each other.] I guess we can agree to disagree," these three supervisors voted to reprimand Jennings, nature and extent of said  "reprimand" to be decided.  And even though Supervisor Behrendt rightly stated that he has certainly observed others on the Board and the Commission--he mentioned Chair Hansen by name-- engaging in similar behavior as that alleged against Jennings, thus suggesting that there are few without something to think about before pointing fingers, the three supervisors--Madden, Ceminsky, and Miller--forged fearlessly ahead to agree to sanction "the crime."

Let's take a closer look at Supervisor Madden's behavior at meetings. (We do not hold ourselves above scrutiny, but are pained to point out that perhaps others should not do so either.) Audience members have several times observed Madden writing (apparently amusing) notes to the clerk on the back of his agenda, taking pictures of audience members, complaining to the Chair that an audience member "created a disturbance" by whispering to another, and similar such actions.  Maybe it's just me, but I think that he should be paying attention to the topic that the other supervisors are discussing while he is instead engaged in his "antics." If he were engaged in such discussion, for example, I doubt he would be even remotely aware of an audience member whispering to another. (It seemed to me at the time that he might have been just waiting for an opportunity to make an issue out of this as it wasn't the first time he complained about audience members quietly exchanging thoughts amongst themselves during a meeting.) Aren't supervisors elected to inform themselves about various Township issues and engage in a reasoned, intelligent discussion thereof? Isn't THAT what they are supposed to be putting their efforts into during meetings?  Hmmmm.

Recently, Supervisor Madden arrived late to a meeting of the Board. Not a deal, but it was questioned soon after that by Supervisor Budenski as to why Madden hadn't even picked up his information packet or have it in front of him for the matters on the agenda that night. He challenged Madden to right then go out to the file drawer and "pick it up!" Madden's response?  He didn't "care" and "shouldn't have even come to the bleep-bleep meeting."  Did he go to pick up his packet?  No, he did not.  As a former supervisor, I know what effort and time it takes to thoroughly prepare for meetings in order to fulfill one's duty to the citizens, ALL the citizens, whether they voted for one or not.

In spite of all this, Supervisor Madden apparently feels justified in castigating Commissioner Jennings.

Supervisor Ceminksy expressed thoughts at the last meeting that he really felt that "something should be done" about Commissioner Jennings' "behavior." He took exception to statements made by Jennings at meetings and to her alleged violation of policy, as well as to her behavior in general. He said that he has complained before and that "nothing was done."  He neglected to mention that the Township Attorney had advised him at a meeting that he could always file a civil suit concerning the statements whose content he objected to, but that it wasn't a Township matter.

While it is true that it has been verbally recommended many times that sending emails to a quorum of others on the Board or Commission should go through the clerk in an effort to be sure one is not violating Open Meeting Law, Supervisor Behrendt stated that he would like to see that policy.  Where is it?  Can the Board hold someone responsible for violating a policy, even to the extent of taking disciplinary action, when no such policy was ever formally adopted? Take a look at the Town website page under "Policies."  There are about a dozen policies spelled out there, but none that addresses this instance. The fact that Jennings tried to send the "information-only" email through the clerk, but could not because the Board STILL hadn't engaged someone willing to stay in that position to work with them, seemed to be beside the point.  The fact that there was no violation of Open Meeting Law, the important allegation, apparently doesn't mean that Jennings shouldn't be punished for something anyway, according to the three supervisors, including Ceminsky.

Further, in regard to behavior at meetings, I was in attendance at a Board meeting during which Ceminsky alleged that Behrendt had altered the Agritourism Task Force work product submitted to the Board and attorney! When Task Force member Atina Diffley corrected Ceminksy and said that definitely hadn't happened, Ceminsky repeatedly said, "I stand corrected," but could not seem to bring himself to APOLOGIZE to Supervisor Behrendt!  Is that worse than interrupting someone?

