YOU'VE GOT MY BACK...

...AND THAT'S ALL YOU'VE GOT!

That seemed to be the message Supervisor Steve Madden was sending loud and clear to a fellow Eureka citizen at the December Town Board Meeting!!

This individual addressed the Board during the Public Comment portion of the agenda.  She stated that she had sent an email-- the subject doesn't really matter- to the Clerk to distribute to the Supervisors. She had received a reply from one Board member and wondered what the usual procedure was in such instances: do all the Supervisors answer, just one, what?  What is proper, accepted procedure? Vice Chair Cory Behrendt, who was chairing the meeting at the time, said that that could vary greatly by Supervisor. The individual also wanted to know if her email content were being considered regarding the topic.

Early during this exchange, the citizen had directed comment directly to Supervisor Madden, confronting him, and Vice Chair Behrendt had asked that she direct her input to him, which she then did.

Apparently, Madden had sent the citizen a response via email that must not have been very pleasant, because the citizen stated that whether her "information was good or not," she "had every right to send an email to her Town Supervisors" and that her comments should be taken into account.  Behrendt assured her that this is so, of course. 

Having personally been a recipient of such an email from Madden and knowing of another public official who also received an even less pleasant one--in fact, it was truly insulting-- I wasn't greatly surprised.
   

What did surprise --even shock me-- was that, during this matter, Supervisor Madden actually rotated his chair around so that he faced the wall and turned his back to the citizen while she continued to give public comment. Would this seem like a snub to you? What kind of behavior is this from an elected public official?  

Similarly, at the November Town Board Meeting, Supervisor Madden accepted a piece of material that I had handed him as well as the other Supervisors on a separate topic that I was addressing. A friend who was sitting in the audience in front of Madden saw him take my paper, crumple it up, and toss it under the desk without even looking at it, apparently after my back was turned!  When her face registered her dismay at his actions, she said he mouthed something rather "inappropriate" back at her.

It might be noted that in neither of these incidents did any other Board member say anything to Madden about what in my opinion is his lack of decorum.  It's possible that some may not have recognized or seen what he did, to be fair, but surely if one were sitting right next to him, someone must have noticed.

Remember the post on incivility in local government from a bit ago?  It would seem that treating people with simple respect and just a modicum of courtesy is still beyond some of us.  I find this level of disrespect for any citizen appalling; I trust that you do, too.

REMINDER: We assure you that what we print on this blog is supported by video, recording, other audience members, and/or minutes of meetings.

IS EUREKA GOING TO POT?

MORE BITS AND PIECES FROM THE NOVEMBER 10, 2014, TOWN BOARD MEETING.

ORGANICA GARDENS:  
Mr. Frank, a representative from Organica Gardens, was present at the Town Board meeting. The Supervisors and attorney engaged in a conversation regarding the Right To Farm Act. Attorney Lemmons explained to the Board that the Right To Farm Act cannot be used to grow anything one wishes.  There is a specific statute and set of rules that govern how marijuana can be grown, where and under what conditions. The set of rules are outside of the Right To Farm Act.

Mr. Frank stated that their position is that a moratorium can not be placed on a compliant agricultural business which does not require a permit. He stated that they would be "processing and packaging". Chair Miller reminded Mr. Frank that the State's application states that applicants WILL BE manufacturing and processing. 

Supervisor Behrendt reminded the Board and Mr. Frank that our ordinance states the Town Board may require any farming operation to seek a conditional use permit to expand or intensify
said operation. Supervisor Behrendt suggested that if a moratorium is not established at this meeting and the State awards Mr. Frank the ability to engage in a marijuana operation, the Town Board should require a conditional use permit for Mr. Frank's operation. It was not agreed that a moratorium would be adopted as previously discussed with the Township attorney.

Chair Miller made a motion to inform Organica Gardens that if they are selected by the State as one of two permitted applicants, the Town Board will require a conditional use permit for the manufacturing and processing of marijuana.  Supervisors Miller, Budenski and Behrendt voted yes; Supervisors Ceminsky and Madden voted no. (Why would Supervisors Ceminsky and Madden not want conditions placed on a marijuana manufacturing and processing plant in Eureka when the ordinance allows the Township to do so? Some consideration should be given to citizens with neighboring properties, in my opinion.)

Mr. Frank stated that, if they are selected by the State to engage in the" growing
and processing of marijuana," (note: the application stated manufacturing and processing. I question why Mr. Frank is not acknowledging this.) his partners from Rhode Island will be on site for 2 1/2 years.

