This is a citizen blog. Visit http://eurekatownship-mn.us/ to sign up for the Township newsletter.

Sunday, November 17, 2013

DRAFTING AN ORDINANCE IS AN EASY TASK? NOT SO!

     It is my hope and belief that the majority of Eureka citizens are aware of the Town Board's appointment
of a Task Force to study the feasibility of Agri-tourism as a land use in Eureka Township. If it is determined that Eureka citizens, after attending an open house and expressing their opinions and ideas, are interested
in an Agri-tourism land use, the Task Force will continue with the complex task of developing a definition and ordinance which will allow the use. The Task Force has scheduled the Open House to be held on December 12. Citizens can expect to receive a notice of the meeting inviting their attendance and input prior to this date.

     To have full force and effect of law, an ordinance must not be in conflict with any higher law such as state or national law. Professional planners and other consultants can be an invaluable resource to a Township that is beginning the planning and zoning process. Planners can help identify issues of which the Township may be unaware.  Legal assistance is very important to help ensure that all documents have been properly drafted and that all procedural requirements have been followed.

     The Task Force meets on Wednesday evenings at the Town Hall from 7:00 - 9:00 p.m. All citizens are welcome to attend the meetings which are posted on the Eureka web site; however, they are not allowed to participate.

http://search.aol.com/aol/imageDetails?s_it=imageDetails&q=clip+art+ordinance&v_t=keyword_rollover&b=image?q=clip%20art%20ordinance&s_it=keyword_rollover&ie=UTF-8&VR=3430&oreq=3ac5c7601b0a45f9afc5408831464635&img=http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/permitting/landuse/images/zoning-clipart-photo.jpg&host=http://www.co.thurston.wa.us/permitting/landuse/landuse-list.html&width=121&height=80&thumbUrl=http://images-partners-tbn.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQUxaau1RSumbPpd3RdOLmcFs6v8tQZHRSjVyrI5_FcFgvY1YgOJ3vMUA&imgWidth=425&imgHeight=282&imgSize=34686&imgTitle=clip+art+ordinance     I attended the November 13 Task Force meeting which I found quite interesting. I believe it is imperative that the members of the Task Force put their personal agendas aside and have an understanding as to the specifics of the delegated task. When I left I was not convinced every member of the Task Force had reached this important point. It is also my opinion that the Chair, who is exceptionally competent, be allowed to set the agenda and steer the meeting.  In the future, I hope he will be allowed to do so. 

     Atina Diffley, a Task Force member, offered information which I felt is quite valuable in our study of Agri-tourism.  Atina stated the following:

    " I spoke with Bob Patton at the Department of Agriculture.
His work with the department is land use. Agri-tourism is a growing area in his work, and he sees a need to support understanding of it from a land use perspective. His idea is to create materials to support jurisdictions to create their ordinances. He's working on the idea but has nothing ready now beyond willingness to come and talk with us."

http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-image-writer-icon-image34433201     "The work on the definition is being done by a non-profit Renewing the Countryside. Brett Olson, co-founder and the Creative Director at Renewing the Countryside, stated "we have been attempting to go at it from a state-wide liability stand point.  We have a definition for agri-tourism that has passed bi-partisan approval and will likely slide through without opposition in this coming legislative session."
http://www.pdclipart.org/displayimage.php?album=104&pos=152
     "Bob Patton stated that when developing an Agri-tourism ordinance the process should not be hurried and 2 years is a reasonable time frame.

     In preparation for attending the Agri-tourism open house at the Eureka Town Hall on December 12, I believe it serves the public well if citizens have a basic understanding of the procedure the Task Force should consider when developing an ordinance which would allow the Agri-tourism land use. The following information is perhaps a step in understanding the complex process.

