THE SKINNY ON THE "PUBLIC FLOGGING..."

First of all, thank you to those of you "diehards" who showed up yet again at the Board meeting last Tuesday night or who may have submitted comment to supervisors on the Carrie Jennings "reprimand" matter!

In a word, the efforts to chastise, reprimand, remove Commissioner Jennings FLOPPED, big time.

This, in my opinion, is due in part to Supervisor Kenny Miller's coming down on the "right side" of the fence and in part to what I'd have to call Supervisors Ceminsky and Madden shooting themselves in the feet.



On the matter of violating policy, Supervisor Miller stated that "we don't have a policy," implying he didn't see how to discipline someone for violating it. He stated yet again that he is "as guilty as anyone else" on the behavior count, again mentioning that he has had to "apologize publicly" to people in the past. (At least he HAS apologized.  Still waiting for Ceminsky to apologize to Behrendt on the Agritourism submission.  Reference earlier blog, "Sweep...") Miller then told Ceminsky "You can throw me (Miller) off the Board!  Go ahead!"

Score one for reason.

Next, a motion was made to "reprimand" Commissioner Jennings on her "ill-advised" sending of her information-only email directly to the Commission in the absence of a Clerk. (Let me repeat, this is NOT a violation of Open Meeting Law.  Period. That was established and voted on--I think unanimously, memory serves--at the previous Board discussion of this matter.  The attorney had backed this up when he stated that there was "no discussion" of Township matters outside of a public meeting occurring in connection with that email, serial or otherwise.)

Supervisor Miller stated generally that he felt a verbal reprimand or caution was enough under all the circumstances. Supervisor Madden pushed for "a formal letter of reprimand to be placed in her file." He was informed that the Township does not HAVE personnel files to put a letter in!  Ceminsky and Madden wanted the minutes kept permanently.  They were told that (in our retention policy filed with the state) Board minutes are kept permanently. Indeed, they are legal documents.  They are posted on the website.  Cloud is forever.

The motion to reprimand went forward.  Chair Miller called for a voice vote. Budenski: Aye; Behrendt: Nay and would like to state something after the vote; Miller: Aye; Ceminsky; Nay; Madden (who had stated that he "agreed 100% with Mark Ceminsky:" Nay.  Chair Miller then stated in a somewhat dazed voice, "The motion failed!"  Madden appeared to ask Ceminsky what this meant.  Ceminsky told him, "She does not get a reprimand."  Miller asked Behrendt what he had wanted to say.  Behrendt said to Madden and Ceminsky, "I think you were confused on what you were voting for."  He went on to say that, "Since the motion failed, I don't have to say anything."

Mark Ceminsky then went on to move that Jennings be removed from the Commission because "she violated the Open Meeting Law."  This motion, seconded by Madden, failed 3-2.  I don't have to tell you who voted how.

Score two for reason.

Ceminsky said he wanted the "recorded minutes" to be preserved.  What he meant was that he wanted the disc recording of the meeting kept and not destroyed once the minutes are approved, which is also part of our retention policy.  (Quick aside:  The disc does not constitute "minutes," Supervisor Ceminsky.  The minutes are the minutes.  Those written, Board-approved documents that you deal with every month.  The recording is the recording.)

The disc will be preserved.  That's interesting to me, because on that disc will be kept forever Supervisor Ceminsky stating that Commissioner Jennings violated Open Meeting Law, a serious accusation. On that disc will be kept forever Ceminksy's and Madden's previously stated positions and then their voting against themselves on the motion to reprimand that failed.  Goodness!




Does this make you, as a citizen, a little unsettled?  If you come before the Board on a matter important to you, will you be reassured that the Supervisors will all understand the impact of their votes before they cast them?

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.

A EUREKA CITIZEN WEIGHS IN!

On September 10 the Town Board held a Public Hearing to address the three complaints submitted by Commissioners Butch Hansen, Phil Cleminson and Al Novacek. Citizens' statements were not accepted at the Public Hearing (reference previous blogs).         

 
Beverly Topp, a long time Eureka citizen and former Supervisor, has written and submitted the following statement:

"Township government, when it works well, is one of the best forms of American government. It can also be one of the most difficult because, when a board member or a planning commission member votes to take a position on an issue, it affects people they know, and often, even friends. But, as sworn Township officials, it is their job to ensure the Township ordinances are upheld, to advocate for change if they feel the ordinance is no longer useful or correct and to do their best to become well informed on any issue they are considering. It is always their job to make decisions that are for the best interests of the most people of the Township and for the public good.

I have known Carrie Jennings for many years and know her as a highly intelligent person who does her homework and does her best to represent the interests of the citizens of Eureka Township. As a former Eureka Township governing body member, I attended many training sessions and also understand the importance of being accused of breaking the Open Meeting Law of the State of Minnesota. It is a SERIOUS accusation.

As I understand the actions, Carrie took to provide pertinent and studied information to the Planning Commission for their meeting. She DID NOT come close to breaking this law and was merely doing what she always does to make good decision; gather as much information as possible for the whole Planning Commission to consider on the subject. This complaint is yet another attempt by self interested people to quiet bright, conscientious women whose objective, effective work for good government gets in the way of what they want. It costs the Township not only good energy that could be used for constructive planning for the future, but also wastes our tax dollars that could be used for proper training of those officials who don’t seem to have a good grasp of the rules of township governance.

It seems Carrie’s accusers will stop at nothing to bully and discredit good public servants and clear the way for their ego centered governing. This has become a pattern in this Township by the same people; that begs the question of who should be “up” for removal from their commissions so this behavior cannot be played out on one of our governing boards.

I hope enough people on the Board will judge this for what it is and not only continue one of our Township's finest on the Planning Commission, but find a way to chastise Carrie’s accusers for their contentious waste of Township time and money. It is TIME to return to conscientious governing and working TOGETHER to build and create a strong, cohesive and supportive community." 




DUE TO COLUMBUS DAY FALLING ON MONDAY, OCTOBER 13, THE OCTOBER TOWN BOARD MEETING WILL BE HELD ON:

                                             TUESDAY, OCTOBER 14, AT 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.

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!