Again, at a Board meeting, Ceminsky objected to Supervisor Behrendt's volunteering in offering his considerable professional talents to repair the Township website.  Ceminsky stated that he "wanted to keep things 'clean,'" and had a problem with a supervisor working on the computers for the Township. Was he alleging that something was "dirty?"  Former Supervisor and Board Chair Jeff Otto will tell you that he worked on Township computers both when he was a supervisor and also when he was no longer on the Board, and people were grateful for it!  I doubt Ceminsky had any knowledge of that before he entered his comments.  Behrendt stated that he was never alone in the office working on the computer system and that he would quite willingly withdraw his offer of (free) assistance, and also take back the (free) NEW computers that he had donated.  There's another old saying for that: "No good deed goes unpunished!" Even Chair Miller stated to Behrendt, "You don't deserve this abuse."

But here's a clincher:  When it comes to violating policy-formally adopted policy- Supervisor Ceminsky doesn't need to look very far, in my opinion.  When Attorney Contact Person Behrendt questioned three charges on the attorney bill that it is his responsibility to review, it came to light that Supervisor Ceminsky apparently had acted in a manner contrary to Township policy, the Attorney Engagement Policy.  Under that policy, all requests for attorney opinion or involvement must go through the Attorney Contact Person, namely, Supervisor Berhendt.  NEVER should a supervisor take it upon himself to just give legal counsel a call without permission.  (In fact, a direct call from a "general" supervisor to the attorney is rarely done.  In the past, Supervisor Miller was given permission to do so by me as Primary Attorney Contact in the instance of the theft of Township gravel.  It was just easier and more efficient that he speak directly to the attorney since he had all the details.)

However, Mark Ceminsky made not one, not TWO, but THREE CALLS directly to the attorney, incurring costs to the Township that he apparently had no authorization to do.  Is this worse than not being able to follow (an informal) policy in the absence of a clerk?  Credit where credit is due, Ceminsky did offer to pay for the unauthorized charges, but Mr. Lemmons very charitably offered to withdraw the items from his bill.

In spite of all this, Supervisor Ceminsky apparently feels justified in castigating Commissioner Jennings.

Supervisor Miller stated several times at the last meeting that there "wasn't enough of a violation" of the Open Meeting Law to turn this matter alleged against Commissioner Jennings over to the courts. Correction, Chair Miller, there was NO violation of the Open Meeting Law.  Supervisor Berhendt properly turned the Board's attention to the Minnesota State Statute regarding this.  In fact, he had to repeat these efforts a few times.  (I'm still not sure that all members picked up the distinction he was making.) State law and Township policy are two different things, Supervisor Miller  The Board voted unanimously--actually twice and they were going for a third!-- that Jennings had not violated the statute. The three supervisors mentioned above did go on to vote that there should be disciplinary action taken against Jennings regarding policy and meeting behavior.

Policy has already been addressed above. So let's look at meeting behavior concerning Chair Miller. Remember that the three Commissioners alleged that Jennings was "defiant, disruptive, condescending, confrontational," and even that she would "cause serious harm to members of the Township." Mr. Miller "wisely" pulled back from chairing the behavior part of the Board discussion, asking Vice Chair Berhendt to do so instead.  Self-preservation is a powerful human instinct. Miller stated that he was as "guilty as anybody" and had had "to apologize publicly" to people before.

While I certainly don't contradict his admissions, I have a curiously applicable incident to relate in addition. A few years ago, then-Commissioner Miller became irritated with then-Supervisor Jennings when she came before the Commission as liaison for the meeting. What outrageous thing had she done?  Well, as I remember it, she had suggested that perhaps information he was offering from the 70s and 80s was outdated. I guess her "defiance" bothered him, because he then slung a book at her!  I kid you not.  There are others who were present who will support this. Actually slung the book at her (I won't say "threw") so that it landed with a loud thud where she was sitting.  The truly ironic thing is that the book he tossed her way was the Minnesota Association of Townships Town Government Manual! Well, I ask you!


In spite of all this, Supervisor Miller apparently feels justified in castigating Commissioner Jennings.

