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!

ARE YOU "ENGAGED?"

This blog is titled "Engaging Eureka in Governance."  We just passed our first year anniversary back in July!  Time flies... If we might refresh: There are various ways to be engaged in your local government:


One is to attend meetings, whether of the Board, the Commission, public hearings, open houses and so on.  This is probably the best way, enabling you to see for yourself firsthand what takes place, is said, etc.  It can be an eye-opening experience, believe me! It was heartening to me to see that there were several citizens in attendance at the August Board meeting who were there, apparently, just to observe the proceedings, having no business of their own on the agenda that evening.  SUGGESTION:  Send an alternating member of your neighborhood to attend meetings and report to your area.  This relieves one of attending all the time, and yet keeps a number of neighbors up to date.

It is the right of every citizen to be present to observe and listen to discussions leading to Township decisions being made on his/her behalf.  This right is protected by the "Open Meeting Law."  It is unlawful for a quorum of the Board or Commission, or even a Special Committee appointed by the Board (such as the Agritourism Task Force) to have discussions of Township business outside of a public meeting.  This quorum can be "assembled" by way of what is called a "serial meeting," as well as by an outright gathering of three members of the five-member bodies.

Another way to be engaged is to check this blog.  Whether you tend to agree with the opinions expressed here or not, it's a good thing to explore whether there is some item you would like more information on.  This blog is written by citizens who attend the majority, if not all, meetings held in our Township.  We have a concern for the future of our community, which we trust is shared by you.




Better yet, if you subscribe to the blog, as many have done, you will never miss a post.  You will automatically be sent each published post via your email. If you know of neighbors who might be interested, please pass the website on to them.

Reading the newsletter and the website is yet another method of garnering information. The draft and then approved minutes of each and every meeting are to be posted on the website.  Reading these minutes will keep one current at least on what issues are being addressed.  Be aware, the main requirement for the minutes is to record motions, seconds, and votes on Township matters.  It is up to the body in question how much other detail it desires.  This has varied quite a bit over the last several years.  There are lots of comments or attempted actions that never are reported in the minutes, which is why yours truly prefers to attend in person and has done so for some time. You can also request a CD copy of the recorded meetings for the month for a small fee of $5.  Request these copies through the Clerk.  Once the minutes for a particular meeting have been approved, however, the disc is to be destroyed.  Thus, one cannot go back in time to request a CD of a meeting from, say, a month ago---unless those minutes have yet to be approved.  Your right to this recording as well as copies of the minutes and other government-generated data is protected under the "Data Practices Policy." All recordings of all public hearings are preserved indefinitely, as well as those of certain meetings so designated by the Board.

Taking advantage of the "Public Comment" period towards the beginning of each Board meeting is a way to let the Board know of your concerns or opinions. Anyone in the audience wishing to make a public comment is able to do so  There is a time limit involved, and the Board may or may not discuss what you have stated. In the past, most comments received some Board replies; lately, not so much.  If you wish to have Board discussion of your input, you can ask to be heard via an Agenda Item Request. (Form available on website and due no later than noon on the Thursday before a Board meeting.) Citizen Input Policy

Of course, probably the most effective way to be engaged in your community is to VOTE.  The items above are ways to enable yourself to cast an informed vote.  Township elections are held every year on the second Tuesday in March.  One or two supervisor positions are "up" each time around. The Annual Township Meeting is held at 8:15 each and every year on the night of Election Day.  It is at this meeting that the levy is approved by those citizens in attendance. The levy is the only item from that meeting that is binding on the Board, but other citizen comments and recommendations are discussed and sometimes voted on as well.  These non-levy specifics are recommendations only to the Board, and the Board can choose to do what it wishes for these matters.

Be aware that if you are going to be out-of-town on Election Day, you have the option of voting by Absentee Ballot.  It has been known to happen that the absentee ballots have swung an election one way or the other, so this is a very important thing for you to consider. Absentee Ballots

 to all who have endeavored to stay involved and up-to-date on Township affairs.  It is perhaps only human nature to first become involved when something affects you personally.  But as a presenter at a Government Training Session on Ordinances stated, by then "it may be too late to remedy" what the problem is--at least for your situation.

