DOES A PUBLIC OFFICIAL'S CHARACTER MATTER?

CHARACTER  can be described as: 1. The aggregate of features and tasks that form the individual nature of some person, 2. one such feature or trait, 3. moral or ethical quality, 4. reputation, 5. an account of the qualities or peculiarities of a person.

Are the above characteristics important when evaluating our public officials who represent the citizens of Eureka?

Many of you are aware of the special meeting that was held on September 10 as a result of complaints submitted to the Board by Chair Butch Hansen, Commissioners Phil Cleminson and Al Novacek against Commissioner Carrie Jennings. At the July and August Town Board meetings, Chair Miller and Attorney Lemmons stated that those who attended the Public Hearing would be allowed to give verbal statements
regarding the complaints.  Those who intended to testify were informed upon arrival at the September 10 hearing that they could make no comments other than to address the content of the complaints. No comments were allowed as to the behavior of the three accusers. Carrie was able to call three witnesses on her behalf. I had requested copies of the complaints days before the meeting.  My request was denied even though the Data Practice Policy allows complaints to be made public without signatures. I am rather perplexed as to how the public was expected to offer comments when they were not allowed to have access to the complaints.

Chair Hansen:  Chair Hansen's complaint (dated  June 12) stated that Commissioner Jennings has violated the Open Meeting Law by sending information requested from Travis Thiel to all Planning Commission members including Supervisor Miller.  He also accused Commissioner Jennings of having a "blatant disregard" for rules and regulations. Chair Hansen failed to offer justification as to why he felt this was a violation of the Open Meeting Law.

My Comments:  As Nancy Sauber stated at the Public Hearing, "Violations of the Open Meeting Law can include discussions of or decisions made about Township business outside of an open, public meeting. If materials were sent out and emails were sent back and forth, with people making arguments, that would be a problem." A request from Commissioner Jennings to Travis Thiel, the Vermillion River Watershed  Specialist, for a website link so that the Commissioners could attend the following Planning Commission meeting prepared to speak on the VRWJPO, is NOT a violation of the Open Meeting Law.

During this period, the Township did not have a Clerk.  Commissioner Jennings sent the e-mail to the Township to be distributed to the Commissioners. The e-mail was bounced back with a statement that there was no one in the office to do so. 
Nancy Sauber  stated that " the Township policy of having Commissioners and Supervisors go through the clerk is at MAT's recommendation, just to be very, very sure that people do not fall off the slippery slope of  Open Meeting Law violation. This does not mean that any e-mail that does NOT go through the clerk IS a violation of the Open Meeting Law."
At more than one meeting, Chair Hansen did not provide public copies of  meeting materials as required by Open Meeting Law, nor did he provide copies to the members of the Commission to utilize for discussion. There was no Clerk at this time.

Commissioner Cleminson: Commissioner Cleminson's complaint (dated July 10) stated that Commissioner Jennings was asked by Chair Hansen to "act with decorum and respect the authority of the Chair" and that she stated that she would not. He also complained that Commissioner Jennings is disruptive in the meetings, confrontational with the Chair, condescending and defiant. Mr. Cleminson did not provide information to support his complaint.

My Comments: I have attended the majority of the Planning Commission meetings and also video record them. I have never heard Commissioner Jennings refuse to act with decorum and respect the authority of the Chair.  Immediately after a Planning Commission meeting, I heard Chair Hansen make a statement to Commissioner Jennings that "she did not respect him." He told her that "he was the Chair" and reminded Commissioner Jennings that "she LOST that vote." 

Commissioner Jennings stated that she would respect him but expected the same respect from him.

On several occasions Mr. Hansen has stated in a loud voice words to the effect of "Are you finished, Carrie? Are you finished, so that I can continue." She, in fact, has been interrupted many times by the Chair. Also on several occasions, Chair Hansen has stated "Let me put this as plain as I can, Carrie, so you can understand it."  When Carrie Jennings sent out a doodle e-mail unanimously requested by the Planning Commission to set a date for an open house, Supervisor Madden responded via e-mail to her that she needed to go through the chain of command and then stated "I cannot believe how ignorant you are carry [sic]!" As clarified through the Township attorney in the past, a doodle e-mail to set a meeting date is NOT a violation of the Open Meeting Law!  This behavior toward Commissioner Jennings is disrespectful, condescending and can be characterized as "browbeating."

Commissioner Cleminson:  Commissioner Cleminson stated that "the Township utilizes Robert's Rules of Order as a guideline to operate our meetings." Nancy Sauber's comment. "The Township has never adopted Roberts' Rules of Order. The Minnesota Association of Townships recommends that townships do not, as the Rules are awkward and cumbersome and could even invalidate decisions if not followed to the letter. Even if the Rules had been adopted, would this be just cause for removal from office? Commissioner Cleminson should know better by now."

Commissioner Novacek:  Commissioner Novacek's complaint (dated July 9) stated that Commissioner Jennings "violated e-mail policy." He also stated that he asked her "if she would follow policy in the future." Commissioner Jennings stated that she was not obligated to respond to this question. Commissioner Novacek stated that her lack of response "sends a clear message that she will not honor any policy she finds obstructive to her personal and openly stated water agenda." He also stated that "she presents a highly disruptive tone and will cause serious harm to members of this Township." (Really! How so? Examples please! I believe this accusation is quite serious.)

My Comments: Commissioner Novacek did not support his comments with any factual data. I have never heard Commissioner Jennings state a "personal agenda." Nancy Sauber's comments: "Time and time again Commissioner Jennings has been castigated for bringing information that she researched on her own to meetings. She has been accused of bringing "biased" information. It was stated that she was not given direction by the rest of the Planning Commission and she cannot do research on her own. Commissioner Jennings is being a responsible Planning Commissioner by taking some initiative and providing information to help the members make informed decisions. Instead, attempts have been made to squelch her."

