THERE IS NO "BUT"...

It was appalling to me as a citizen to hear former Commissioner and current Supervisor Butch Hansen (your public official) say during the December Town Board meeting under "Citizen Business" that he is "in favor of free speech," but in the next breath tell the Board that this blog "has got to stop."

He also said at that public meeting while in his Supervisor role that the blog is full of "slander and lies."

Now, Mr. Hansen likes to say to other Supervisors in what I would characterize as an ominous and warning tone that they "had better be careful" what they say at public meetings. (He actually did that TWICE at the January 8th Board meeting. Listen to the disc.)


Where was his inner voice telling himself that when he stated that this blog is full of slander and lies, I wonder? It's simply not true. Saying something of that nature is perhaps not a good idea for any public official, even if it could be substantiated, which this cannot! So it appears others are to "be very careful" what they say, but he doesn't get it that he does not have free rein to smear someone himself.


Also during the December Board meeting "Citizen Business" item former Commissioner/former Supervisor Mark Ceminsky (your former public official) stated in referring to this blog, "I know it's free speech, but this has got to stop."

Outside of something like the oft-cited yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater, I don't believe there IS a BUT, Mr. Ceminsky! Why do you think this country has the right to Free Expression? Just to make sure you like what you hear? You don't have to like what you read here. I still have the right to say it and inform the public about what is happening at THEIR public meetings.

This is reminiscent of the time Ceminsky was on the Board and he objected to citizens obtaining copies of the recorded meeting discs even though they are entitled to under the Data Practices Law. When the attorney informed the Board they have no right to prevent this while the disc is still in existence (before minutes approval), the next Ceminsky suggestion was to charge citizens $5 a disc, with only one meeting copied per disc instead of the full month's meetings on one disc as was the existing practice.

However, as I represented to the Board at the time:
1) An entire month's meetings can easily fit on one disc.
2) It takes very little time for the clerk to make a copy of the discs.
3) The Township is not allowed to make money providing this public information to its citizens.

Eventually I did receive my disc requests, but not without a struggle. This whole discussion at that Board meeting did not seem very citizen-friendly to me. Why would this have been a problem since this was the established practice with earlier Boards when others were on them? More information is good, no? WHY try to stop this? (Under Ceminsky's "plan," which failed, if a month had two regular meetings, one special meeting, and a public hearing, a citizen would have to pay $20.00 to receive copies of the discs?! Again, why?)


Back to the blog, if you do not want reported what you say at a public meeting where there is NO presumption of privacy, then simply DON'T SAY IT! Better yet, how about saying something instead that is positive and beneficial to the Township? Put your energy into that.

I AM allowed to criticize and inform about what happens at public meetings. So, Reader, are you! I am proud to live in a country that guarantees that government cannot stop me from such expression. Goodness knows, Mr. Ceminsky has certainly not been shy about being very critical at many meetings of late, so why doesn't that apply to all?

Thankfully, the four Supervisors who make up the rest of the Town Board have a better understanding of citizens' rights!!!!!

What is of particular note to me is that these repeated attempts to stifle this voice have been met with explanations as to why this is not possible (read constitutional), yet these individuals still keep trying and trying. What happens to your right to freedom of expression if the other four Supervisors (or a majority of the Board at any time) do not understand this? Would you actually have to go to court to receive your freedoms? The non-absorption of this issue by Hansen and Ceminsky is very troublesome in my opinion.

At Times Meetings Can Be Long And Contentious

     The January 8, 2018, Town Board meeting was a very
long and at times contentious meeting with an unusual amount
of  unsubstantiated information, presented by a handful of citizens,
and a very disrespectful Supervisor, as relevant issues in the Township
were discussed. Supervisor Hansen threw out his occasional
"you'd better be careful what you say" when he preferred not
to LIKE certain factual comments made.
                                 