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, JULY 7, 2014. BUSINESS AS USUAL?

On July 07, 2014, the Planning Commission held its monthly meeting and conducted the business of the Township.  As was stated in past blogs our longstanding Clerk/Treasurer, Nanett Sandstrom, resigned and over a period of time the Deputy Clerk, Linda Wilson, became the Township Clerk.  Linda Wilson resigned but agreed to stay on and train in our new Clerk, Barb North.  Barb North quit, Linda left and as of the Monday meeting the Township was without a Clerk.  Commissioner Cleminson agreed to take the minutes of the meeting and Commissioner Novacek indicated that anyone in the audience could offer to take minutes.

The Township Clerk is responsible for preparing the information packets for all of the Commissioners

a few days before the meeting for their preparation in addressing issues.  Because there was no Clerk, what information was given to the Commissioners by Chair Hansen was during the meeting, which made it difficult to address the printed agenda items. At the Town Board special meeting on July 1, Commissioner Novacek was asked by the Board to contact Commissioner Hansen and let him know of the partial Planning Commission agenda drawn up by the Clerk before she left. Commissioner Hansen was to have completed the agenda and have copies of the materials for the meeting.

Westwind School representatives came before the Commission requesting a "temporary building"

to be utilized as a classroom throughout the school year as plans for additional space and code issues

were in question regarding their building application.  The Township Commercial Building Inspector was present to discuss issues of concern. After consulting the ordinance and engaging in a discussion, the Commission agreed to pass the discussed concerns regarding a "temporary structure" on to the Board for further discussion with the Township attorney.

Alan Storlie came before the Commission for clarification regarding transfer of a building right and grandfathered lots.  Commissioner Jennings suggested the information Chair Hansen had be shared with all Commission members in order allow them to be a part of the discussion rather than the Chair having a "private conversation" with Mr. Storlie. Commissioners Jennings, Hansen and Barfknecht discussed the above information with Mr. Storlie utilizing the appropriate Township maps.  Commissioners Novacek and Cleminson did not participate. Mr. Storlie was not on the agenda which was Chair Hansen's responsibility in the absence of a Clerk. Commissioner Jennings suggested that Mr. Storlie be officially added to the agenda for the official recorded record. Mr. Storlie was asked to attend the Town Board meeting the following Monday for further discussion. 

A citizen spoke with Mr. Storlie when he was ready to leave the Town Hall to offer information regarding questions and concerns about his (Leine) properties.She had raised her hand prior to the end of the Commission discussion, Commissioner Hansen refused to allow her to speak. She spoke with Mr. Storlie because she had been the attorney liaison on the Town Board for the Leine issue in question. Supervisor Madden, the liaison to the Planning Commission, was quick and curt in stating "Mr. Chair, I am trying to concentrate on the meeting."  Chair Hansen (boisterously) stated "Yah well, you deal with her." Mr. Storlie and the citizen moved outside the meeting area. (Supervisor Madden added the incident to the Town Board agenda to be discussed. What was his point? Is he not aware that there is a Town Board input policy that addresses this?)

Living Waters Church representatives were present to discuss their permit application and address inspection issues. The Township Commercial Building Inspector weighed in on the discussion with comments regarding the Commercial Code and felt the application "looked good."  The permit application was reviewed and passed on to the Board for discussion and approval.

Town Board liaison, Supervisor Madden, reported to the Planning Commission. He stated that Mr. Joey Miller has a misunderstanding and that "everything was not going well with him, I don't think."  He reported that the Enright Airplane Hangar is "moving along, going well." "Most permits were passed; 2 were missing; we did not pass. The permits that did not go through were Joey Miller and Dan Adelmann." Supervisor Madden went on that the new on-site mailbox " has been installed and works. The address is being worked on. The clerk position is totally unknown. Might have one the end of the next 6 months, hopefully. I don't know but it is soon. Very qualified applicants." On the Power line update he said - "working on ditches and they (GRE) are making bigger problems than we had before. The signs have not come down yet and we are discussing keeping the bond as they are not cooperating with us." Road Contractor  "Otte is the new road contractor," Madden stated,"which............. No Comment." A question was asked as to what happened to the previous road contractor. Chair Hansen stated that the contract was up in July. He (Mark Henry) would not sign the new contract. Madden stated "I (Madden) know the reason, but it does not matter." They (Town Board) picked one of two applicants. IT Issues - Supervisor Madden  reported the Township " has computer problems, but Supervisor Behrendt is working on it." Then Chair Hansen asked what happened to the IT Company the Township had hired. Madden stated that "he had no idea; Cory (Supervisor Behrendt) is taking care of all of that."