An Ordinance Must Be:  (Ordinance Drafting and Enactment by Steve Lobertini)
          
          1." Consonant with the constitution and statutes of the United States and of the State, and             
             with the general principles of the common law;
          2. Authorized by the charter of the corporation or general laws applying thereto;
          3. consistent with the general objects and purposes of (the city's) creation;
          4. general, and applicable alike to all persons and property affected by them;
          5. certain in their application and operation, and their execution not left to the caprice of 
              those whose duty it is to enforce them;
          6. just;
          7. adapted to the locality and affairs which it is intended they shall control and affect;
          8. general in their nature;
          9. impartial in their operation and effect.
         [An ordinance MUST NOT] (my emphasis)
         10. be harsh and oppressive; [or]
         11. discriminate in FAVOR OF OR AGAINST any class of persons or property. (my 
               emphasis)
          An ordinance which is free from the objectionable."

     The following is information from Drafting Ordinances and Resolutions by :  Kent Sulem, MAT Attorney:  (Section V., pages 6-7)



"V. General Considerations.
When drafting resolutions and ordinances, a township should carefully consider exactly what it wants to accomplish. Thought should be given to the cost of enforcement, and the likelihood that the regulation will achieve the desired result. In many situations, the township would be well advised to study the issue, obtain sample ordinances, and consult with their township attorney and possibly other experts. After the township knows what it wishes to accomplish, the following should help the document achieve the goal:

A. Use clear, simple, and contemporary language - Terms of art, trade jargon, and non-standard language should be avoided. Further, terms should be used as they are being used at the time of adoption. Words such as "Wheretofore", "Hereinafter", and similar terms should be avoided. Resolutions and ordinances should be drafted so that the majority of people can reasonably be expected to understand them. Showing off the author's vocabulary will not result in comprehension and thus will reduce compliance.

B. Avoid the confusing use of pronouns. Use of terms such as "said" as in "said persons"; "the same"; and similar phrases only serve to obscure what is actually being referenced. Further, if pronouns such as "he" or "she" are to be used, be sure that the person being referenced is clearly identifiable.

C. And/Or - An old Minnesota court case (Podany v. Erickson, 235 Minn. 36 (1951)) held that the term "and/or" had no legal meaning and could not be enforced. While this case has never been overturned, given the increasing acceptance and use of "and/or" it is possible that a court today would give legal recognition to the term. If at all possible, however, the term should be avoided.

D. Gender Neutrality - The easiest way to make ordinances gender neutral is to use titles whenever possible. The second preferred method would be to use the phrase "he or she" (in either order). The use of “s/he" can be hard to read if a person is not paying close attention to the words. Finally, as a catch-all provision, the township may wish to include a provision in the body of the document that provides something similar to, "Any use of the masculine shall include the feminine and vice-versa."E. Be definitive - The word "should" does not belong in ordinances, and would have a limited role in resolutions. Definitive language should be used. Historical drafting guides such as Strunk & White's The Elements of Style state that the term "must" is preferred to the term "shall". Modem drafting styles, however, show acceptance of the use of "shall" to show that something is mandatory. The term "may" should be used to indicate when something is permissible but not mandatory.

F. Be specific but not too limiting. Language that is too broad or vague runs the risk of being found unconstitutionally vague. On the other hand, language that is too specific can make a regulation too difficult to enforce or limit its practical benefit to the community.

G. Keep things short, labeled, and punctuated - Sentences, paragraphs, and ultimately the entire document should be kept as short as possible to enhance readability and comprehension. Further, the use of headings and subdivision titles can increase clarity. Finally, it is very important that punctuation be used accurately. There is growing acceptance of the dropping of the final comma in a list, but this practice can result in an ambiguous regulation.            

H. Define all key terms - One of the first sections of the body of an ordinance should set forth the definitions and rules of interpreting all key terms used throughout the ordinance. Be sure that the definition is specific and not circular (i.e. do not define "Light Commercial District" as being a district where light commercial activities are allowed.) It can be helpful to include examples, but if a list of examples is to be used, it should be prefaced with, "The term _ shall include, but not be limited to..." How a term is to be literally interpreted and applied is equally important to how it is defined. For example, when defining a setback distance, provide how the measurement is to be made (i.e. from what point to what point.) Further, catch-all provisions such as "The singular shall include the plural and vice-versa", or "The present tense shall include the future tense", can be used to prevent challenges based on overly literal interpretations.