     During the Public Comment period, Alan Novacek stated that
"to remove Citizen Business, from the Town Board Agenda to save
money (due to lengthy meetings lasting from 7:00 until midnight or
later at times) implies that rules (are) being made to make it convenient
for the rulers at the expense of the ruled to
 not allow someone to come up and express a
concern unless on the agenda, is a slippery
way to do business. He does not believe there 
is a person in the Township who cares if the
Board is here until 3:00 in the
morning, as they are paid for this job. You are
supposed to worry about us, we are not supposed to worry about 
you.  This is a reality you have to live by!"  

What Kingdom is he living in????????   Supervisors
are paid $80 per evening to sit for many hours. The Township also
pays the Township attorney to attend. The rate paid the attorney
can vary depending on the length of the meeting. Later in the
meeting, Supervisor Hansen suggested they move on as He was
not willing to sit there until 3:00 or 11:00 o'clock. The Board does
allow for Public Comment at the beginning of each meeting and will 
also allow for citizen input during the meeting if the conversation is
pertinent to the issues being discussed at the Board's business meeting.

      Current information regarding the selection of a Township
Building Inspector will be discussed at a future Town Board
meeting and on the blog.

     Airlake Airport update:  Supervisor Hansen stated Mira had
forwarded information to Sherri Buss at TKDA (Township
engineering firm) and Sherri had not responded. He found it
necessary to call her. He also stated, "Say Goodbye to the 
Airport!" He commented that there was a missed window of
opportunity and the Board should step back and take a look at it.
He felt that there is nothing the Township can do to salvage an
agreement between the Township and Lakeville regarding
annexation of the airport property. Supervisor Hansen stated that
Lakeville would continue to annex portions of the property
until the entire airport would be the property of Lakeville.

     Supervisor Jennings clarified that Sherri Buss only received
Supervisor Hansen's application to be submitted to the MET
Council on January 2, which happened to be the date of the
Public Hearing in Lakeville on the annexation by ordinance.
Sherri had responded as soon as possible, Supervisor Jennings
pointed out. Sherri had engaged in a conversation with the MET
Council that day and had asked if such a Township application
would be accepted. She sent emails to the Board documenting
again what the Council would require. An email copy was in
every Supervisor's packet for review before the meeting.

     Supervisor Hansen agreed with Supervisor Jennings when
she reiterated what Sherri Buss had stated. Since it
is a long process, such a request should have been started
several years ago, Sherri said. It is not only a long process,
but very detailed and expensive and requires planning
and engineering studies addressing potential service connections.
Note to reader: This whole process was laid out before
the Township in March of the meeting with Patrick Boylan
and Kyle Colvin (see previous blog posts,)  This is nothing new!
Again, all the planning and money would be up-front with
NO assurance that the MET Council would even accept it.
Remember that the Council sees Eureka as Ag until 2040.
The MET Council does not plan on the possibility of sewer
service out this far until 2040 at the earliest. These points
have been made repeatedly.


     Orderly Annexation was discussed. By this process,
Eureka could agree to allow Lakeville to annex the entire
airport at one time with an arrangement that the Township
would receive some kind of (limited) compensation
in return. This happened with the Launch Park property in
2007. If such an agreement is not reached, MAC can just
repeat its request for annexation by ordinance, 120 acres
at a time. until all the airport is in Lakeville, and the Township
would not receive anything. Whether Lakeville and the MAC
are willing to enter into such an agreement is not known.

     Supervisor Jennings stated that she attended the meeting
in Lakeville as well and that the staged annexation of the
airport until totally within Lakeville was not discussed at
that proceeding. Lakeville and MAC (Metropolitan Airport
Commission) will finalize the intent at their January 26
meeting.

     As discussed with the attorney, an Orderly Annexation
would give the Township an opportunity to negotiate benefits
to the Township such as a possible paved road and tax benefits.

     It was agreed that the attorney will draft a letter of intent
regarding an Orderly Annexation which will be reviewed
by Supervisor Hansen and Chair Barfknecht. The letter
of intent will then be forwarded to MAC with a copy sent
to Lakeville.