Oh, and before I forget, when Commissioner Jennings was informed of the date of this last meeting, she informed Chair Miller that she could not be there because of work obligations. I believe she requested a change of date, but Miller would not agree.  Cory Behrendt, as IT Supervisor for the Township, complied with her request to "attend" via Skype, a service I am given to understand that was not offered by Chair Miller either.  It would seem to me to be a common courtesy that a meeting be scheduled when the person complained against could be present, or her attorney could be present, to hear the discussion of allegations against her.  Would you expect any different?
Supervisor Madden has alleged on a number of occasions that nothing less than THE CONSTITUTION and the First Amendment are being violated on the Township level, even laying this at the feet of Commissioner Jennings personally at the last meeting!  (This only goes to show me that he probably does not understand Open Meeting Law and the difference between a public meeting and a public hearing.  Further, I think not allowing a person who put herself on the agenda under the Board's own policy to even present her concerns comes closer to government stifling free speech than a Chair keeping a meeting moving along.) Granted a Township meeting is not a court of law, but I would think that the Board would understand that perhaps it might be nice if the "defendant" could face her accusers and witness the deliberation of her "fate."


FYI: These meetings to address the complaints, of which there have been two, cost the Township money.  One meeting was a "public hearing" and the other a special meeting of the Board.  Assuming that the supervisors are paid at the posted special meeting rate, that would be $70 x 5, plus $250 for the attorney's attendance.  Thus, there will be a minimum of $1200 expended in this "Salem-esque hunt."  This does not include any work that the attorney may have done outside the meetings, or any "bump" that is customarily given to the chair, at least at regular meetings. Draw your own conclusions about money well spent.

Mark Ceminsky: Term expires in 2015.

Steve Madden: Term expires in 2015.

Kenny Miller : Term expires in 2016.

Thank you all for showing up at the public hearing, and again tonight, to watch the Board weigh the complaints against me made by Commissioners Hansen, Novacek and Cleminson.

The determination made tonight, after 1.5 hours of discussion, was that:

• there was no violation of the open meeting law
• there was a violation of internal policy regarding how to handle emails in order to avoid the perception of open meeting law violations
• there is a need to reprimand me for disruptive behavior at planning commission meetings.

(At least that's what I think I heard.  What did the people in the room think?  They knowingly scheduled the meeting for a time that I could not be there because of work obligations.)

Cory Behrendt, as the Township IT supervisor made it possible for me to be at the meeting electronically.

Thanks, Cory.  

And thanks again to all of you for showing up or supporting me in other ways.  

It matters, so does your vote.

Carrie

"CATCH (UP)" AS CATCH CAN...

Having just checked the website and seeing that it is still not up, I realize that many of you may not know even yet who is running for Supervisor this spring, even though the filing ended on January 14th!!!

Chair Pete Storlie is running for position #2.  Former Planning Commissioner and Board Supervisor, Cory Behrendt, is also running for that position.

Supervisor Brian Budenski is running for position #1, as is current Commissioner Butch Hansen.

                             You can be sure to stay tuned for more on that!

The agritourism committee (task force ) met again on Tuesday, January 28th.  I was present along with two other citizens.  The time was spent discussing different uses and also compiling questions for the attorney.  If there were no issues raised with the Chair's phrasing of the questions discussed and decided upon, the scheduled meeting on Thursday, February 6th, will be canceled.  The group's next meeting is on Tuesday, February 11th, when Senior TKDA Planner, Sherri Buss, will return with her research and input. This could be an informative meeting to attend.

At an earlier meeting, Butch Hansen made a comment along the lines that if it had been up to him, none of the task force would even be there meeting as he apparently does not see it as necessary to write agritourism ordinance language or to involve professional assistance--an opinion he reminded the group he had stated previously.  This was at the time that he, Commissioner Fritz Frana, and member Phil Cleminson agreed to present the task force's recommendation to the Board to continue its work on the Ordinance with the assistance of a planner and the attorney. Leaving aside why he would want to argue for or at least present the recommendation to the Board when he says he does not agree with it (recall that he abstained rather than vote "yes" in favor of the recommendation), I am a little confused how Mr. Hansen takes that view when the Township has a current lawsuit concerning a use that still has not been resolved.  In fact, that is what started a chain of events that has brought us to this point, as some of you realize.  I raised this fact at another task force meeting as a member of the audience, explaining why I thought there does, indeed, need to be ordinance language if this use is to lawfully exist, yet its importance seems to escape him.  In my opinion.