                                                             *******************

VERMILLION RIVER WATERSHED JOINT POWERS ORGANIZATION: Once again the Town Board engaged in a discussion regarding the possibility of the Township taking the permitting process for the VRWJPO ordinance. Chair Miller stated that there have been several dilemmas in the last three or four months where the Town Board could have handled them more speedily in house. Supervisor Budenski asked if Eureka has the staff to do so? Chair Miller stated the Township would have to get the staff; possibly TKDA or" do something." There was a discussion regarding approval problems by the VRWJPO of applications in the recent past. Mr. Miller stated the citizens were not aware of the process and the County screwed up. [sic] Supervisor Miller later stated his statement might have been skewed.

Supervisor Behrendt stated the application process will be the same. Someone will come in for a building permit and there is something in the process that will indicate the permit will need a review. If the Township administers the permitting process, errors can still be made.

Supervisor Madden stated that he had obtained signatures from citizens living on the Vermillion River starting with Dodd and going East.  He commented that the petition stated the citizens  wanted the Township to take over the administration of the entire Watershed permitting process. Apparently most members of the Board were unaware of the petition and Supervisor Madden stated he gave it to Planning Commissioner Hansen. Supervisor Behrendt questioned Mr. Madden as to its validity and understanding of the content by citizens before signing. (No one on the Board other than Supervisor Madden indicated they were aware of the petition.)

 (Where is the petition?  Supervisor Madden claims he gave it to Planning Commission Chair Hansen. Why would he submit it to Chair Hansen rather than the Town Board. Supervisor Madden and Chair Hansen are both aware that all information is to be submitted to the Clerk who will then distribute the document to the Supervisors and Planning Commissioners for review and preparation for a meeting.  Did the Board members agree on the content of the petition? Did the entire Board authorize Supervisor Madden to engage in obtaining a petition from citizens or is this just Supervisor Madden's "gig." I live on the Vermillion River as well as other neighbors.  I, as well as others, were not asked to sign a petition. Was the information biased and participants selective?  Why did Chair Hansen not give it to the Board if it was significant and approved? This is absurd! The entire Board makes decisions regarding issues; not just Supervisor Madden.) My opinion. 

Supervisor Ceminsky stated that the VRWJPO permitting process is making sure there is not soil runoff in the Vermillion Watershed. The Township would look for soil runoff and state that if the Board is to approve the citizen's plan, they would need to have a silt fence here and here and our inspector goes out and verifies that they are doing their water runoff plan. [sic]

 Commissioner Jennings indicated the statement Supervisor Ceminsky made regarding "the permitting process is just about soil runoff" is an over-simplification. There are five different areas that have to do with various levels of filtration; not just sediment. After comments from Commissioner Hansen, Chair Miller stated that they (VRWJPO) cannot all be smarter than us [sic] and the Board should be able to implement the ordinance. Chair Hansen stated that the County "is not handling the permitting on their end and the Township is not handling the permitting process on our end." (If the Township has not been able to handle our permitting process,
what makes Supervisors Ceminsky, Miller and Madden think they can take over the entire process?"

Ceminsky stated that he has spent time with Brian Watson, District manager/ Wetland Specialist, Dakota County Soil and Water, and Travis Thiel, Water Specialist,  VRWJPO. He stated that Mr. Watson and Mr. Thiel told him they would just as soon see Eureka take over the permitting process because of the cost. Commissioner Jennings did not agree that this was their position. Supervisor Ceminsky stated he spoke with them personally and Brian Watson told him that if there are questions, grant funds are available through Soil and Water that the Townships can use to cover some costs. He stated he was speaking from firsthand conversations with Mr. Watson and Thiel.

(I emailed Mr. Thiel regarding an unrelated matter.  I also, stated that he has been quoted by Supervisor Ceminsky as an advocate of Eureka administering the VRWJPO ordinance permitting process.  The following is his return email response:  " I can say for sure, that no VRWJPO staff have stated we would or would not like Eureka to do so.  Commissioner Slavik said he was quoted as saying that, which he clarified to staff and other VRWJPO board members, was not true.  We’d consider it, but they have not put forth an effort to organize a process and ordinance to actually do so.  Even then, we’d be checking to ensure that Eureka Township, as we do with other communities, is doing an acceptable job at implementing that ordinance. ")

Travis                                                                                                                                                 

        

