OKAY, HERE'S A GOOD ONE!

Refer to my last post about the "controversy" concerning driveway offsets, DRIVE TIME ?, published on 10-28-19, for details on this topic.

At the Planning Commission meeting last night, November 6, the Commission took up the Board's direction to it to discuss and set a public hearing on establishing driveway offsets. Supervisors Hansen and Ceminsky have claimed that it is a "policy" that driveways on opposite sides of a roadway be offset 50'. That it's "always been that way." There is nothing in the Ordinances about this. There is nothing on the website under "Town Board Policies" about this. No one else is quite sure where this comes from except Hansen and Ceminsky insist there is such a rule.

When the various four Commissioners last night (Novacek was missing) asked for the rationale behind such a measure, they were once again told that it is for safety. When this was questioned and it was stated that such a requirement cannot be found in any County or State regulations, Hansen speaks up from the back of the room, "Why don't you just call Butch McConnell at the County? HE will tell you it is fifty feet!" (Butch McConnell is in charge of issuing Right-of-way permits on County roads.) Hansen even claimed the County made him put his own driveway in where it is because of this! Really?...


Soooo, this morning, I called Butch McConnell, to whom I have spoken in the past and asked him!
He told me that not only do they NOT require such an offset, the County actually PREFERS that the driveways on opposite sides of a roadway LINE UP. I asked him why that was. He stated it was for SAFETY reasons, and went through a little scenario of how things can go bad when the emerging cars from the driveways are not lined up opposite each other as at an intersection. I told him that made perfect sense to me and thanked him for the information. I said, "I'm glad I came to the 'horse's mouth' on this one!" McConnell also indicated that he had received an email from one of the Eureka Commissioners that he was going to answer as soon as he got to it. Now there's a Commissioner who knows his job!

So why was Ceminsky apparently so set on not allowing the resident on Denmark to move his driveway 40' north as he wanted to? Where might we be today if Clerk Ranee Solis hadn't stood her ground as Zoning Administrator and sought further input from Chair Palmquist?

Town Board Supervisors have an obligation to know the Ordinances well, if not inside out, and to be sure that they are giving correct information to the public and their colleagues on the Board and Commission at all times. How can they possibly be fair and not "arbitrary and capricious" in their decision-making when things just seem to "fall from the sky"?

DRIVE TIME?

At the October Board meeting “Driveway Regulations” was listed on the agenda. First, know that driveway permits are over-the-counter. The Clerk issues them and the applicant does not need to go before the Planning Commission and Town Board.




A story unfolded during the Board's discussion. It seems a driveway permit application came in during August after the Board meeting that month. The applicant wished to move his driveway from its current location north. Mark Ceminsky, who had resigned as road supervisor at the August Town Board meeting, weighed in. (It seemed from what Ceminsky said at the August meeting during his resignation comments that his feelings were hurt and he claimed to be “stabbed in the back.”) Ceminsky told Clerk Ranee Solis to deny the permit. He asserted that there is a fifty-foot offset for driveways re other driveways. Upon examining the Ordinances, Solis found no such offset mentioned anywhere. Ceminsky apparently didn’t think that mattered, because he insisted, “It’s how it’s always been done.”

Solis rightly determined that the Township has to have a legal basis to deny a permit and, since there was nothing in the Ordinances about this offset, she did not think the permit should be denied.  Yet Ceminsky apparently was firm on the denial being the course to take. Since Ceminsky was no longer road supervisor at this point, the clerk reached out to the Chair and Vice Chair. She was instructed to go ahead and issue the permit.

When this agenda item came up at the October meeting, both Ceminsky and Hansen objected to the Clerk’s action and the instruction she was given. Hansen went so far as to very rudely and very loudly state to the Clerk that she  “doesn’t run the Township.”

Now the Clerk is duty bound to follow the Ordinances. When, during the meeting, Hansen and Ceminsky were asked by Supervisor Barfknecht to point to the spot in the Ordinances that states the offset requirement, neither could do so. Hansen, however, argued “It IS in the Ordinances [because] we’re supposed to protect the public health, safety and welfare and this is a safety issue.”