STAY TUNED!!!            

Information taken from the CD recording of the meeting!
The history of the annexation issue regarding the 
Airlake Airport can be obtained from previous minutes
or blogs.




 

     

SOMETIMES THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS

A Handful of Citizens Continue Their
Quest To Shut Down The Blog, "Engaging
Eureka in Governance."

During the December 11, 2017, Town

Board meeting, under Citizen Business,

Supervisor Hansen, Mark Ceminsky and

Terri Petter expressed their disdain for

the private citizen blog site, Engaging Eureka in Governance

(theeeg.blogspot.com). Mr. Ceminsky asked the Town Board

to take action to "shut down" the blog. This is one of several

attempts by Mr. Ceminsky to censor freedom of

speech; the right to speak without censorship or restraint by

the Government; a right to express ideas, and opinions

free of Government restrictions and interference.

Freedom of speech is protected by the First Amendment to 

the Constitution.

Supervisor Hansen stated "I believe in freedom of speech."
He felt what is being stated in the blog is "not right; been
going on too long. It needs to stop."
Are they content with taking away someone's constitutional
right simply because they do not like what is said?
Perhaps they should think a little more about what they
are saying at a public meeting, including how the blog
is characterized. Something stated might not make it
into the actual minutes, but it happened nonetheless. If
they do not want it reported to the public then they should
not state it during a public meeting where there is no
presumption of privacy. The blog reports what anyone in
attendance can see and hear for himself.

The Devil can be found in the details. The Town Board

and Planning Commission meetings can last for hours and

many times entail long and detailed discussions between

Board and Planning Commission members, the Township

Attorney and, when appropriate, input from citizens or other

public officials.The conversations are recorded and the

Township clerks transcribe the recordings into written minutes

which are then approved and published on the Township web

site. I believe it would be extremely time consuming and

very inefficient to transcribe every spoken word. The Blog

allows for details regarding the discussion of issues

and also allows for a diversity
of views.

I find it rather perplexing as to
why a Supervisor or citizens
would subject the Township
to a possible law suit. Past
Town Board Supervisor, Mr.
Ceminsky and Ms. Petter are
citizens in the Township who
utilize the First Amendment
to freely express their opinions
on Face Book and other social media venues regarding issues
in and outside the Township.

Eureka Citizens should be quite concerned by the efforts of past
and present elected officials (refer to past minutes) who try to
censor a citizen's right to express their opinions without
censorship restraint, legal penalty or fear of Government
reprisal. I challenge those who are in favor of shutting down the
blog to refer to the utilization of Twitter and other social media
venues by local, State and Federal Government officials and
journalists. Freedom of speech and the right to freedom of
expression applies to ideas of all kinds including those that may
be deeply offensive.

Engaging Eureka in Governance is updated frequently and
generates new content which keeps citizens, who cannot attend
meetings, informed of issues in the Township; offering clarification
and details. The blog relates disc-backed information and
the content also consists of personal thoughts, facts,
and an ongoing chronicle of information regarding local issues.
At times, the Blog reflects the unprofessional
behavior of elected officials and hopefully will hold our officials
to a higher standard.

Stay Tuned!   (Citizens can obtain CD
recordings of PC and TB meetings
for clarification, validation, facts and details.
 Submit a written request via form or email to the Township Clerk.
$5.00 per CD copy.)
                       

  

BE THE WARM AND WONDERFUL JOY YOU WISH TO SEE IN THE WORLD

          

"Christmas will always be as long as we

stand heart to heart, hand in hand."

                      Dr Seuss

           

HOW'S YOUR CONFIDENCE IN TRANSPARENT TOWNSHIP REPORTING ?

Mine's a little shaky from time to time, and not because of caffeine...