We must all realize that the Right to Farm certainly exists, but that it takes one only so far. At some point, the line is crossed from agriculture to agritourism. I have talked to former Board Supervisors and Planning Commissioners about this, and they agree with this view. Evidently Scott and Goodhue Counties agree that this is a separate use since they each have specific ordinance language addressing it..  Apparently, the state of Minnesota thinks a definition is called for as they are developing one, as was represented to the task force by Bob Patton. So why would one continue to argue that "agritourism" is already included within "agriculture" or that no "agritourism" language is needed when Eureka is clearly endeavoring to allow it as an accessory use to agriculture?

Along this same topic, it was also curious to me that Supervisor Ceminsky, who had previously argued that the task force should consist of six, and only six members, then argued at the last Board meeting that this committee should now be reduced to three members only! What has changed since his first speech?  Thankfully, after discussion, the Board ultimately accepted that the six could and should continue as all were willing to.  Thankfully, because anyone conversant or familiar with the Ordinance would know that such special committees must be made up of a minimum of five people.  Curiously, this fact was not mentioned in the Board's discussion of Ceminsky's notion, so I was thankful that the Board ended up on the correct path after all.  I'll admit it's hard enough to sit through these long meetings, without having certain members unhappy with me because I bring up some sticky such detail which they have overlooked!

As an aside that may interest you regarding the level of conversance with our community's laws, a different Supervisor had stated at an even earlier meeting when a use was being discussed by the Board that since the use was not addressed in the Ordinance (thus the Ordinance didn't regulate it) the use must be okay and allowed without restriction!!  At break time, I felt I needed to point out to him the part of the Ordinance which clearly states that any uses not addressed within are prohibited, quite the contrary to what he asserted and on which no one had corrected him.  He told me, "I didn't know that."  I said, "Obviously, that's why I am telling you."  I thought I was at least being nice by bringing it up to just him at the break, but he apparently didn't seem to think so, and I guess I hadn't made myself too popular with him. Who still remains nameless.

So, there is your update of sorts.  As the minutes of the agritourism task force meetings become available, it is the bloggers' intention to make them available to you, instead of waiting for the IT person to be hired to get the Township website fixed.  I don't know if that has been done yet or not, but the last time I asked a Supervisor about it--last Friday, January 31st-- it was unknown.

Can you pass the red stuff?

THE AGRI-TOURISM TRAIN IS FINALLY LEAVING THE STATION, FORTUNATELY WITH A PLANNER ON BOARD!

As reported in the previous blog, Eureka's "Box of Chocolates," As In You Never Know What You'll Get!,  the Board approved the engagement of Sherri Buss of TDKA as planner to assist the Agri-tourism Task Force members in their quest to determine the feasibility of allowing agri-tourism in Eureka Township. A vote to request the engagement of a planner to assist the Task Force was taken at the Task Force meeting prior to the Board meeting.
Mr. Hansen was not willing to vote "Yes" and abstained. I believe I can speak for many citizens in this Township, thanking those who showed leadership in voting "YES"; having the unbiased integrity, long-term vision and fortitude to realize how crucial it is to engage a professional in decisions that affect everyone in this Township.

I attended the Task Force meeting on Tuesday, January 21..  Sharri Buss was indeed in attendance and appeared pleased to once again be invited to assist Eureka with ordinance and zoning challenges. Chair Cory Behrendt, skillfully and efficiently spent the majority of the meeting bringing the planner up to speed with assistance from other Task Force members. Fritz Frana presented consolidated documents of relevant performance standards obtained through his research. Sharri Buss will utilize the material provided as well as her independent research to present her initial findings to the Task Force at the February 11 meeting.