Without any Ordinance language, how does that work? Supervisor Q decides that “xwyz” is necessary for your safety. No real rationale given why a distance should be a 50’ offset as opposed to a 40’ one or a 60’ one. Or that an offset greater than the distance to the lot line already in the Ordinances needs to be. “We’ve always done it that way” is not a reason to stand on. Where does it say that the public through the Ordinance adoption process agrees? What if a new Board Supervisor P says he/she thinks that “abc” is how it should be done? Doesn’t this leave the Citizen at the mercy of fluctuating standards at the whim of whomever is in office? Yes, the Board's authority comes from a duty to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public, but this “umbrella” does not give any Board the right to act in such an arbitrary and capricious way!

Following is what the Ordinances have regarding driveways in Ordinance 3, Ch. 3, Section 5, B:

       B.  Driveways shall meet the following requirements: (Resolution 59, 8-13-2007 (B.1.-3.)

1.    Driveways that take access on township roads shall be located a minimum of ten (10) feet from the property line or as necessary to provide adequate drainage onto the parcel the driveway serves. 

2.    Driveways that take access on County/State highways shall conform to ordinances of the County and State, as appropriate.

3.    Driveways must be located a minimum of 300 feet from the intersection of any two or more public roads.

Clearly, different Ordinance language is required if the Board wants to proceed down this path, and anything else is nonsense! Supervisors ought to know this, or I wonder what they are doing up there.

As a result, the Planning Commission was tasked with looking into the Ordinances and Chapter 169 in state regulations. I briefly scrolled through 169 and saw no reference to driveways. That's not to say that the Commission couldn't come up with some recommended language. It is of note that there are driveways along Dodd Blvd. (a County Road so the County issues driveway permits) that do not have this offset. And we not are talking about driveways that have been there "forever." Does the County, then, have little regard for your safety? I doubt it.

The road that the permit applicant lives on is Denmark Avenue which is a road a portion of whose maintenance is shared with Castle Rock Township. Apparently from what I have been told, Castle Rock does require a fifty-foot offset between driveways. Eureka citizens are not governed by Castle Rock Ordinances, however! Are we a little confused? Is this where this requirement came from? Or have Eureka road supervisors been operating without the benefit of Ordinance language? Because "it's always been done this way"?

There was also a list of drives presented in the public packet that gave a number of drives on the same side of the roadway (the Eureka side) that do not meet fifty-foot offsets. Ceminsky, perhaps surprised to see the list, judging by his comment about it, objected to this list because he said some of those listed were field approaches, not regular driveways.

It appears to me that Clerk Solis was correct in her assessment and acted to protect the Township. If the Board wants to establish an offset, they can go through the public process to insert Ordinance language to that effect. It should be noted that under the Ordinances, the Town Clerk is the Zoning Administrator. As such, the call she made is within her authority.

THE WISE MAN KNOWS WHAT HE DOES NOT KNOW -Lao Tzu

At the October Planning Commission Meeting and the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) public hearing that same evening, it was glaringly evident through the actions of one Commissioner, Al Novacek, why mandatory training for all public officials would be a great idea! Not only is it just desirable, but really necessary for Township business to be conducted in a responsible, correct manner. To my knowledge, Novacek has never taken any training. After that night, I wondered again if he has read or ever refers to the Ordinances in preparation for such events. If he does read them, his lack of understanding is evident.  That, or he just plain has a philosophical objection to them.

He has, after all, on more than one occasion as a Commissioner publicly stated that “we’d be better off without any Ordinances” and “everyone should be able to do whatever he wants to on his property.”

If part of the job of a Planning Commissioner is to uphold and follow our laws, and one doesn’t even believe in them, what is he doing up there at all?

It’s like someone continuing to attend services at the church down the street, all the while objecting to what takes place there and trying to undermine the faithful!

Of course, changes take place over time, but there are surely general principles which remain in place. For example, the importance of the Comprehensive Plan, protecting the health, safety and welfare of the public, and following proper and accepted procedures are all significant. One needs to understand what CUPs or Interim Use Permits (IUPs) actually are and why they are set up as they are. One also needs to understand the difference between legislative and quasi-judicial decisions made by Township officials and the implications thereof which are quite different from each other.

On a solar CUP discussion during the meeting itself, Novacek questioned where the Findings of Facts before him had originated. When informed that they were responses of the applicant to the Ordinance, he said he didn’t think that they should come from that source. What he fails to recognize is that in Ord 3, Ch. 4, Section 14, A, "Criteria For Granting Conditional Use Permits,” the list of 7 items he was discussing are those that the applicant has to meet. In applying for a CUP, applicants have to address each and every item on the list. To use those responses for the Finding of Facts is essentially saying that the Planning Commission agrees with the determination. Indeed, the Commission went through this list one item by one item, and a majority of four agreed on all seven criteria.

