YET ANOTHER WALK DOWN MEMORY LANE...

It shouldn't happen. It has happened too often. Sorry to see it happen yet again. And these people should know better...

Before the February Board meeting, at 6:00 p.m., there was an open session of the Board addressing some baseless and really time-wasting complaints that had been lodged against Commissioner Julie Larson. Former Commissioner and current Supervisor Butch Hansen had expressed a verbal complaint against Larson, alleging that she had "defamed" him with her comments at an earlier Board meeting referenced in the post immediately before this one. Usually, the Township does not consider any complaint unless it is written and signed. Why the departure, I didn't understand and I still don't.

Two other citizens, Terri Petter and former Commissioner Al Novacek, "joined forces" with Hansen and entered written and signed complaints against Larson as well regarding the same instance. (They spoke at this session, thus revealing their identities.)

Many errors were made in these complaints:

 Larson's comments were addressing her concern with the appearance of a conflict of interest whereby a Supervisor who had represented Petter on numerous occasions before the Eureka Planning Commission, the Eureka Town Board, The Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Organization Board (as her "contractor"), and even Brad Becker, then of the Soil and Water Conservation District of Dakota County, did not recuse himself. Instead, this Supervisor was present at closed meetings with the rest of the Board and the Township Attorney concerning the Petter litigation. Julie asked the Board to put this matter out front, discuss it in public, and weigh in on it. Neither the Board, nor even the Township Attorney, can "make" Hansen recuse himself even if they strongly believe he should. He acts on his own on this and bears any consequences that may ensue.

The Minnesota Association of Townships (MAT) strongly cautions supervisors and commissioners about the topic of recusal. MAT urges and recommends that public officials recuse themselves when there is even an appearance of a conflict even without any financial implications. There is no need to sully a vote and create unnecessary questions.

But then, to my knowledge, Hansen has never attended ONE SESSION of training with either MAT or Government Training Services (GTS) during his tenure as a Commissioner and now as a Supervisor. (If it can be shown that he has as of this date, I will gladly correct the record.)





Larson also questioned why Hansen met out of sight and hearing with Petter at the Hastings courthouse ahead of a legal proceeding there involving the Township v. Petter.

Hansen vehemently denied meeting behind closed doors with Terri Petter and her attorney at the courthouse in Hastings. What he very neatly did not deny on more than one occasion was the fact that he had so met with Petter at the courthouse that day before the procedure started.

Ask yourself: Why does a Town Board Supervisor meet alone with the opponent in a legal proceeding with the Township he is supposed to be representing? What was the purpose? WHO authorized him to do so? Why does he think it is okay to so brazenly do so? If he is going to attend such proceedings, isn't his role on the side of the Township and its lawfully adopted Ordinances? It appears to me that Mr. Hansen is more than a little confused about what his role is supposed to be. He still has not explained himself in my opinion.

Getting back to the other two complaints.
One alleged that Larson had not followed "proper procedure" by speaking about this at a public meeting. This complainant stated that he thought Larson had "prevented the town board official from his right to a closed hearing."
FACT: There is no "one way" to raise objections and questions. As I mentioned in my testimony that night, one can take out an ad in the local newspaper to complain if one so wishes!

But an elected official needs to operate in the light of day. Shouldn't Hansen's constituents be aware of what he might being doing?

The other complaint said that Larson had made "uneducated" comments and made the Township look "petty and foolish." This complainant couldn't even get it straight in the complaint whether Larson was a Commissioner or a Supervisor. Well,...!

Let it also be known that Hansen stated at the Board meeting at which Larson first commented that there was a "conspiracy" against him, that it involved other Planning Commissioners and that all involved should be removed from office. Why such a strong interest in trying to remove people who advocate for transparency?




Now the Memory Lane part:

Not that long ago, then-Commissioner Hansen, then-Commissioner Novacek, and then-Commissioner Cleminson all filed similar complaints against their fellow then-Commissioner Jennings. (Again, they identified themselves publicly.)

Their complaint? That Jennings had violated Open Meeting Law (OML) by sending out information to help them do their jobs better without going through the Clerk and should be removed from office. (Do you see a pattern here?)

Be Clear:  I do not believe these complaining Commissioners ever took ONE training session with MAT or GTS (correct me if I'm wrong). Now they are now presumably experts on the legal niceties of OML.




You may remember that Jennings elected to have the meeting in public. After a lot of discussion without a lot of clarity from the complainants, the Board voted in the majority not to take action against Jennings.

However, then-Supervisor Mark Ceminsky still maintained publicly right after this vote that Jennings had violated the Open Meeting Law!!! She'd been exonerated, but that wasn't good enough for Ceminsky. Evidently, this "witch hunt" (my term) hadn't been resolved in the way he wanted, in the way he had voted. He still has to go on record saying she was guilty of a violation.

Folks, this is a heavy accusation. Why not understand that perhaps one doesn't have the facts straight instead of still asserting on your own in your official capacity that then-Commissioner Jennings was guilty?







Do you want to guess how much training former-Commissioner and former-Supervisor Ceminsky had had from the above-mentioned agencies?

Let's have the humility to acknowledge that training is needed for non-professionals. One might say that public officials really have a duty to educate themselves in these matters; there is a LOT to learn. (Let's also acknowledge that this is at no cost to the training attendee: the Township will pick up the costs.)

Be advised that this post touches on just two situations these antagonists have had their hands in. There have certainly been others. Where is the spirit of cooperation, of working together for the good of Eureka citizens? Some of these same people have actually publicly scolded their "targets" as not being "good neighbors." One should not attribute negative ill-will to those individuals who simply have made efforts to assure that they are doing their jobs forthrightly and to a high standard.

Why this desire to "sweep house" of those who apparently don't agree with you?