I. Use space and time savers whenever possible - Adopting statutes by reference can save a lot of time and space when drafting an ordinance. On the other hand, if the township does not have easy access to current statute books, adoption by reference can lead to confusion as no one will have access to what is actually referenced in the ordinance. Providing a section that states all references to a particular township official shall include his or her authorized designee can also be a time and space saver and allow more flexibility in the day to day operations of the township. Finally, instead of listing individual fees in separate ordinances, the township may wish to consider the adoption of a fee schedule that is adopted by reference in the main text of the ordinance. By creating a list of all fees and adopting it as a separate document, the board can amend the entire list at once without having to search through all ordinances and adopting separate amending ordinances for each one imposing a fee

J. State needed information - Who is responsible for enforcement, etc? Who is responsible for distributing and collecting applications and other forms? Who is to conduct inspections? Whose opinion must be sought before a request can be approved? These questions should be answered in the text of the ordinance.

K. Due Process and other Constitutional Protections - Regulations adopted by the town board cannot deny any person of his or her protected rights. Due process protection needs to be considered when debating enforcement mechanisms.."
http://www.canstockphoto.com/blog-and-freedom-of-speech-concept-6470769.html
 Drafting an ordinance is a very difficult , time consuming and challenging task which deserves the time, professionalism and due diligence, while taking into consideration the long term outcome of the rule of law.









      

          
          
          






     

     




    


       








Tuesday, November 12, 2013

Heeeeeere's Johnny!!!!

For those of you who are unfamiliar with the Eureka Planning Commission, here is a brief introduction:

Lu Barfknecht
The current Chair of the Planning Commission is Lu Barfknecht, who is serving her second term which expires on April 30, 2016.  She grew up in Anoka, 7th in a family of 12 children. She has been married to her husband, Dan, for 35 years; has 4 children and 3 grandchildren; and lives in Eureka Estates.  Lu has held a variety of jobs over the years, from waitress and secretary, to various positions in the banking business, to different roles in the insurance business.  She is currently employed as a Field Agent in Marketing at Blue Cross Blue Shield, where she has been for nearly 13 years.  Lu loves fishing and being outdoors.



Dr. Carrie Jennings
Vice Chair Carrie Jennings is a geologist, with degrees from Northwestern and the University of Minnesota, the latter including an M.S. and a Ph.D. She enjoys teaching and has done so at various institutions, such as Carleton and Macalester, including 20 years' instruction in glacial geology at the U of M.  Carrie has worked for the Minnesota Geological Society, the National Center for Earth Surface Dynamics, and is currently employed by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Division of Lands and Minerals. She and husband, Charlie Mahler, live on the former Borg farm in the southernmost part of the Township. Having been among those facilitating the purchase of the Chub Lake Wildlife Management Area by the DNR in the late 1990's, Carrie went on to file an application for her own property with the Farmland and Natural Areas Program, resulting in a 110-acre easement acquisition by that program in 2010.  Carrie has also served as Board Supervisor; her current term as Commissioner expires in April, 2014.


Fritz Frana

Frederick "Fritz" Frana has been a resident of Eureka Township for over 25 years.  His educational background includes a BA in Sociology at the University of Northern Iowa. Now retired, Fritz has over 35 years in the defense industry in a high-tech environment, with extensive Human Resources management, project management, and consulting experience. Currently a member of the Agritourism Task Force, Fritz lives in Rice Lake Heights on the western side of Eureka. His term is until April, 2014.




Butch Hansen          Al Novacek        
Charles "Butch" Hansen is a self-employed business owner and farmer who lives on Highview Avenue, south of 250th Street.  Butch served for two years on the Planning Commission at an earlier time; his current term expires on April 30, 2015.  Butch was a member of the Town Hall Task Force, which worked on the planning and construction of the "new" Town Hall. He was also a member of the Transfer Task Force and is currently on the Agritourism Committee.



Allen Novacek (pictured above) is the owner and president of the family business Nova-Chek Auto Body. It is located in Lakeville and employs several people.  Relatively new to local government, Al served as member on the Transfer Task Force. He resides in Eureka Estates; his term as Commissioner expires on April 30, 2015.

Monday, November 11, 2013

ANOTHER TRAGIC ACCIDENT! ARE EUREKA CITIZENS PROTECTED BY THEIR ORDINANCES?