On May 10, 2017, the Roundtable Meeting between the Board and the Commission took place. This is an opportunity for both bodies to air concerns and issues and to re-establish/clarify certain policies such as the attorney engagement policy and others. It is the one time that the two bodies meet for this purpose during the year.

As Chair of the Planning Commission, I was asked by the Clerk what topics the Commission would like to be addressed on the agenda; I submitted them to her.

We had the meeting. I spoke at various points on the agenda as well as toward the end when the agenda was dedicated to the Commission items placed there.

What I said was spoken very deliberately and to specific points I wanted made. I stated I was saying things "for the record." (You should know that both the Board and the Planning Commission have approval over the minutes. Each body can decide what it wants in its minutes beyond motions and votes. This is standard practice statewide. The Eureka Town Board typically waits until the Commission approves its portion of the Roundtable meeting minutes before approving the Board's portion of the minutes.)

Unfortunately, when I first read the draft minutes none of the comments I made earlier in the meeting were reported and the whole section from the Planning Commission was reduced to "Nancy Sauber discussed various issues," or something equally non-informative.



I am not going to suggest any possible motivation for this. I just let it stand for what it was.

The Planning Commission asked for more detail. There were delays in even getting this back to the Commission in a timely manner.

Eventually, the revised draft minutes came before us. Rather than include my comments from earlier in the meeting or a detailed, item-by-item addressing of the Commission portion of the agenda (the way the rest of the minutes were written), all that was stated this time was "Nancy Sauber spoke about" with a list of very brief, (highly edited) issues. None of the detail was given.

The Planning Commission asked again for specific information from the recording of the meeting.

This was not forthcoming. One Supervisor implied at a Board meeting that the Planning Commission was being very picky, and how long was this supposed to go on?  The fact that we didn't get what we asked for seemed to be irrelevant to him-in my opinion. The rest of the Board did not express concern with what the Commission was asking.

As a former Supervisor was so fond of saying, "make a long story short," due to a lack of cooperation otherwise, I volunteered hours of my time listening to the recording and writing the missing content for the minutes. The Planning Commission unanimously approved these additions and the Board approved the minutes at its next meeting.

Then, and only then, were the approved minutes posted on the Township website.

You might find those minutes of interest. Those portions attributed to me and the last whole section are what I added. You may draw your own conclusions as to why someone might not want these comments in the minutes!





Approved May 10, 2017 minutes

EVER WONDER ABOUT THIS...?

At the November 13, 2017, Town Board meeting, the subject of possible (Supervisor) conflicts of interest and their effects was raised on the agenda by a citizen.

It was again discussed that no one can recuse a Supervisor or a Commissioner but that person himself. Others on the body may raise the topic and suggest or urge an individual to recuse himself (and this has occurred), but only the individual with the possible conflict can take that action.

Without weighing in on whether such conflicts exist or not, I thought it might be helpful to all to post a link to the Minnesota Association of Townships Government Manual dealing with this topic. The intent of recusal in such instances is to help assure that decisions are arrived at in the Township's interest, not just in the interests of a biased individual. There are consequences to not recusing oneself when a conflict does exist, but those generally follow some (legal) action being taken, as I understand it.

Here's your link:
Conflicts of Interest

SEE POST FROM JUNE 8, 2016, on this same subject: DOES RECUSAL MEAN AN OPPORTUNITY TO ACCUSE?

ALSO.....

HOW'S YOUR "VISION?" 20/20???

A recent Lakeville Sun ThisWeek issue (Sept. 29, 2017) contains a story about the AirLake airport annexation by Lakeville.

There are a number of things in that article on which I would like to comment.

It states: "After decades of failed negotiations, Airlake Airport is poised to annex into Lakeville to accommodate growth and receive city water and sewer."

"Decades of negotiations" is something of an overstatement, in my opinion. Any actual negotiations have been relatively recent and followed the Metropolitan Airports Commission's (MAC's) letting Eureka know it wanted city sewer and water services and now desired to be annexed in order to receive those services.