Novacek? He objected to two of the items in the Finding of Facts, saying he did not agree with them, but was still willing to recommend approval of the solar CUP. I pointed to the section of the Ordinance mentioned above and stated that all the items had to be addressed. If they could not be, the Commission and the Board could not go ahead with granting the CUP.

I also pointed out that when the Township went through the adoption of the solar ordinance (while I was Commission Chair) it was done with the understanding that it was in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and its goal. Therefore, to say the solar array was not a proper use of the property or that it was not "reasonably related to the existing land use" was nonsensical. By adopting that Ordinance the Township is saying it IS a proper use of land within the agricultural district.

Novacek went on to raise the possibility of the house being removed and the solar array (20 kw) becoming a business. I believe he mentioned this because the homeowners can and will sell any extra energy to the electric company. However:

1. Selling excess energy is common in solar uses and the Township had no objection to this.
2. Even more to the point, our solar ordinance allows ONLY ACCESSORY solar uses. Thus, a business whose purpose was collecting and selling electricity is not allowed. I pointed out that, during the discussion of proposed ordinance language, the decision was made to not permit  primary use solar arrays as we did not want the Wright County situation in Eureka.
So, at any rate, this “possibility” was nothing more than a red herring.

So now onto the public hearing portion of the evening. Up for discussion was a CUP for a radio broadcast tower. (More basic info on this newly adopted use in a later blog post.) At one point I spoke and said that if the applicant met all the requirements (and I do mean ALL of them, Mr. Novacek!) and agreed to all related, reasonable and proportional conditions, that applicant is entitled to the CUP.

I stated that the granting of a CUP is a quasi-judicial action. I repeated that those are the issues that can go to court. The Township would have to have a really good, legally defensible reason to deny any CUP and has to state those reasons in its denial.




Once the Board adopted the ordinance language, we are saying we allow the use. It is a Conditional Use Permit because there is potential for more than usual negative impacts. (A residence, for instance, is an example of a “straight” permitted use with low negative impact in and of itself. No CUP needed.) I suggested that since this is a commercial use, the option of a condition for review on some periodic basis would probably be appropriate. This has been usual procedure.

Enter Novacek again. He held that no conditions should be required because it “just added another layer of government.” The whole idea behind CUPs is that, while allowing the use, the government recognizes that such uses can have some negative impacts that need to be lessened in the interest of the public health, safety, and welfare. This is the reason they are called Conditional Use Permits! The conditions are a protection, not over regulation.

Novacek wanted to do two motions: one for the list of criteria and another for the conditions. Chair Fredlund moved that the Commission move the application ahead to the Board for approval. His motion included both the requirements and the conditions.

Okay, now comes the vote. Four Commissioners vote yes. Novacek? Abstained! (Remind you of anyone?) I guess he didn’t want to vote against granting the use, but couldn’t bring himself to agree to the related, reasonable, and proportional conditions his colleagues came up with. So he abstains! Commissioner Wood asked him why he was abstaining. Novacek indicated because he can. (Sound familiar again?) Well, it’s true he can, but is it really fulfilling his office well?

I remind the reader that twice before in my experience, I proposed making at least two training sessions in a first three-year term mandatory for Eureka public officials. “The Basics of Planning and Zoning” offered by Governmental Training Services would be an obvious one for both Board and Commission. “Your Role as a Planning Commissioner” would be another obvious one for members of the Commission.

                             I still think it’s a good idea!

To Be Or Not To Be; To Abstain Or Not To Abstain; Is There Really Any Question?

Most people would expect an elected public official to vote on all pertinent issues at hand during the meetings and let his stance be known, whether in the majority or the minority.

Certainly, there are cases when it is better not to vote, such as you are new to a board and do not feel you have enough information yet to make a wise decision on something in particular.

Certainly, there are cases when one should not vote, such as in approving minutes for a meeting that one did not attend.

Over the last several months at least, anyone in attendance at the Town Board meetings will have witnessed a strange reluctance on the parts of Butch Hansen and Mark Ceminsky to "show their hand" and to actually vote on some matters.

