BRRRRRRRRRRRR!

Several former Eureka Supervisors and Commissioners attended the last meeting of the Board on April 23rd. As a citizen in the audience, I again found the atmosphere significantly chilled.

Under the Open Meeting Law, the public has the right to observe and listen to all discussion and any decision making. This is unlike a public hearing when the public has a right to speak. Every Board and Commission during my 20 years' experience of being very much involved in Township meetings of all kinds has known this. However, the practice has always been to allow the public to ask questions and have opportunity for input, even outside of the public comment period of Board meetings.

I believe this was the practice in the spirit of transparency and even a sort of respectful neighborliness in our small community. Yes, it doesn't have to be allowed, but the Board always has the option to allow it. At times, the Chair of either body would ask if the entire body were open to calling on audience members with their hands raised. I do not recall an instance where this was denied. I believe those audience members appreciated the chance to speak. It seemed the right thing to do. Even with a thorough explanation of how not allowing comment is actually within officials' ability would have surely left a disgruntled citizenry.

Now under Chair Storlie's term the practice has been abruptly changed to a very definite "no" to giving opportunity for input outside of three minutes of public comment. Even from experienced people who would have something informative to offer. Again, let me stress that I understand this is within the Board's authority under the law. Unfortunately, this has recently resulted in a trend to what are to me several troubling decisions or near-decisions.

In an unprecedented move, this Board made the Clerk the primary liaison for most of the entities for which supervisors have always volunteered to be the primary or secondary contact, such as the Building Inspector, fire contractors, or the Sheriff. What was the motivation for this change? To limit your elected officials' workload? To increase that for the already very busy Clerk? 

When the matter of liaison to the North Cannon River Watershed Management Organization (NCRWMO) came up, everyone shied away from that commitment. Storlie said the Clerk could do that. I stated, "I know you don't want me to speak, Mr. Chair, but if Liz is to be the liaison for that, SHE has to go to the meetings and vote." Storlie basically ignored my comment. I'm not sure if a non-elected clerk can even fulfill this role for the citizens. Without a liaison present at those meetings, Eureka has NO representation and no say in how that watershed is managed. Perhaps there is a failure of understanding what a WMO actually is. 

Supervisor Pope moved that all recordings of meetings be kept for 20 years. This is the latest of his multiple attempts to do so. He was already informed several times by Supervisor Barfknecht and Yours Truly on the former Board that the Minnesota Association of Townships (MAT) has specifically recommended that boards do NOT do this. Those recordings have been available for citizens to request any copies they are interested in up until the written minutes, the actual official record for meetings, are approved. At that point, the recommendation is to erase the recording itself. This what the Township has done. (As a supervisor, Pope could himself request such a copy for every meeting during his term without charge.) It's possible that this changed practice could leave the Township open to lawsuits. No matter, the Board approved his motion.

At this juncture, I could have informed the Board to check into a required filing of an amended retention schedule with the Secretary of State's office. I remember then-Supervisor Cory Behrendt bringing this to the Board's attention in the past after he went to a MAT training. In the current chilled atmosphere, I opted to send an email to the Clerk. We'll see what happens. Maybe.

Another example is Supervisor Ceminsky's suggesting that citizen complaints be limited to those living within 1,000 feet of the "offending" property. No one else would have any business complaining about a property clearly in violation of our Ordinances such as a junkyard unless one were close by. He said he thought he remembered that this used to be in the Citizen Complaint Policy. He admitted it has been "a long time," but that was his asserted belief. I could have informed the Board that this has never been the case. There is a requirement to notify property owners within 1,000 feet of a property applying for a Conditional Use Permit or an Interim Use Permit. Perhaps Supervisor Ceminsky confused this. Having already been shut down in recent meetings, I did not attempt to correct his statement.

Thankfully, Supervisor Barfknecht argued that Eureka is everyone's community and as such every citizen has an interest in the Ordinances being enforced. One may not live next to the junkyard, but perhaps drives past it frequently. Perhaps limiting the citizenry's ability to file complaints results in more junkyards. Interesting that Supervisor Ceminsky has to be tutored in this. Thankfully, due to Supervisor Barfknecht's logic this was averted.

During the Roads portion of the agenda, Supervisor Ceminsky proposed adding eight additional road projects to the tune of over $100,000. There is a law regulating the spending of taxpayer money. This law stipulates that anything reaching $175,000 requires a sealed bid and not a quote. Without getting into the weeds, this limits a board to accepting the "lowest responsible bidder," not a discretionary choice of anyone submitting a quote. His proposal would push the dollar amount for gravel for this year into the sealed bid category as it would have totaled more than $200,000. 

When Supervisor Barfknecht raised this point (The former Board has just recently been through this very issue.) Ceminsky said, well, this addition was "not known" then, so it should be okay because his proposal by itself was under the triggering amount. This ignores the fact that the plan for proposed road projects for the year is discussed before looking for gravel providers. It also ignores the fact that the proposed 2024 projects were the result of the Road Committee's work with Board approval. Ceminsky has stated that this committee is a vauable one, yet he doesn't seem to be aware of the facts of the situation. I believe that the correct process would be to suggest these road projects for the following year as Ceminsky was not in office at the time the 2024 projects were proposed. Barfknecht asked that the attorney be questioned about this. HOW the question is put to him could very well influence his answer. 

Thanks for hanging in there this long. I believe this is just the beginning. Look for more updates from the igloo.