While it may be true that a possible annexation of the airport by Lakeville has been on the radar screen as a topic of concern and discussion off and on for quite a while, there certainly have not been negotiations for a decade. When Gary Schmidt of MAC came before the Town Board some months ago to inform them that the airport would be asking to be annexed by Lakeville so it could receive city sewer and water, his visit triggered the Board to direct the Planning Commission to conduct a Boundary Protection Study.  The Commission undertook this study with the assistance of Chad Lemmons, the Township Attorney, and Sherri Buss, Senior Planner at TKDA, to see what options may be open to Eureka as an alternative to having the airport be annexed. (The study is posted on the Township website for your information.)



After those special meetings were held, the report went to the Board. Then there were actually two meetings with Board-designated Supervisors Jennings and Behrendt and the other parties exploring especially the idea of a Joint Powers Agreement with Lakeville. (This has been explained in other blog posts.) Lakeville was ultimately not interested in entering into such an agreement with Eureka Township. 

After the elections and a change in the Board, there were then two more meetings with the Board-designated Supervisors, Jennings and Palmquist, and the Township Attorney with MAC and the City of Lakeville. These latter two Supervisors requested a third meeting, which was never arranged. 

Supervisor Hansen then stepped in to "save this mess" at a meeting also attended by Supervisor Jennings, Chad Lemmons, Township Attorney, and MAC. The Board had required that the Attorney accompany Hansen and that he not go alone. Jennings also attended when she was notified of the meeting by MAC. Hansen even complained about her attendance at this meeting at the last Board meeting. 

The article then states:
"Hansen said he was selected by the town board to meet with MAC representatives 'to save the airport' and he proposed multiple ways to provide the airport sewer and water, but the board did not want to act on them."

Whatever "saving proposal" Hansen presented at the meeting with MAC was apparently met without any actual/real buy-in by Gary Schmidt of MAC, because even Hansen (at least at first) certainly did not allege Schmidt was in agreement, even if the Board was not. Maybe that is due to the fact (correctly reported) that MAC's adopted policy requires hookup of all its airports to sewer and water within a certain timeline when it becomes available. This policy was discussed at an earlier-mentioned Special Planning Commission meeting with the Met Council reps, Boylan and Colvin, with Gary Schmidt and the Board also in attendance. (The only approach Hansen has brought up before the Board of late is the well and access of the sewer interceptor. I do not actually recall any other suggestions from him. Not quite sure where "multiple" comes from?) 

So Hansen did propose to the Board that the Township provide the well and also access the sewer interceptor. He still doesn't seem to want to acknowledge that this ability to access is an involved process with the Met Council. In fact, I don't think I have ever heard him address that directly. This motion was one of two motions failing for lack of a second. (See previous two posts.)

The next portion of the article I would like to comment on is:

"He said the airport would have stayed in the township if the town board had been willing to consider allowing commercial development on its northern edge, but without making that change the township will eventually get annexed by Lakeville and Farmington."

I would like to know, Supervisor Hansen, exactly when and where Gary Schmidt of MAC ever said anything like this. The airport is not concerning itself with what Eureka does with its land on the northern border. It is concerning itself with its own needs for sewer and water.

Last, the article states:
“'At the end of the day, the board has no vision for our future,' Hansen said. 'We are on the edge of major development, and if we keep those people happy, they have no reason to go to Lakeville. If we continue to have a lack of vision for our northern corridor, Lakeville’s going to just keep coming.'"

Apparently Hansen's "vision" for the "northern corridor" was to let it be annexed to Lakeville in return for paving a road, among a few other things that there has been no indication that Lakeville would even be open to. That's what he proposed to the Board. 

For some strange reason, the Board "did not want to act," as he told the reporter, to release hundreds of acres to Lakeville, as that motion died for lack of a second also! I STILL don't see how this is of benefit to Eureka.

To Be Continued...