Several of us in attendance at these meetings have been scratching our heads, wondering what it is that these two think is to be gained from their abstentions. The abstentions have often occurred on motions made by one of these persons mentioned and seconded by the other! Then the vote comes and three Supervisors vote and two abstain.


This has happened on routine Township decisions made by the Board at the Reorganization Meeting, (I think someone had his nose out of joint when things didn't go his way at the beginning of that meeting) to much weightier subjects such as whether to continue to explore Commercial/Industrial uses. On the latter, Hansen and Ceminsky were two of the big proponents of this endeavor, yet they chose to abstain rather than commit. Why?? Other topics without five votes have included the expenditure on a permanent gate on Chub Lake Road or cashing in one of the Township's CDs to meet the bills.

I have wondered if their thought might be the others will be held responsible by disgruntled citizens because they voted yes or no on a particular topic.  That hardly seems logical when the abstainers themselves proposed and seconded some of these motions in the first place.

At the latest meeting, Supervisor Barfknecht came right out and asked the two for an explanation for their many abstentions. She said that they were often the "dogs barking the loudest," but when it came to the vote, they abstain. Butch Hansen replied, "Because we can!" He indicated that no one can force them to vote. BUT why wouldn't an elected official take his responsibilities more seriously and give either a thumbs-up or a thumbs-down on a particular matter?

When I vote for a particular person for office, I don't expect him to always vote the way I would like him to. I will make my argument, hope he considers it seriously, and then the decision rests with the official. I hope that he has good reasons for voting whichever way he does. BUT I DO expect such an individual to VOTE. In my belief, if one can't take a stand, I wonder what he's doing there at all. This is especially so when such an individual has strongly argued for months on the topic!

Just One More Bite!

                              
At the September 9, 2019, meeting the Board engaged
in a lengthly discussion regarding the General Fund Budget.
Marcia Wilson stated there is not enough cash in the
General Fund to pay all the claims.

Previous to the Board meeting, Supervisors Ceminsky
and Hansen met with the Treasurer for 3 hours
to brainstorm ways to meet the General Fund
shortage and find possible ways to resolve the budget shortfall.

The results were presented and discussed at the September
Board meeting where it was stated that there was a massive
deficit from previous Boards. No information was presented to
support this argument.

In the General Fund Budget $5,000 was overspent for Township
Administration and there will be 3 more months to cover,
Communications was overspent by $1,500 and Town Hall
upkeep was overspent by $3,600. There is $7,500
remaining for professional fees.  $77,740 will be needed as
there is reduced income from projections.

A few suggestions were made and discussed addressing the
Township budget needs.
1) Can reduce the Township Administration by $9,500 if
    Clerk hours are reduced.
2) Pay staff an hourly rate for Board meetings.
3) Commissioners and staff do not get paid for 2 meetings
    on the same night.
4) Have the staff record details of what they are doing during
    their work hours so budget decisions can be made.

The Deputy Clerk works 15 hours per week, Treasurer Wilson
works 12 hours per week and the Clerk works approximately
30 hours per week.
                                   
Supervisor Hansen reminded the Board that there are 100 one dollar
bills in a $100 dollar bill!!!  Good to know!!!!

There was also a discussion to possibly post only the latest
approved Planning  Commission and Board meeting minutes
plus 1 previous year to the web site to save money. If the citizens
would like to view minutes other than what is posted, they must
go to the Town Hall and request to view them or get copies.


(In my opinion, this will take time away from the Clerk/
Deputy Clerk to do their normal job requirements. They might
spend a significant amount of time making copies for
citizens. Also, citizens, Planning Commissioners and a few 
Board members, utilize the web site to do research on issues.
No one asked the question or offered facts on how much money 
this will save the Township. Ridiculous).

The Township has $106,698.92 in CDs at this time. If a
CD were cashed in, the bank would charge a 7-day interest fee
as the penalty.
A motion was made to cash in a CD for $39,000. Four
Supervisors voted aye and Hansen abstained.  Motion carried.

Road Contractor Update:

Money was received by the Township from a Chub Lake
settlement agreement involving damage done to the Chub
Lake crossing. The Township has been renting concrete
barriers to block travel on the Chub Lake road when
travel is prohibited due to poor road conditions.
A portion of the Funds from the settlement could be utilized
to purchase and install twin gates, one on each side of the
Chub Lake road. Reflectors will be added to the gates.
The price for 2 gates is $13,200 total.  The gates will be
closed when travel in this area is prohibited due to poor and
unsafe road conditions. A motion was made
to install the twin gates on the Chub Lake road. (The money
will come from the settlement money and will save the
Township rental money over time). Supervisors
Palmquist, Barfknecht and Murphy voted aye, Mark and
Butch abstained. Motion passed.