     ONCE AGAIN we are reminded of the safety risks involved with the keeping of exotic animals in a confined environment. The employee at the Wildcat Santuary in Oregon 
was an experienced worker who was "comfortable with the animals she cared for." The worker was killed by a cougar in a sanctuary in the suburb of Sherwood, outside Portland, Oregon.

     Eureka has an ordinance in place that is meant to protect the citizens in this community  This ordinance should be strictly enforced and not free-wheeling; nor should it be viewed as a "suggested"tool, available to protect citizens.


Ordinance 3, Chapter 7, Section 3 - EXOTIC ANIMALS
A. Purpose and Intent
It is the intent of the Town Board of the Township of Eureka to protect the
public against the health and safety risks that exotic animals pose to the
community and to protect the welfare of individual animals that are held in
private possession. By their very nature, exotic animals are wild and
potentially dangerous and, as such, do not adjust well to a captive
environment.


Sanctuary says woman killed in cougar attack didn't follow protocols




SHERWOOD, Ore. -- An employee at a Sherwood animal sanctuary who was attacked and killed by a cougar on Saturday didn't follow safety protocols, the facility says.
Sgt. Robert Wurpes of the Clackamas County Sheriff's office said the attack was reported Saturday night at WildCat Haven in Sherwood just before 7 p.m.
The sheriff's office and medical examiner said Renee Radziwon, 36, of Portland died of injuries consistent with a wild animal attack. A fundraising site has been set up for Radziwon's 6-month-old daughter.
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife spokesman Rick Swart on Sunday told KATU that a cougar attacked and killed Radziwon.
The sheriff's office said there were two cougars in a cage with her when she was killed. In a statement released on Sunday, WildCat Haven said Radziwon was alone with the cougars during the attack, which goes against the facility's protocols.
"WildCat Haven has strict safety protocols to ensure the well-being of everyone working at the sanctuary and all the sanctuary’s neighbors. The sanctuary’s handbook specifies that 'two qualified staff members shall work together during the lock out of dangerous animals. Once the animals are locked out, one staff member can safely enter the enclosure to clean or make repairs. Two qualified staff members shall be available when releasing animals from lockout areas.' At this time, it is believed that Radziwon-Chapman was alone at the sanctuary and alone in the enclosure with cats, who had not been shifted into the lockout area. Investigation is ongoing," the statement said.
Executive Director Cheryl Tuller also said the thoughts and prayers of everyone at WildCat Haven are with Radziwon's family.

Safety Box v2As a Eureka citizen, do you feel confident that your local government officials are enforcing the ordinances and protecting you against the health and safety risks that exotic animals pose to the community?








Sunday, November 3, 2013

WILL YOU LET SEEKING YOUR OPINION BE A "WASTE OF TIME?"

AS PROMISED, I ATTENDED THE SECOND AGRITOURISM COMMITTEE MEETING last Wednesday. Five of the six members were present, one having said she would be out of town for the meeting.  ONE member of the public was present: me.

The committee voted four to one to recommend to the Board to hold a public open house on this topic. They have tentatively scheduled this open house for Thursday, December 12th, at 7:00 p.m. at the Town Hall.  It will be up to the Board at its November meeting whether or not they go along with this recommendation.

During the discussion of whether to hold this open house, one member said that having it "would be a waste of time!" That same member has been against having a planner involved as an "unnecessary" action.  He also said, "We already had public hearings:" I inferred that he meant the public has already been heard from.  Chair Cory Behrendt rightly made the distinction that a public hearing reacting to specific proposed language is not at all the same thing as an open house exchange on the broader issue. Another member said that it "may be a waste of time," but people have asked why hasn't there been an open house; this way at least "we can say we had an open house."

Some of you may think that this is a rather cynical view of democracy.  I would urge you to prove the naysayers wrong and show up, whether in person, via email, phone call, or USPS.  State what you like or don't like, what you think should be or should not be allowed under this use.  If you don't care what use may be next door, down the road, in your neighborhood, or in the Township in general, bringing with it possible noise or light pollution, increased traffic, change in intensity, or other unforeseen consequences, you know what to do: Nothing. But then "Forever hold your peace."