                                                                               **********************

There was further discussion and disagreements. Supevisor Ceminsky suggested Board members come to the December Town Board meeting prepared to make a decision.  The Clerk should be tasked to obtain fee schedules from surrounding Townships who administer the permitting process. The Building Official should be at the December meeting to address his responsibilities. Chair Miller requested a response from Soil and Water as to their willingness to assist the Board if needed. Supervisor Ceminsky will ask Mr. Watson of Dakota County Soil and Water to put the above in writing. Mr. Ceminsky's motion reflected the above.  The motion was seconded by Supervisor Madden. Supervisor Ceminsky, Madden and Chair Miller voted yes; Supervisors Behrendt and Budenski voted no.

 (Supervisors Ceminsky, Miller, Madden and Planning Commission Chair Hansen have been quite adamant that the Township administer the VRWJPO ordinance permitting process. Are they all trying to dance on the top of a pin? With the Township's constant changing of local officials, the lack of willingness of many to attend government training and their inexperience in implementing all the requirements of the permitting process; why would the citizens of this community want the Township to take on this responsibility. I suggest the Board invite Mr. Thiel and Mr. Watson to a Town Board meeting for an honest discussion, rather than accept all the stated verbiage from private/personal meetings that have not been directed by the entire Board.) My opinion.

Chair Miller requested a Text Amendment to Mining Ordinance 6. The amendment language would be amended as follows: 
A text amendment of Ordinance 6, Mining Ordinance to address only Level 3 Interim Mining Permits (new permits).
Ordinance 6, Chapter 3 Definitions, Principal Use
Second sentence, delete the words “or ready-mix concrete plant”

Ordinance 6, Chapter 7, Section 2. K, Accessory Uses
Third sentence, delete the words “or ready-mix concrete production plant”

A Public Hearing was held on Monday, November 24, by Chair Hansen and Commissioners, Jennings, Novacek and Cleminson.  The Township attorney was present.

Chair Miller made a recommendation that Chair Hansen receive a "bonus"for his work on the 
storage building which is now complete.  Supervisor Ceminsky asked Chair Hansen if the project came in under budget?  Chair Hansen stated all the invoices had been submitted. (Supervisor Ceminsky works with the budget; why would he not have this information before additional money is spent. Coming in under budget is not always a reason to spend more money.)

(Commissioner Hansen is listed as the General Contractor on the storage building permit application. Mr. Hansen offered to donate his time as General Contractor; Chair Storlie (previous Town Board Chair) and the Board agreed with this arrangement. The process was completed without competing bids.)

Mr. Miller stated that he had seen Chair Hansen physically working on the project and felt he should be compensated; at least for "out of pocket" money. Chair Miller asked Mr. Hansen to submit an invoice for the December meeting. (Compensating Mr. Hansen for his "out of pocket" expenses seems to be reasonable with a submitted invoice including documentation receipts.)
                                                       
                                                    **************************
The above information is gleaned from a video recording of the November Town Board meeting.
For more detailed information, request a CD copy from the Township Clerk.

WATCH OUT FOR YOUR RIGHTS..DON'T LET THEM BECOME "WRONGS!"

  

Here's an interesting glimpse into your Township officials...

For the last couple of Board meetings an agenda item regarding "number of complaints" has been on the menu, so to speak.  The item had been tabled to another meeting at least once due to time constraints.

At the last Board meeting, Supervisor Steve Madden acknowledged this as "his" item; he had requested that it be placed it on the agenda.  It turns out that the Supervisor who has publicly stated that Eureka public officials, both in general and even specifically, have violated the Constitution of the United States, no less, apparently thought it would be a "Good Idea" for the Township to limit the number of complaints that could be made by citizens.

Irony of ironies!  Supervisor Cory Behrendt stepped up to state to Mr. Madden, "I don't think you can do that.  I believe that would be unconstitutional!"  Attorney Chad Lemmons hastened to clarify that the Township cannot do such a thing.  If the same complaint were submitted after its already having been dealt with, the Township could reply, he said, by stating that no further action would be taken.

Of course, I would put forward that a perhaps similar but still different complaint on the same property (maybe different dates of additional alleged violations of the same type since the last complaint, for example) would necessitate the Board's looking into such a complaint as a "new" complaint. Otherwise, a hypothetical property owner could be given license, in my opinion, to continue to commit the same type of Ordinance violations!