Information taken from the September meeting CD.
CD can be purchased for $5 from the Clerk.
Includes my opinions.
                                                        

EXACTLY WHAT PART IS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND?

Towards the end of the September Board meeting, a topic that has been discussed and explained multiple times was brought up yet again.

It seems that Butch Hansen continues to hold a steadfast belief that Dakota County has been interfering in Eureka's zoning, no matter how many times the pertinent distinctions have been made clear! Mark Ceminsky has publicly supported and agreed with Hansen in this assertion. This, of course, is nonsense because the County has no zoning authority in the Township, as most people living here know.

However, on multiple recent occasions, Hansen has asserted that property he has stated he is handling the sale of has been zoned commercial by the County. He insists it is zoning, even when it has been suggested that this is actually a tax issue. He even wanted the Planning Commission to check this alleged problem out. The Board agreed that the Commission could do so. So use up their time looking into something that all the Board, all the Commission, and indeed, all the citizenry should already understand! What a waste of time.

The crux of the matter is that, even though the County cannot zone any property in Eureka, it can and does tax properties. Now, all of Eureka is zoned agricultural, but we allow different uses within the ag zone, such as residences, gravel mining, CUPs for certain uses, etc. How a property is used within the ag zone is how it is taxed. I believe that is state law. So if an individual holds a CUP for a commercial use on his property, the County is going to tax it that way.


The Township Attorney has even been asked to send letters to the County on this subject. I objected to the Township spending any money on this and to asking the Attorney to act on what I see is the behalf of one Board member. I will allow that if the County were doing what Hansen alleges, it could be a problem for the Township as a whole, but this just isn't so. Hansen simply will not accept the explanation. Board members looked up properties online at Dakota County Property Records during the meeting. When it was pointed out that that source does not state anything is zoned anything other than ag, Hansen still refused to accept it. He claimed he stood in line for "four hours" and the information he was presented indicated that the property is zoned commercial.

However, Hansen produced no paperwork to support his claim of County zoning. I am sure that is because it can't be produced. Nowhere will it state that a Eureka property is zoned commercial, but it will state information as to the uses of a said property, one of which might be commercial.


I pointed out that the property in question does have a CUP for a commercial purpose. (I remembered that from my time as a Supervisor reviewing this property's CUP.) I suggested that, if Hansen doesn't want commercial taxes on the property, he could ask that the Township revoke or cancel the CUP. Otherwise, as everyone knows, the CUP "runs with the land" and doesn't go away. Even though what I suggested would have helped Hansen in his situation, he angrily would not accept it. He not only didn't want to accept the information, but he strongly objected to my commenting at all, and let me know it in a very rude manner. (Now, from time to time, former Supervisors and Commissioners have offered, or have even been asked to offer, information based on their experience during their tenures in office. That has happened for me many times, so I did not feel my offering a possible solution could be so offensive to him.)

As it happens this situation occurred on another property during my time as Planning Commission Chair. That particular owner had actually come in much earlier and obtained a CUP during the yearlong opportunity that businesses had some years ago. The owner subsequently found that the commercial aspect was making it hard to sell his property and came in for consultation. I believe he considered asking for removal of the CUP to make his property more salable.

,
What I further don't "get" is why the Board authorized Chad Lemmons to draft and write a letter to the County on this subject. The Attorney had already explained the zoning authority question after a phone call to the County which he did not charge for, but still that wasn't good enough for Hansen. It is even embarrassing that we are now sending a letter to the County, in my opinion! We're going to look a little stupid, if you ask me.

Don't Town Supervisors know who has zoning authority here? I'm pretty sure that I was not the only person in the room who gets this! Are we spending money just to appease someone who refuses to understand a simple explanation? Can we speak up and tell fellow supervisors that they are mistaken on this one and end the discussion?

Town Board Meetings Should Focus On Challenges And Positive Strategies Rather Than Personal Sensitivities!