Call me Pollyanna, but I have more faith in you than that.  I believe you do care about our Township and are willing to make the small effort to be heard on this topic.  Even though, because of the Board's unseemly rush to "Get R Done," and the fact that you may have a child's Christmas concert to go to that night (We do still have those, don't we?), and this timing may be an inconvenience, I know you can make time to offer your input. Have you thought about it up to now?  How long will it take you to just make your opinion known?




YOUR COMMUNITY IS WAITING TO HEAR FROM YOU!

Friday, November 1, 2013

LIGHT BULBS, GARAGE FLOORS, AND "THE BENJAMINS"

A couple of other "tidbits" from the last Board meeting:


The Board hired Supervisor Mark Ceminsky to perform "Town Hall maintenance." (Agenda item "Other Business, H., Township Hall Maintenance")  This assignment comes with an "up to $5,000 a year" potential price tag.  Ceminsky's first assignment, given to him by Supervisor Miller. was to change some light bulbs.
It was unclear to me what other "projects" or "tasks" this role might include.  It was also unclear to me at what rate this work is to be performed. Maybe I missed it? Perhaps Supervisor Ceminsky has a (standard) hourly rate he will charge? Not sure what that is.  I trust it won't be at the "special meeting" rate of $70 per "meeting," no matter how long or how short, that has been utilized often so far. (It might be of interest to you to check out sometime how much Supervisor Ceminsky is receiving as Road Supervisor.  Compare that to what former-Supervisors Dan Rogers and Jeff Otto or Supervisor Budenski received for the same task. Just ask the Clerk for the records.)

In the past, various citizens have volunteered their time in a number of different efforts.  For example, former-Commissioner Sharon Buckley volunteered many hours helping Clerk Nanett "tidying up" and organizing the Township files. Sue Rogers, former-Supervisor Rogers' wife, generously volunteered her time to vacuum the Town Hall.  Former-Supervisor Gloria Belzer washed the Town Hall windows when it needed to be done.  Then-Supervisor Rogers brought in the salt for the water softener, not to mention the countless big packs of bottled water he consistently donated to the Township for citizens' benefit at meetings. Someone else donated two waste receptacles for recyclable items and CD discs to the Township.  I am quite certain there have been many others over the years who have done likewise. Not one of these asked for recognition, much less for compensation.  Isn't there someone out there who would be willing to volunteer to change light bulbs to save taxpayer money?


Isn't there a rap song called "It's All About the wBenjamins, Baby?"  


Under "Other Business, N., New Garage," Commissioner Hansen presented the Board with some information concerning the building of the new Township storage garage that was voted on by citizens at the last Annual Meeting.  Commissioner Hansen volunteered to be the "general contractor" for the Township in an effort to hold down costs. The Board was okay with his being in that position.  It was my take-away that Hansen is not going to be paid for this role.  It is unclear to me which particular contractors Commissioner Hansen might be going to have the Board solicit quotes from (not bids, so it doesn't have to be published, nor awarded to the lowest bidder. This option is due to the dollar amounts involved.) Which contractors might not be known at this time.  Presumably, Hansen does have to go back to the Board for its approval of his selections/suggestions before they put out these requests, not just for the awarding of the business per portion of the construction, such as the in-floor heating.





Food for thought...???


Tuesday, October 29, 2013

NEVER LET IT BE SAID...

...that I don't try to give credit where credit is due.


AT THE LAST BOARD MEETING, I (also following the Citizen Input Policy as did Jeff Otto!) put myself on the agenda as "Ordinance Item."  Frankly, I was hesitant to put "Accessory Building Size Ordinance," which is what I wanted to talk about, for fear that someone might try to delete me from the agenda again because "We've already talked about that."  Boo.

At any rate, I first asked the Board what uses it envisioned in these buildings. "We" had the correct answer this time (Credit Alert #1): personal storage, that is all that is allowed under Ordinance.