Thankfully, more informed heads quickly prevailed to ensure your rights to Free Speech, but it shows me at least that the electorate needs to be ever-vigilant lest such indefensible positions be taken.  What if there were a Board in place that agreed with Supervisor Madden and an attorney were not present to set things straight?  That may seem far-fetched to you, but I, for one, certainly would not have envisioned this occurrence that I and others witnessed on November 10th at our Town Hall!


This again underlines for me the real need for public officials to attend training and information sessions.  And, perhaps, that it might be a good idea for citizens to attend a meeting now and again!

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.

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!

Thumbs Up, Thumbs Down; Highlights and Lowlights of the Eureka, August 11, 2014, Town Board Meeting

     On Monday, August 11, the Eureka Town Board conducted its monthly meeting.  The following are a few of the topics addressed at the meeting:

ROAD CONTRACTOR:
     Supervisor Ceminsky reported to the Board that Class 5 gravel had been applied to 235th street. He stated that he received calls from several citizens and he investigated the area. Jason Otte, the Road Contractor, was present and stated that he had not applied any Class 5 gravel. Supervisor Ceminsky did not provide any samples or photos to support his claim.
      Supervisor Ceminsky is NOT a Road Supervisor.  It is his responsibility to direct citizen calls and e-mails to the current Road Supervisors for a complaint response and inspection if appropriate.  Supervisor Ceminsky stated that citizens were unable to contact the current Road Supervisors, Vice Chair Behrendt and Supervisor Budenski.  Both Road Supervisors replied that no one had tried to contact them and requested Supervisor Ceminsky to forward all citizen calls and e-mails. Supervisor Budenski stated that he was in contact with Otte Excavating, Inc. almost daily. Supervisor Ceminsky did not provide the e-mails or phone numbers at the meeting.
     The contact information for road Supervisors is as follows and can also be found on the Eureka Website and the Newsletter.    
     Supervisor Budenski - 952 292 6028, brianjbud@gmail.com and Supervisor Behrendt - 952 985-5411,  corybehrendt@frontiernet.net.

ATTORNEY BILL:
     The Board reviewed the current attorney invoice and found three unauthorized phone calls by Supervisor Ceminsky to the Township attorney, Mr. Lemmons. The Attorney Engagement Policy states "It shall
be the sole responsibility of the primary (Vice-Chair Behrendt) and secondary ( Chair Miller) attorney liaison to be in communication with the attorney and done in a matter consistent with the Open Meeting Law. "  The attorney agreed to dismiss the fee for the three unauthorized calls. (I suggest that Supervisor Ceminsky and any other Supervisors who are not familiar with the Policy review it.)

JOEY MILLER INVOICE:
     An invoice in the approximate amount of $19,000.00 submitted by Joey Miller for his work on the  new Town Hall storage facility was misplaced. The Board approved the invoice for payment; however, the invoice for payment will be an additional claim on the August Claim list.

CULVERT CLEANING:
     Supervisor Budenski reported that the Town Board has secured a permit and "okay" from the DNR Hydrologist to remove debris from the culverts on 225th Street. The property owner has given permission to enter his property.

WESTWIND SCHOOL:
     Representatives from the Westwind School have withdrawn all applications for permanent/temporary structures until the end of the 2014 school year

IT CONTRACT:.
     At the August 11,2014, Town Board meeting, Supervisor Ceminsky expressed his concerns regarding the IT contract which the Township has with Buds and Bytes and Supervisor Behrendt's role in the IT updating process. Supervisor Behrendt explained that the Board agreed, at a previous Town Board meeting, to accept Mr. Behrendt's offer to correct IT issues at no expense to the Township and work with Buds and Bytes as needed. The volunteer work that would be done by Supervisor Behrendt would save the Township thousands of dollars. (Supervisor Behrendt is currently employed as an IT Director for Clifton, Larson, Allen and has degrees in Electrical Engineering and Information System Management. As a professional he is responsible for creating business and technology plans that support the daily needs of a diverse and dynamic organization.)
     Referring to the April 8, 2013, Town Board meeting minutes, the Board, at the direction of Chair Storlie, (Supervisor Behrendt was not then on the Board) authorized the Clerk to call Buds and Bytes on a "as needed basis" for computer support. The  Board also discussed entering into an IT contract with Buds and Bytes to keep computer equipment running efficiently.