At this time the Eureka web site is not up to date and Task Force Meeting minutes will not be posted on the web site until an IT person can deem the web site functional.  The following is content from the approved  January 14 Agri-tourism Task Force Meeting for those who were not able to attend. The January 21 minutes have NOT been approved and are not available at this time.

Task Force members present: Cory Behrendt, Philip Cleminson, Atina Diffley, Butch Hansen, Fredrick Frana, Mark Parranto


Meeting Called to order 7:00 p.m.
Notes submitted by Atina Diffley

Butch made a motion to approve the revised minutes from January 7, 2014. Fritz seconded. Motion passed unanimously.

Report on recommendation made to the Board:

•  The Board made a motion to have the six present Task Force members continue on as an ordinance committee with a budget of $4,000 for a planner, $1,000 for an attorney and one attorney round table discussion to go over legal questions.
• Butch suggested we could have a workable draft in 5-6 weeks and be able to report on it by the spring Annual Meeting.
• Fritz feels it should take twice as long.
• We should be ready to present something at the Annual Meeting based on the progress we have made at that point.

Butch nominated Cory as Chair of the Agr-itourism ordinance committee and Phil as secretary.  Atina Seconded. The motion passed unanimously.

We need to prepare some guidelines on what we want for the planner.  Look at the feedback we received from the other planners and the citizens and create a framework.

The committee identified 5 potential categories that agri-tourism activities may fit into.

1. Agri-tourism activities allowed under the existing performance standards.
2. Agri-tourism activities that need enhanced performance standards.
3. Agri-tourism activities that fit into a new category of administrative permit for occasional and low impact activities.
4. Agri-tourism activities allowed with an IUP, CUP or appropriate permit.

     5. Agri-tourism activities that aren't allowed.

We need to think about the needs, benefits and impact for the three constituents involved: farmers, neighbors and guests. We have to balance these three and make recommendations based on impact and not emotion.  When the public is on the property, there has to be some sort of mechanism to deal with it.

The committee worked through the agri-tourism activities list, discussed the impacts of the activities and captured present thinking on which category each of the activities may fit into.  Some areas we are in agreement.  Some we are not. Some activities may have two ways of being managed depending on their frequency, scale or permanence.

(I have not included the list of activities and comments indicated in the extensive list; however, the list may be requested from the Task Force secretary). At the January 21 meeting, Mr. Hansen and Mr. Cleminson were quite adamant that a Bed and Breakfast would not be considered.

Personal or political; impact or emotion?  I know that the possible use was submitted at the Open House. How lovely would a quaint Country Inn be in this agricultural community amongst other activities which might not be considered.  (my comments).

Questions for the Attorney

• Does the Met Council need to be involved?

Do the existing performance ordinances need to be changed in any way to allow the intended agri-tourism use?

Phil moved to remove from our list fee-fishing and fee-hunting. Butch seconded the motion. After discussion, the motion was amended to clarify the category to Fee Fishing-Farm Raised Fish and Fee Hunting-Game Farm and keep them on the list. Motion passed.

Fritz will put together a consolidated document of the relevant performance ordinances.

Cory moved to approve Phil to work with the planner in whatever capacity needed to define a scope of work and costs.  Atina seconded. Motion passed.

Fritz made a motion to adjourn. Atina seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously.

Adjourned 9:40

UPCOMING MEETINGS:    January 28,  February 6- it is possible the Task Force will not meet on this date; check the Townhall posting)  February 11 and February 18.

EUREKA ENGAGES AN AGRI-TOURISM TASK FORCE

    

After "kicking the can down the road" for several months, the Eureka Town Board appointed a Task Force at the October 15th Town Board meeting to address the possibility of developing ordinance language which would allow agri-tourism in Eureka Township.
     At the September Town Board meeting, the Board had discussed the number of applicants that would be accepted as Task Force members. The Board also requested the Task Force report to the Board monthly regarding progress. The ordinance states there must be a minimum of 5 members, an uneven number, allowing a Task Force to have a majority vote. I believe there was logical thinking applied as it is most feasible to have an odd number and minimum of 5 when this was implemented in Ordinance 2, Chapter 4. The majority of the Board members voted to have 6 members.