My Comments: Commissioner Jennings' behavior is professional and she conducts herself in a businesslike manner.  It is very clear that Commissioner Jennings reviews her meeting packet days before the meeting (I noticed Commissioner Cleminson and Chair Hansen pick up their meeting packets several minutes before the meeting), does her research and comes prepared for the discussions, presents facts and exercises her right to challenge other Commissioners if she feels their information is not valid or needs clarification.  She has a right to do so. Commissioner Jennings asks relevant and intelligent questions. I have never seen Commissioner Cleminson get up to participate in a map discussion and, after attending most meetings and in review of my video recordings, he seems to have very little to offer during Commission discussions.  At times he has referred to Commissioner Jennings as "mom" and "teacher."

The three complainants should be thanking her for providing information to assist them, for her commitment to creating a complete and factual legal record, and her caution in setting precedent that might be detrimental in the future to citizens or the Township. Perhaps if the three complainants would avail themselves of training sessions which are offered by MAT they might understand the parameters of the laws and procedures that should govern their behavior. To my knowledge, I am not aware that they have ever attended a training session.

Atina and Martin Diffley submitted comments to the Clerk to be read at the Public Hearing.  Unfortunately it was not allowed that their comments could become part of the record.  The following are some of the comments that were submitted by the Diffleys who have given their consent to utilize them in this blog.

"We are shocked that the Township Supervisors have allowed this mockery of the democratic process to take place. There is no "just cause" for removal or a public hearing of Commissioner Jennings. If the Township Supervisors and Commissioners Novacek, Hansen and Cleminson had done their homework on this matter, they would have learned that Commissioner Jennings' e-mail was not a violation of the Open Meeting Law. The Eureka Township Supervisors are wasting Township money and time, and causing inexcusable legal fees for Commissioner Jennings' defense.

If it weren't blatant harassment and a serious attempt to remove Commissioner Jennings from the Planning Commission for political reasons, Commissioner Novacek's complaint could be laughable.

Falsely accusing Commissioner Jennings of having no regard for rules and settings when she was clearly operating on her knowledge of the Open Meeting Law, and then turning that mistruth into multiple Planning Commission members having no regard.....sounds like a big leap from a false accusation to a projected threat.

Making decisions that protect Eureka Township citizens' public water based on scientific information and Commissioner Jennings' professional education and experience is not a 'personal agenda'.  It is responsible leadership.

Recently, Commissioner Hansen said to me (Atina) in regards to this matter, 'Carrie Jennings is going to pay for her arrogance. This time she's gone too far.'

Please enter our comments into the record of the Public Hearing."  
Atina and Martin Diffley

Commissioner Jennings has worked for the DNR Ecological and Water Resources Division, Ground Water Section, County Atlas Program and the Division of Lands and Minerals, Mineral and Aggregate Potential Section. She has been a Visiting Assistant Professor at Carleton College, Instructor at Macalester College, St. John's University and St. Cloud University. Commissioner Jennings was also a Senior and Associate Scientist at the University of Minnesota, Principal Investigator for the National Center for Earth Surface Dynamics and Assistant Geologist at Harza Engineering Company; a brief mention of many accomplishments.  She is currently employed at the Department of Natural Resources, Eco-waters Division. 

My Comments: It seems quite peculiar that Commissioner Jennings
has held many positions with integrity and good standing, but seems to "fall short" as a Commissioner according to the complaints of three Eureka male Commissioners. Is it possible that they are lacking a command of the English language, misinterpret research and facts for arrogance and/or lack an understanding of the Open Meeting Law, Township policies and practices?

Over the years that I have lived in Eureka, intelligent, competent and accomplished women on the Board and Planning Commission have been bullied and treated with disrespect, in my opinion.  From my experience, this started with Bev Topp, a past Supervisor. Mrs. Topp is a very educated and intelligent woman who is very accomplished in her field. There were issues of improprieties during her campaign by a few Eureka citizens who seemingly did not want her to serve as a public official. 

I served on the Board with Supervisor Connie Anderson who resigned as the stress adversely affected her health.

Commissioner Novacek, during a Town Board meeting, FALSELY accused Commissioner Barfknecht of improprieties. He actually went to her home and suggested to her that she resign from the Planning Commission.  He told her that "when she does not vote as he thinks she should, he would like to knock her off her chair." This was reported by Commissioner Barfknecht at the public comment period of a Town Board meeting. NO BOARD ACTION was taken regarding Commissioner Novacek's threatening and false comments. He publicly and FALSELY accused Clerk Sandstrom of improprieties, suggesting that Sandstrom had not even opened the ballots cast when Commissioner Barfknecht was reappointed. 

While I was serving on the Town Board for three years, Chair Hansen sued me with the intent of removing me from office as well as receiving financial compensation. The lawsuit was frivolous and dismissed without compensation. I completed my term. During his deposition Mr. Hansen was asked, "When is the last time you filed a tax return?"  Mr. Hansen stated, "Might be 15 years. It's not a law."

MY INTENT in writing this blog is not to curry favor from Commissioner Jennings, but to set the record straight as I see it or have experienced it.

DOES A PUBLIC OFFICIAL'S CHARACTER MATTER? Should the citizens of Eureka
vet candidates for Town Board Supervisors and Planning Commission members with reasonable scrutiny?  Are there valid reasons for citizens, at times, to be cynical and disenfranchised? 

Nancy Sauber made the observation that "if upon first discussing the complaints at its meeting, had the Board simply asked Attorney Lemmons if any of the complaints even rose to the level of "just cause" for removal, as required under the Ordinance, I believe he would have answered "no." This matter should have ended there.  Now we are spending Township time and money for no good reason."  Stay tuned!