DON'T LET THE FACTS GET IN THE WAY OF A GOOD STORY!

On November 7, 2017, I along with three
other citizens attended a Hearing at the
Hastings Government Center.
Ms. Petter, accompanied by her attorney,
was requesting a new Hearing
regarding Fur-ever Wild.


Commissioner Julie Larson was unable to attend the Hearing and
I offered to brief her on what transpired at the Hearing.

At the November 13, 2017, Town Board meeting
Commissioner Larson addressed the Board under Citizen Business.
Without mentioning any names, Commissioner Larson reiterated the
chain of events that transpired before the Hearing started.

Ms. Petter and her attorney entered the client/attorney conference
room located just outside the Court Room and behind a closed door.
At one point, Ms. Petter opened the outer door and motioned for
Mr. Hansen to join her in the conference room.

I did not notice Ms. Petter's attorney leave the conference room,
but it is possible that he did so at some point. It is also possible
that from the conversation I had with Commissioner Larson, she
assumed the attorney was in the conference
 room with Ms. Petter.

Commissioner Larson addressed the Board
at the November 13, 2017, Town Board
 meeting. Commissioner Larson referenced
the Hearing at the Hastings Government Center
without mentioning any names. She asked the Board to engage in a
dialogue regarding biases and possible conflict of interest when public
officials are making decisions on issues.

Mr. Hansen rudely interrupted Commissioner Larson and
"STEPPED IN IT," stating that he had a right to speak
and "defend himself." He stated that he was never in the
conference room with Ms. Petter and her attorney.  However,
he failed to state that he did join Ms. Petter in the conference
room. (During the following February 12, 2017, Hearing in
the Town Hall, Ms. Petter did state that Mr. Hansen joined her
but her attorney was not present and when he returned he asked
Mr. Hansen to leave).

In my opinion, as a Eureka Supervisor, Mr. Hansen represents
Eureka Township; especially in litigation matters. I question
the behavior and judgment of Mr. Hansen at the Hastings
Government Center.

There are reasons to believe the Town Board and Planning
Commission should engage in a discussion regarding recusal
and conflict of interest as Commissioner Larson suggested.

The following refers to the above issue in particular:

Mr. Hansen represented Ms. Petter at Town Board meetings on
May 11, 2016 and March 13, 2017. (Information taken from
Town Board minutes).

On January 07, 2017, Mr. Hansen came before the Board and
inquired about the amended Judgment for Eureka vs. Terri Petter
as it pertains to property owners regarding retail sales. (Information
was taken from the Town Board minutes).

On March 06, 2017, Mr. Hansen appeared before the Planning
Commission representing Ms. Petter on a Building Rights
Transfer. (Information taken from the Planning Commission
minutes).

In March of 2013, Mr. Hansen stopped by Mr. Becker's office
(Dakota County) and asked him to send an email to the Eureka
Township clerk that clarifies the process for reviewing Terri
Petter's proposed "hog barn." (Information from Dakota County
records).

On Thursday, April 28, 2011, Ms. Petter attended the Vermillion
River Watershed Joint Powers Board Meeting regarding a
permit application. "Chuck Hansen" attended the meeting also as
the "Permit Applicant's Builder." (Information taken from the
Vermillion River Watershed Joint Powers Board Meeting minutes).

In my opinion, I believe it is quite rich to believe that Mr. Hansen,
a Eureka Township Supervisor who attended closed Petter/Eureka
Township litigation meetings, does not give an appearance
of a bias and conflict of interest.

    Following the November 13, 2017,
Town Board meeting, Mr. Hansen verbally complained to the Town
Board that Commissioner Larson  slandered him at the November 13
Town Board meeting and asked for her removal from office. He also
stated that there was a conspiracy against him by other Planning
Commissioners. (There was no conspiracy as Commissioner Larson 
received her information from me and perhaps as stated previously,
misunderstood the details I provided).

There were also written complaints filed by two Eureka citizens
asking for Commissioner Larson's removal from office. None of
the three complaints offered written facts to support their
complaints to remove Commissioner Larson for Just Cause.
    
                           

On February 12, 2017, the Town Board held an open meeting
Hearing attended by citizens, Commissioner Larson, Mr. Hansen
and Attorney Lemmons. Mr. Hansen and Commissioner Larson
both spoke before the Board. Nancy Sauber and I spoke on behalf
of Commissioner Larson; Al Novacek and Terri Petter spoke on
behalf of Mr. Hansen.

After the Board discussion, Mr Hansen joined the Board of
Supervisors. He made a motion to remove Commissioner Larson
from the Planning Commission. Supervisor Jennings recused
herself as she missed the first 45 minutes of the Hearing.
Supervisors Hansen and Rogers voted to remove Commissioner
Larson and Supervisors Palmquist and Barfknecht voted NAY.
Thus this was a tied motion and it failed.

Commissioner Larson will not be removed from the Planing
Commission.  There was no Just Cause.

In my opinion, there was not one scintilla of evidence in the
three complaints that would justify the removal of Commissioner
Larson. Perhaps a few hurt feelings, but no substantial evidence
was submitted to show that Commissioner Larson's intent
was malicious and slanderous.
       
                       

                                     
Past Supervisor Beverly Topp, past Planning Commissioner
and present Supervisor Carrie Jennings, past 
Commissioner and present Supervisor Lu Barfknecht, 
Commissioner Nancy Sauber, past Supervisor Gloria Belzer
and Commissioner Julie Larson have been "targets" of
complaints or a law suit.

In my opinion, there appears to be a handful of citizens who
have issues with intelligent women in leadership positions
in Eureka government. Baseless accusations and frivolous
complaints regarding women has been going on for
years in this Township.

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