Commissioner Jennings commented that copies of permits from the Building Inspector were to have been distributed to Planning Commission members by Supervisor Ceminsky ahead of the meeting.This did not happen. Liaison Madden stated, "I don't know; we had an idiot sitting in during the week (at the Town Hall). He does not have a key to the office or anything." (The issue is now resolved as the Town Board hired a Clerk at their July 14 meeting.)

Liaison Madden "wanted to pay the Town Board a compliment from him personally (for) trying to set things a little quieter with 'somebody,' because it really turned out well as some things that were being said were really outlandish."

Supervisor Novacek wanted to "discuss E-mail Protocol. E-mails normally go through the Clerk and are then distributed according to the policy." He stated that this had not been followed by Commissioner Jennings on Watershed information and he asked her why. (Is Commissioner Novacek setting up the "Gotcha Moment?")

Commissioner Jennings explained to Commissioner Novacek (about three times) that at the Round Table Meeting she had offered to reach out to Travis Thiel of the VRWJPO requesting information to be distributed to all Planning Commission members to utilize as they researched the possibility of the Township implementing and enforcing the VRWJPO Ordinance. Mr.Thiel indicated a web site link. Commissioner Jennings felt passing on the web site link was not a violation of any protocol or Open Meeting Law as it was an information request. At the Round Table Meeting, Chair Miller had approved and no one objected. Commissioner Jennings indicated that she was only doing homework on the Commission's behalf and resented Mr. Novacek's accusation of impropriety. He commended Commissioner Jennings on her abilities but "feels her ability is not always used in the way that he thinks is constructive. The e-mail is one of those." He felt the e-mail "was not sent as a mistake," but was a "willful, in your face, I am not going to follow policy and this is DANGEROUS!" (This is the same Commissioner who has in the past stated that he believes Eureka government is too intrusive and that citizens should be able to do what they want to.)

Commissioner Jennings stated that she had indicated at the Round Table Meeting that the Commission needed the documents to proceed in their research of the VRWJPO Ordinance. Supervisor Miller had supported her and asked for a copy.  She had tried to download documents that evening but there were IT problems during the Meeting and she was unable to do so. The following day Commissioner Jennings had contacted Travis Thiel and he sent the information link to her. She followed  the correct procedure and sent the information to the Town Hall to be distributed to all Commission members. The mailer-daemon returned the e-mail. (This reporter also sent an e-mail to the Town Hall and the e-mail request was returned stating " Auto-response. At this time we are unable to respond to e-mail messages until July 15." This was because there was no Clerk to respond to requests. In my opinion, Commissioner Jennings distributed the information to the Commissioners in the most appropriate manner available to her.) Commissioner Jennings explained to Novacek that she showed the returned e-mail to Supervisor Miller and that "he said it was okay to distribute given the circumstance." (Apparently, Commissioner Novacek could not let it go. He appeared to continue to badger Commissioner Jennings.) He stated, "the policy was made to prevent sending e-mails that are biased." (Why is sending a web site link biased?) Chair Hansen stated that it was "very plain and clear that e-mails were not to be sent without going through the Clerk. He stated he had documents that he wanted to distribute but he did not do that because there was no Clerk. "Instead I brung them with me tonight." Carrie stated that he had brought them but he did not distribute them to the Commission. Chair Hansen questioned why Mr. Miller had had a discussion with Commissioner Jennings and not with him as Commission Chair.

" Jerry Springer?"   "No it is a Township meeting."