I find it is becoming increasingly difficult and a waste
of my time, and perhaps I can speak for others,
to attend Town Board meetings in Eureka.
A couple of Supervisors appear to focus on their
sensitive feelings and engage in bad meeting etiquette such as
displaying disruptive behavior and being extremely rude
to fellow Supervisors. the attorney and audience citizens.
Below are issues addressed at the August Town Board
meeting which are a reflection of the above.

                        
Commercial/Industrial Work Group:
Mark Ceminsky, Al Novacek and Butch Hansen
presented the findings of the Commercial/Industrial
Work Group following the Open House. This was
addressed in a previous blog, Did You know??
You Bad, You Bad!!!!!

A Board discussion regarding the continuance of
the Work Group took place. Supervisors Murphy
and Palmquist presented valid reasons stating lack of finances
and infrastructure necessary to support this effort.
They felt at some point in time, C/I in Eureka might be feasible.
They thanked the Work Group and expressed their appreciation
of the time and effort that was put into Phase I.  The Township is
not financially solvent and the fiscal studies etc.
that need to be done are not affordable at this time.

Supervisor Barfknecht suggested adding the
Commercial/Industrial to next year's Annual 
Meeting ballot as a referendum.

Supervisor Ceminsky stated "He was making a
motion to KILL any commercial work by the group
on commercial zoning within Eureka Township.
Stop completely."

Supervisors Barfknecht, Murphy and Palmquist
voted in favor of Mark's motion. Ceminsky
and Hansen abstained. (Why abstain on one's
own motion)?  Supervisor Hansen commented
"I don't think you guys get anything." An absurd
comment from Mr. Hansen.

"The Dunning-Kruger effect is a cognitive bias
in which people mistakenly assess their cognitive
ability as greater than it is. Cognitive bias of
illusory superiority and comes from the inability
of people to recognize their lack of ability."

Missing Award Certificate:
During the July Town Board meeting, Supervisor
Ceminsky stated his framed leadership certificate from
Dakota Electric a few years back is mysteriously
missing from the Town Hall wall. The missing certificate
was on the agenda again at the August Board meeting.
Mark expressed his feelings are quite hurt. He felt
the Township should be proud of any citizen, no matter
who it is, who has served on the Board and received such
an award. He stated "If his award could not be displayed,
then all plaques with names should be removed."
(I, as well as other past Supervisors have wood plaques
honoring our service and they are not on display. In my
opinion, perhaps certificates and other awards should
be displayed at home to insure their safety).

Another certificate was ordered from Dakota Electric and
framed with tax payer dollars and is now hanging prominently
on the Town Hall wall. RIP!

                               
Road Supervisor Liaison:
Supervisor Ceminsky presented another agenda item.
He felt he was being accused by another Supervisor of 
wrong doing regarding roads. The accused Supervisor
stated there is obviously a misunderstanding of what
was stated. There was no nefarious accusations,
criticism or personal attack. He was taking a business 
approach regarding the road budget, the money that
has been spent and how, as there are serious budget issues.
The issues need to be addressed in a constructive manner.

Mark expressed that his feelings were hurt and words need
to be chosen more carefully. He stated "The comments
cut deep." "People compliment him and then stab him in the
back."

Supervisor Ceminsky then stated that he was resigning as
Road liaison. Butch Hansen stated "If he steps down, so am I."
"It is a thankless job." Mark stated he would not take 
responsibility for a new Supervisor liaison position.
This will now leave nearly ALL the liaison positions the
responsibility of the Chair, Supervisor Murphy and Supervisor
Barfknecht. Hansen will be without a liaison responsibility.

Perhaps this is the time to rethink the responsibilities
of a road liaison and perhaps consider a road
committee or other alternatives. Road liaisons are liaisons
between the citizens and the Board.  The Board makes decisions
on spending money, acting on the issues and directing the
road contractors.  It is not the responsibility of the road liaisons
to clean out culverts. In fact, it seems this could be a liability
to the Township. The Township has a road contract with
the Ottes.

The above lengthly discussions which are not always necessary
or can be addressed in a civil manner are why meetings
last for 5 to 6 hours.  The Township attorney is paid additionally
for time after 2 hours. 

Let's get back to adhering to the fundamentals of a meeting,
setting priorities and conducting Township business efficiently.   
If necessary, pomposity and personal feelings can be addressed 
at the end of the meeting or perhaps in a special meeting if deemed 
necessary.