     During the discussion at their October meeting, Supervisor Budenski re-visited the issue and asked the Township attorney for his comment on what the appropriate number of members should be.  The attorney's response stated "the ordinance requires only a minimum of 5, but I would recommend the Board to select an odd number; with an even number, the Task Force members could deadlock. If there is a chance of a deadlock, the report then would not serve much of a purpose and would not be practical." Supervisor Storlie stated "With all due respect, I feel having 6 members forces them to come to a solution." The attorney's advice was ignored and 6 members were selected.

Butch Hansen

Appointed to the Task Force are Fritz Frana (photo not available) and Charles "Butch" Hansen, current Planning Commission members;










Phil Cleminson,a partner in a consulting firm and a member of the Transfer of Building Rights Task Force; Mark Parranto, owner of the Applewood Apple Orchard;

Phil Cleminson

Mark Parranto

Atina Diffley

Cory Behrendt

 Cory Behrendt, past Chair of the Eureka Town Board, past Planning Commission member and a computer engineer in technical services with the Minneapolis firm, Clifton, Larson and Allen. He has twice served Highview Lutheran Church in a leadership role on call committees, established the church data base and maintains it. Cory stated he is open-minded, fair and sees things from all sides; and Atina Diffley, an organic vegetable farmer who educates consumers, farmers, and policymakers about organic farming through the consulting business Organic Farming Works which she owns with her husband. Atina and her husband owned and operated Gardens of Eagan.

     Embracing the concept of agri-tourism and developing ordinance language is a very complex and strategic planning process. The stated purpose of the zoning ordinance is to protect the public health,
safety, morals, comfort, convenience and general welfare; to protect and preserve lands identified for long-term agricultural use; promote well-managed and staged development of residential, commercial, industrial, recreational and public areas; conserve and manage the use of natural resources; and provide for the compatibility of different land uses and the most appropriate use of land throughout the Township. Addressing these issues should be a very good starting point.
     The Board and Task Force applicants heard a statement from Jeff Otto, a Eureka citizen who served as Board Chair and legal liaison; as well as a task force chair and legal liaison. He also participated in several other committee and ordinance revision efforts for the Township. Mr. Otto submitted what he believes is the "proper procedure and process to study a subject of complexity, to communicate issues and recommendations effectively to audiences large and small, and to manage legal and technical guidance for maximum benefit and value to the Township."

Jeff Otto

      Mr. Otto stated that he appreciates the time and effort serving on the Board and Planning Commission can entail. He stated that each of the Board members has taken on particular subjects involving extra commitment to do well that has benefited the Township; however, he felt that as a Board, their management of the agri-tourism issue has not yet been one of their better efforts and felt it is not too late for course correction. I believe Mr. Otto presented a very valid argument for a proper process to evaluate the feasibility of agri-tourism in Eureka in his presentation to the Board members and Task Force applicants.

THE FOLLOWING ARE COMMENTS BY JEFF OTTO ON THE TASK FORCE PROCESS:
TIMING: First of all, what is the rush? The Board has been involved in this subject for nearly a year, directed the Planning Commission to conduct two hearings, and ignored thoughtful early research and draft input on the subject from the Commission.  The sum total of the Board's consideration and vision on the subject after all these months was one paragraph that was open-ended and unenforceable except for hours of operation; and those hours provided no consideration for the nature of an operation, seasonal variation in daylight hours, or possible safety, noise, and light pollution issues for night activity.
                                                                                                                
