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.