     Supervisor Ceminsky admitted he had a private conversation with Chris of Buds and Bytes and questioned why Supervisor Behrendt was not communicating with Chris. Supervisor Behrendt explained that he attempted to communicate with Buds and Bytes via several e-mails over the past 2 months without a response. (Supervisor Behrendt had copies of the e-mails.) He stated that he finally received an e-mail from Chris about a week ago (apparently after Supervisor Ceminsky, without Board agreement, called Buds and Bytes.)) (Perhaps Supervisor Ceminsky ignored his responsibility to first communicate with Supervisor Behrendt, a common courtesy, before calling Buds and Bytes with his concerns. This would not violate the Open Meeting Law. In my opinion, Supervisor Ceminsky should speak with the Board before designating himself as the Buds and Bytes contact. Eureka has a Board of five, not one.) ) Supervisor Behrendt reminded Supervisor Ceminsky that there needs to be communication with him if there is an issue. The response from Buds and Bytes answered only about one-half of Supervisor Behrendt's questions.
     Supervisor Ceminsky stated that Supervisor Behrendt was doing "stuff" on the office computer with files and data. Ceminsky stated he wants to keep the process "clean" and does not feel a Supervisor should be working on computers. Supervisor Behrendt reminded Supervisor Ceminsky that Nanett, the previous clerk who was training in a new clerk, was rearranging files and that Supervisor Ceminsky had agreed to allow him to work with Buds and Bytes to resolve issues. He explained that he was not dealing with data, but the presumption is that he would not be malicious and only effectively work with the hardware entity as a professional IT person. His intent was to utilize his IT experience to save the Township money. He stated he was never working on the computer without someone else in the office, adding that if Supervisor Ceminsky did not "trust" him, someone else was welcome to carry on in his place. Supervisor Behrendt then stated that he was "done" with his volunteer time due to the lack of trust and that engaging Buds and Bytes to complete the process would cost the Township thousands of dollars that the Township did not budget for.
     Supervisor Behrendt donated computers and equipment to the Township to replace the outdated equipment that was being utilized. Commissioner Hansen, on more than one occasion, questioned why the Township was not purchasing new equipment as allowed by vote at the Annual Meeting.  Supervisor Behrendt explained that the equipment that was donated by his company was new; however, the equipment could be returned and the Township could purchase other equipment.
     Supervisor Behrendt donated time away from his professional position during his work day to start the process of updating a mixed bag of eight year's of complex codes. The Township will now have to pay thousands of dollars to engage Buds and Bytes to manage the website/webmaster and they will have unfettered access to the Township data.
     Chair Miller indicated that the Township would prefer to keep the donated new equipment. He stated that Supervisor Behrendt had done a good job putting everything together and that he "did not deserve this abuse." Chair Miller acknowledged that Supervisor Behrendt was authorized to donate and install the new equipment, and to tie together various obsolete programs. Buds and Bytes' contract will be reviewed.
     My comment:  Supervisor Ceminsky, are you on the Board to cost the Township money or to save the Township unnecessary spending due to the generous efforts of a financially conscientious Supervisor and citizen?  The majority of the time it is better to work with someone to accomplish a result rather than spend energy trying to make others look incompetent. Commissioner Hansen, please obtain the facts before making assumptions and public statements.
     My comment: Supervisor Behrendt, I appreciate and value your commitment of time and your generous donation of new computer equipment. You conduct the business of the Township with a voice of reason, fiscal responsibility and integrity. Is it possible that a few of the other Board members are there to "carry the water bucket" for their buddies? At times, I wonder. I believe the majority of citizens would agree that you take your Oath as an official seriously. Thank you.

AUDIENCE DISTURBANCE:
     Supervisor Madden, with the encouragement of Supervisor Ceminsky, reminded the Board that a citizen in the audience was "creating a disturbance." (A citizen moved from one seat to sit next to another citizen and whispered two words to the citizen in front of her.)  He stated the Board needed to concentrate on "what they were trying to do here." He said he brought it up because "he was having a hard time following the discussion."
     At a previous meeting, four Supervisors were engaged in a discussion (See the photo at the top of the Blog) regarding a very large issue in the Township. Supervisor Madden was too busy laughing and writing notes to the clerk on the back of his agenda to get involved in the discussion.
     My Opinion: "I find this behavior  of Mr. Madden's very distracting. I also find it very distracting when a Planning Commission member, while sitting next to the attorney, continues to engage Mr. Lemmons in a conversation; not allowing the attorney to focus on the Board discussion. This member, in particular, speaks and interrupts without being recognized, whenever he so desires as if he is a "sixth member of the Board."  Supervisor Madden, please focus on the more important issues.
     Citizens take time out of their busy schedules to attend meetings in order to conduct business or to become informed of decisions being made by our public officials. Citizens should be treated with dignity and respect.  It is unfair to expect citizens to sit for four hours and not speak to another citizen sitting next to them.  If the conversation is going to be loud and lengthy, requesting the citizen/citizens to step outside the meeting room is reasonable.
     Supervisor Ceminsky had the small tables, which citizens utilized to work on computers etc. during the meetings, removed from the building. He explained that "he felt everyone should sit together." Now that the storage facility may soon be completed, it is a good time to bring a couple of tables out of the storage unit and allow the citizens to utilize what rightfully belongs to them in spite of Supervisor Ceminsky's "feelings."