Next, I addressed the Non-ag properties that are greater than 11 acres.  You may recall that I had seen and brought this omission of regulation of accessory buildings on such properties to the Board's attention. When they rewrote the Ordinance, they had failed to address this even though it had been addressed under the original Ordinance they wanted replaced. (I still hear officials saying that properties greater than 11 acres "are ag."  Wrong; it's the USE that makes it ag. By state statute one must have a minimum of 10 acres, or 11 with buildings, to qualify as ag. Then you have to "DO ag.") The Board had decided to address this acknowledged omission (Credit Alert #2!). They determined to do so by granting 10,000 square feet of accessory buildings to such properties as a given, with the option of having a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for those property owners desiring even more.  When they did not place any restriction on the CUP size other than meeting setbacks, I had stated that I felt that was certainly excessive.  The attorney had suggested the 25% limit, and the Board had concurred.


So, I asked at the last meeting, why not have a cap to the CUP other than 25%?  Under the 25% rule, a property of twenty acres could have five acres of accessory buildings, also as long as setbacks were met.  I again expressed the opinion that should, I thought, have seemed obvious: that's a LOT of accessory building space!  I suggested why not settle on a square footage limit, even under the CUP--say, 25,000 square feet?


Next, such a CUP would have to be added to the CUP list that is in the Ordinances.  Without that addition, such a CUP could not be granted!  Further, the matter of "opening up" the CUP list, I suggested, goes beyond what was presented at the public hearing on this topic.  I commented that I thought perhaps, because of that, an additional public hearing might be required.  They never got as far as soliciting an attorney opinion on this as, ultimately, (Credit Alert #3!) they decided not to have a CUP option at all and to limit the size to 10,000 square feet on those parcels, plain and simple.


Still not finished.  The original Ordinance had limited the size of NON-ag buildings, even on ag properties, to 200% of the primary structure, presumably a house.  (Ag buildings were never included in the total of accessory buildings.) After several reiterations, I finally got across my point that I was not talking about tractor storage, but personal storage-- yes, on an ag property.  To do so, I resorted to actually reading them the pertinent Ordinance portion. (Imagine that!)  It states: "Permitted Uses and Structures, B. 6: Accessory structures to single-family dwellings such as detached private garages, decks, swimming pools, non-illuminated signs, fences, tool sheds, and other such structures, for the storage of domestic supplies and equipment."  Even farmers might have out-of-season clothes, Christmas decorations, extra furniture, and similar items to store.  A personal storage building would be the place.


When it was argued by a Supervisor that the original Ordinance did not address ag properties, I then read the language the Board put forth as the change: "The maximum total area of all accessory buildings shall not total more than 5,000 square feet on 2 to 5.999 acres and not more than 10,000 square feet on 6 to 10.999 acres 200% of the primary structure total area. There shall be no maximum limitation to total area for agricultural buildings, and agricultural buildings shall not be considered in the total sum of accessory buildings on an individual parcel."  That's any parcel, even those greater than 10.999 acres, which is as far as the new language went.  You may have noticed that it was actually nonsensical to speak about agricultural buildings when addressing only those parcels 10.999 acres or smaller, as they could not have ag anyway by the Board's calculations!

I asked the Board had it been their intention to have no limit on personal storage buildings on agricultural properties? I did not receive an answer from any of them, even though I repeated the question.
Okay, if it is NOW your intention, I queried, what is your rationale for that? Again, no answer to my question.

   

 


 Hopefully, you do not have a headache by now, because I am still not finished..                                


.

Last point: The Board has been considering language to allow agritourism.  If this goes through, I stated, there could conceivably be buildings on ag properties which would be used for the agritourism part, allowing the public inside.  This would render such buildings NON-ag.  Hence, they would be accessory buildings to the ag use, but not ag themselves, and thus fall under this Ordinance, yes?  Had they given any thought to that, I asked?  Only one Supervisor was "brave" enough to answer, no, he hadn't (yet).

The Board did not have any real conversation with me on the points I raised. The item was coming up later on the agenda. I said, "Okay, so you'll have answers for me then.  Please keep in mind my questions regarding intent and rationale for the change."