Pressing on, Commissioner Novacek asked Commissioner Jennings, "so from now on are you saying you will send an e-mail to anyone you feel like or are you going to follow the policy?" (Novacek did not ask any other Commissioner if they were going to follow the policy. This exchange started to feel like an interrogation of Jennings.) Novacek said "again in the future are you going to follow policy?"  Supervisor Jennings asked Commissioner Novacek if he is the Chair stating "I do not feel that you have any authority greater than I do on this Planning Commission." Commmissioner     Novacek stated, "You do not have to answer if you don't want to."  Commissioner Jennings stated she would not answer.(Remember that "rabbit hole," Al, when you publicly and falsely accused Commissioner Barfknecht and Clerk Sandstrom of improprieties? See Blog, Alice (Al Is?) Down the Rabbit Hole? 10/06/2013?). Commissioner Novacek stated that he would like to make a motion. He was interrupted by loud laughter from Chair Hansen who then stated (sarcastically) to Commissioner Jennings, "I don't know if anyone has authority greater than yours."

anyone who has authority greater than yours." He then explained that" it is very plain and clear that e-mails need to go through the Clerk." Commissioner Jennings reminded him that "there is no Clerk." Chair Hansen raised his voice and admonished her stating "it would be very nice of you to let me finish."

VRWJPO ORDINANCE was discussed by the Commission.  Commissioner Jennings questioned the appropriateness of discussing the issue when they had not received information prior to the meeting. Because of this they were unable to come prepared and she suggested they table the agenda item until they had reviewed the information. Chair Hansen stated that "they" were tasked by the Board to do research to see how difficult or possible it is to "take this back." Commissioner Jennings asked for clarification for the record as to what "take this back" meant. Eureka had not adopted the ordinance at any point so there was nothing to "take back." Chair Hansen stated that he meant "policing" the Water Resource Management Ordinance. (Policing? Really? I thought the Township would do the review, permitting and enforcement.) Commissioner Jennings stated that she was a part of the Dakota County group who met with Mr. Dean Johnson to help develop the ordinance language. The Township declined to adopt the ordinance language.  Chair Hansen stated "let me make it real clear to you so you can understand it. At the Round Table Meeting, the Board asked us to be the researching body to do research on whether or not we (PC) should take this and adopt it." For clarification Commissioner Jennings reiterated "to adopt this ordinance." Chair Hansen stated " this the last time I am going to play the game with you." (In my opinion Commissioner Jennings was only asking for precise language to be reflected in the legal record of the meeting.)

Three of the Planning Commission members agreed to invite the current enforcement authority to attend a Planning Commission meeting to explain how the VRWJPO enforces the ordinance. Commissioner Novacek was opposed and Chair Hansen abstained.

Commissioner Cleminson made a motion and it was seconded by Commissioner Novacek. It was then agreed that Brian Watson, of the Soil and Water Conservation District, would also be invited to attend. This motion passed unanimously.

Commissioner Jennings suggested a deadline for the Commissioners to read the ordinance in preparation for their next discussion as the Commissioners cannot agree or disagree to enforce the ordinance if they have not read it. Chair Hansen stated "if you want to read it, read it. I don't think you have the authority to tell the rest of us to do anything with it." He then restated his position that he would not tell everyone they would have to read it;" they do not need a Mom." Chair Hansen then asked everyone to read the ordinance language.

The meeting was adjourned. (Following the meeting I heard Chair Hansen make a statement to Commissioner Jennings."Remember, you are not Chair anymore; you lost that vote." I left the meeting wondering if the Chair is frustrated perhaps because of a lack of command of the language or lack of knowledge regarding the issues. I wonder does he feel the need to diminish the knowledge that Commissioner Jennings has to share based on her relationship to and involvement on issues? In my opinion the treatment of Commissioner Jennings was childish, disrespectful, condescending and at times tinged with bullying and badgering. Perhaps knowledge, experience and preparation by some can only be recognized as arrogance by those with less knowledge and ability. Citizens have a right to attend meetings and observe business conducted with respect.)

A follow up note to ponder - Three Planning Commission members submitted complaints regarding Commissioner Jennings.  Coincidence? Was there a mutual meeting and discussion outside of public view to come to the conclusion that complaints were justified? Commissioner Barfknecht was not one of the complainants. A special meeting will be held by the Town Board to discuss the complaints with Commissioner Jennings present.

Information was gleaned from an Audio/visual taping. A CD copy of the meeting can be obtained from the now current Township Clerk.