AGRI-TOURISM:
     The Board engaged in a discussion regarding developing an agri-tourism ordinance.  Attorney Lemmons provided the Board with a draft report he developed utilizing input submitted by the Task Force and individual Task Force members. Attorney Lemmons did state he was concerned about making Agri-tourism a permitted use because of all the potential uses.  He stated he felt an Interim Use Permit for Agri-tourism would be much better. Supervisor Behrendt expressed several valid concerns and stated he felt the Board should have the option of reviewing the proposed ordinance following an Open House before moving forward with a Public Hearing. He had concerns the Board is taking what is a very complex issue too lightly, as well as the possible effects Agri-tourism might have regarding zoning.
     Expenditures were approved to allow the Planning Commission, Task Force members and Sherri Busse from TKDA to host an Open House allowing citizens to participate in an informational Agri-tourism discussion. Within 60 days a Public Hearing will be held to address the citizen concerns and make a decision on the feasibility of an ordinance to be presented to the Town Board for discussion.  Be alert for a posted Open House date.

TOWN HALL GARAGE/STORAGE BUILDING
     The storage building is not complete at this time. The Town hall property where the current storage unit is located has been sold to Atina and Martin Diffley. Chair Miller agreed to to move the storage unit onto the current Town hall property for a fee of $100.00.  The unit will be moved by the end of August.
Chair Miller asked as to when the new storage building will be completed. Commissioner Hansen was unable to answer this question. Commissioner Hansen stated that an amount around $4,100 would be needed to complete the next step. (No quotes were provided to support the dollar amount.) The Board authorized up to $4,100 for completion of this portion of the project.
     I reviewed the Town Board minutes from April, 2014, when Supervisor Ceminsky made a motion to move forward with the building project. Commissioner Hansen is listed as the general contractor on the building permit application.  He offered to manage the project free of charge. Pete Storlie was the Board Chair during this period. 
     The Commercial Inspection Record  states that the "permit holder/contractor/owners is responsible to call for inspections."  I found, in the project file, one inspection report dated 5/29/14 by Inspector Darrell Gilmer. The Commercial Inspection Record also states that the "permit packet, including the approved plan, and this inspection record must be posted in an accessible location before calling for inspections. No inspection will be performed and a re-inspection fee will be charged if this card and the approved plans are not available to the inspector."
      The Township Building Inspector, Darrell Gilmer, reminded Commissioner Hansen at the August Town Board meeting that only one inspection had been requested and that the required inspections need to be completed.  The Commercial Inspection Record was not posted in the building, but was filed away in the project file in the Office as of August 19, 2014, when I reviewed the file at the Town Hall.
I was also unable to locate a construction schedule. Is it not appropriate to expect the Contractor/Project Manager to provide to the Board a construction schedule at the beginning of the project and also call for inspections when required during the construction period? 
     My opinion: Perhaps, for future projects, hiring and paying a project manager/contractor would keep the process "clean" and professional. The project folder was void of quotes and, in specific, competing quotes, as well as lien waivers. Is it possible competing quotes were not obtained? Perhaps they are filed in another area. Is the Township Project Manager/Contractor following the proper procedure? If not, why would the Township Officials expect citizens to do so throughout the duration of their building process? I believe this is an issue to be concerned about rather than a couple of citizens chatting a few words during a meeting or a generous Supervisor donating his time and expertise to the citizens of the Township.  While I was sifting through a couple of files in the Town Hall Office, a citizen told me " Eureka not only has a reputation in Dakota County, but all over  the State."

     Can the citizens expect the storage facility to be completed by the next Annual Meeting?