When it did come up on the agenda, (Credit Alert #4), Supervisor Miller told me not to "fall off my chair," but he told the Board that I had made some good points.  (I just about did fall off my chair!)  As mentioned above, they decided to limit the total square footage of accessory buildings on all non-ag properties to the maximum of 10,000 square feet if over 6 acres, and further, to limit the accessory buildings on agricultural properties to the same amount.  Again, understand, farmer-followers of this blog, that does NOT apply to ANY ag buildings.

I thanked the Board for listening.  I do believe in giving credit where credit is due.



Sunday, October 27, 2013

Freedom of Speech; Still Allowed In Eureka?

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiTxUz4ab3nF0g_Oe0rU8DW0CU9a21uwcXeexTcdhS8y8m5WwwPbnslZfEmuxaH1CSuQFabxYNiOvrst3_PxjI_u1yYmbVuTOMCxpg8jdjEjgkllBTmYNpeHfepRtkpX3C5pTcmK6aLNCQ/s1600/Free-Speech-Zone-Map.jpg

FREEDOM OF SPEECH: The right  to express one's thoughts and opinions without government restriction, as guaranteed by the First Amendment 


 (Black's Law Dictionary).


Mr. Otto attended the September Town Board meeting and submitted what he believes is the "proper procedure and process to study a subject of complexity to communicate issues and recommendations effectively to audiences large and small, and to manage legal and technical guidance for maximum benefit and value to the Township."

The appointment of a Task Force to study Agri-tourism was the issue addressed.(see Eureka Engages an Agri-tourism Task Force.) Task Force candidates were present in the audience.

 In my opinion Mr. Otto's presentation, based on his expertise and experience, was submitted with the best of intentions. It was certainly worthy of serious consideration by the Town Board members and the Task Force and was not intended to be a threat
.
On October 20 Supervisor Ceminsky sent a written statement to the Township Board and Task Force making the following statements.

"While I appreciate Jeff Otto's knowledge, I believe it is the Board of Supervisors who are directing
the committee on Agri-tourism.  I do not recall where the Board authorized Mr. Otto to be giving direction to the Agri-tourism committee. Second, why is this (Mr. Otto's written comments) being sent to the committee before it is reviewed by the Board of Supervisors? As at this point we have not authorized the use of a planner or the expenditure of any funds for this committee. If Mr. Otto is going to be directing the committee without the authorizatiuon of the Board of Supervisors, why did we setup a committee in the first place? It seems
http://joshkane17.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/free-speech.jpgMr. Otto does not have confidence that the committee is going to see things his way. The committee was established to review the information that has been presented to the Township up to this point, and for them to come back with what they have for recommendations to the Board based off of what the committee has reviewed. As a Supervisor of Eureka township, I feel that the input from Mr. Otto is inappoppriate, as it was not directed by the Board of Supervisors and the Agri-tourism committee has not submitted any reports to the Board as of today. To continue, I feel we need to let the Agri-tourism committee move forward as I have confidence that they will do the job presented to them without outside influence." (emphasis is mine)

The Eureka Policy on Citizen Input and Conduct at Township Meetings states:
"Citizens are welcome and encouraged to attend any and all meetings of the Township Board of Supervisors. To allow Township citizens and members of the general public the opportunity to provide input and comments on Township related issues. Individuals or groups wishing to address the Township Board are encouraged to complete an Agenda Request Form and request that an item be put on the agenda for discussion at a regular Township Board Meeting."

Blog and freedom of speech concept -The policy also requests that anyone bringing written materials to the meeting have seven copies available; five for the Board, one for the public and one for the official record.  Mr. Otto followed the proper procedure and requested the Township clerk to add his name to the agenda.

Is Supervisor Ceminsky suggesting that the information presented by Mr. Otto will be utilized by the Board and Task Force, but only if they agree with the content?
                                            
I believe freedom of speech means the freedom to communicate ideas without unwarranted government suppression and restriction and to protect the individual's ability to think and express one's thoughts; not to control. Does anyone find this applicable when referring to Supervisor Ceminsky's comments above?   Supervisor Ceminsky has taken the liberty to exercise freedom of speech; I believe he should respect every other citizen's right to do so as well. I also believe criticism of the government and advocacy of unpopular ideas that people may find distasteful or against public policy are almost always permitted. What are your thoughts?