Now the Board is dumping this broad and diverse tourism subject into a hastily assembled committee, inadequately advertised to the entire Township, with the direction to make its recommendations in 60 days, taking it through Thanksgiving and nearly to Christmas Eve. The option is left open to possibly allow a thirty day extension so the committee can work through Christmas and New Year's to provide recommendations in early January. 
The Board is expecting a lot for that which they couldn't produce in over 9 months. The sham of boxing the Task Force into such an unrealistic time frame is unfair to the volunteers, as well as doing superficial disservice to the complexity of the subject. If the result is to put more time into the effort, the original volunteers are best positioned to advance the subject. If the decision is to produce draft ordinance language working with the Town Attorney, again, the original volunteers are best informed to advance the subject. When, not if, ordinance language on this subject goes to the Met Council for review with answers to traffic, road and sanitary impacts, the original volunteers are best informed to advance the subject. All volunteers need to be informed up front of that possible time frame. Too much loss of continuity in the Task Force will delay overall progress and risk seriously undermining key issues carefully resolved but later re-visited by new members not having the benefit of the earlier discussions.
A point was made by a Board member that this Task Force should need less time because of all the "data" already collected in the two hearings.  A structured public hearing is not an adequate substitute for the open exchange and dialog that a public open house provides. Much of the hearing "data" is little more than opinions raising issues and concerns, not dialog to resolve those issues or detail reasonable regulation.

SCOPE: The scope of the Task Force must be clearly focused on public agri-tourism Township wide. It must not be allowed to digress into another venue for debating what is included and not included in private and commercial agricultural. That is a separate issue being handled in other appropriate venues, including the ongoing legal proceeding. A prerequisite for agri-tourism is being comercial ag, whatever that includes and is resolved outside the Agri-tourism Task Force. The Board continues to suggest that a task force doesn't need to develop explicit language but only provide "recommendations." The implication is that broad recommendations can be done more quickly and then refined into more specific language by others later. This is a completely false economy of effort and time by both the volunteers and Town legal counsel. Who better to provide carefully worded language than the group that has studied and discussed the issues in detail, and done so in concert with the Town attorney so that the concepts are sound and legally supported? This would still recognize that final legal language adjustments may be needed, but the confidence level that the final proposals are workable and proper will be much higher than vague language hastily drafted to meet an artificial deadline. Being able to answer questions specifically and thoughtfully at public meetings is a major factor in elevating the confidence of the public that the study has been
performed diligently.
   
TOWN BOARD SUPPORT: The Board should demonstrate its serious regard for this initiative in the following three ways:
1. The time frame needs to be made longer and can be tied to clear milestone decision points. The Commercial/Industrial Task Force reached an intermediate decision point and recommended no further pursuit. The Transfer Task Force completed its initial charge, but only then was asked to continue on to the final tasks. Of course, it is reasonable and proper for any task force or committee to provide monthly status reports to the commissioning body. This Board has seen that this has been done consistently, speaking of the seven years I have been active in the Township.

2. A Professional Planner needs to be engaged up front to work with the Task Force due to the nature and breadth of the subject. This is not only to provide technical support and experienced input on the subject to the Task Force or ask questions, but importantly to provide knowledgeable external perspective and validation of diligence for the 1100 owners of Eureka Township for whom the Board works. Government transparency and constructive dialog depend on public gatherings and outside objectivity. Only then will public confidence in the process and support for an initiative grow. Concerns about the value of professional consulting are often traced to misunderstanding and mis-management of the consulting service. A common mistake is to try to save money by asking very narrow questions. This limits the opportunity for a consultant to understand the goal and use their experience to identify alternatives and trade-offs. Adding a planning consultant later in the process rather than from the beginning will delay progress while the consultant is brought current with what has already transpired. As with legal guidance, bringing such knowledge and experience into the process at a later stage can result in important insight that will motivate the Task Force to reconsider
and possibly re-work portions they thought were complete, causing delay. 

3. An Aggressive Schedule requires direct access to legal counsel via the Task Force Chair or a designated legal liaison with the Task Force. Not all questions can be efficiently handled in writing alone. There may need to be dialog to clarify the question or the answer, as well as follow up questions based on the initial response. This was true in more than one instance with the Transfer Task Force to avoid spending time on a path outside the authority of a township, not being aware of the risks for a course being considered, or swinging effort to a better alternative suggested to the Task Force. A 60 or 90 day time box certainly allows no room for external delays impacting the progress of the Task Force.

A copy of the entire content of the presentation by Jeff Otto can be obtained from the Township Clerk in written form or on a CD of the Town Board meeting. Eventually, the written presentation should be posted on the Township web site as an attachment.