A HEALTHY VISION OF THE FUTURE IS NOT POSSIBLE WITHOUT AN ACCURATE KNOWLEDGE OF THE PAST!, By Daisaku Ikeda

Engaging Eureka In Governance, A Look Into The Past!

The intent of this blog is to encourage Eureka citizens
who cannot attend Town Board and Planning Commission
meetings to become aware of the business of the
Township.

The many issues/topics that are addressed are from the
past and the present with the hope that citizens will
have access to information that might not be covered
or may be only summarized in the Town Board or 
Planning Commission minutes posted on the Eureka web site.



To access particular issues or decisions and comments
made by citizens, Town Board Supervisors, Planning
Commission members and the Township attorney,
click on the subject matter or names listed under
LABELS on the Right side of the blog.

To receive Email notifications when a blog is newly posted,
submit your Email address near the bottom right of the blog
page under "Follow by email."

MORE "BALD FACTS" FOR YOU

HERE'S ANOTHER WALK DOWN MEMORY LANE .... WITH ADDED DETAIL!

The following is an excerpt from a post on this blog written by another blogger.

DOES A PUBLIC OFFICIAL’S CHARACTER REALLY MATTER (Blog)

Commissioner Novacek, during a Town Board meeting, FALSELY accused Commissioner Barfknecht of improprieties. He actually went to her home... and 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. 

HERE IS AN EXCERPT FROM TOWN BOARD MINUTES OF AUGUST 12, 2013:

Public Comment Period...
Allen Novacek, 24030 Iberia Ave commented on the appointment of Lu Barfknecht to the Planning Commission. He implied that the votes were not counted correctly. 

The established procedure of the Town Board for appointing Planning Commission members and or voting on Chair and Vice Chair positions has always been by secret ballot. Township Attorney Chad Lemmons commented that the correct procedure would be to collect the votes and each vote be read into the record individually. In the future either a role call vote should take place or each ballot should be read into the record, one at a time. The Township attorney will write a memo on the proper procedure. 

Lu Barfknecht, 24585 Iceland Path commented on a visit she had from Allen Novacek relating to his comments tonight. She felt that things were being communicated inappropriately. 

A motion by Supervisor Kenny Miller: To put into effect the procedure that Mr. Lemmons has outlined and keep it on file for future reference. Motion seconded by Supervisor Brian Budenski. Motion carried by unanimous vote. 

Attorney Chad Lemmons commented on the vote for the Planning Commission member. Town Board members signed by written ballots, they were handed to the Clerk. The Clerk reviewed the ballots and informed the Board who received the most votes, which is part of the public record. The procedure followed with the minor exception that they should have been read out loud was proper. He sees no reason to reconsider it. 
A motion by Supervisor Pete Storlie: The Planning Commission appointment of Lu Barfknecht is not an issue. Motion seconded by Supervisor Brian Budenski. Motion carried by unanimous vote. 


Now here is what Mr. Novacek put before the Town Board (quoted with all errors intact):

                                                                                                                              July 07, 2013
There has arisen a need to address a serious matter. That matter concerns the most recent vote appointing a Eureka Planning Commission member (May 2013) The problem involves a dilema which points to scandal. I am very aware of the potential for innocent people to be hurt. Caution is needed in how this matter is handled. That being said, I cannot in good conscience remain silent on this issue. Through both random and later my own deliberate actions, I have been made aware of the probability, not possibility, that 3 members of the Eureka Town Board voted for Heather Martin but Lu Barfknecht received the appointment. Multiple explanations may apply but the appearance of scandal demands some form of investigation. The information I possess can be shared in whatever manner follows proper procedure to constructively rectify the problem. As of the above date, this document is submitted to Eureka Town Board members ONLY. If some resolution is not found and shared with myself (Allen Novacek-Eureka Planning Commission member) by the Aug. 2013 Eureka Town Board meeting date, I will make a public statement reflecting what I know about this problem. Please contact me if I can be of any assistance in resolving this matter.
    Allen Novacek-2013 Eureka Planning Commission member  c 952 693 XXXX
    w 952 469 XXXX

Here is Lu Barfknecht's reply to the Board that evening:

I received a phone message from Allen Novacek stating he would like to talk with me about some very sensitive things going on in the Township. He stated it would be wise for me to return his phone call.  I returned his call and he asked that I not discuss the phone call with anyone and ask if we could meet in person either at his home or mine. He also stated that I may want my husband to also be present in the event that a witness to the conversation is needed at a later time.   I suggested my home, as there would be less chance of any interruptions.   Allen came to my home on July 29th.  He started the conversation by stating he wanted to make it clear that he is his own person and not at the end of puppet strings directed or controlled by Butch Hanson, so if anything happens this is solely on him.  He also stated that no one knows he is at my house except his daughter.  I told him I kept my word and the only one that knows he is here is my husband and he is in the other room. Allen then gave me a piece of paper he took from his briefcase. I was very surprised by the contents of the paragraph.  Allen proceeded to tell me that through direct conversations with 3 Board Supervisors when he specifically asked them "why did you vote Lu back in" their responses were they didn't.  Allen also stated that Butch questioned the outcome as well, and that Butch and Terri Petter are both aware of this situation.  I asked him how they would know any of this since I was lead to believe that no one other than the Board of Supervisors, as Allen claimed, were aware of what we were discussing. Allen's response was that Butch and Terri were aware of the situation but that he hadn't shown them the paragraph that was meant for the Board of Supervisor eyes only - I assumed Allen followed procedure and sent his complaint & concerns on this through the Town Clerk, but it appears to me his communication was either hand delivered or mailed.  He also stated he and Butch almost came to blows because they had a disagreement on Allen's actions and I quote "no one tells Butch Hanson what he can or cannot do, you just don't do that, you don’t tell Butch what to do, everyone knows that” I told Allen that I had no knowledge of Butch Hanson or Terri Petter prior to becoming a Planning Commission member.  My first introduction to the two of them was in 2010 when they were both present on the application for the rebuild of her pole barn.  It was to be a pole barn with a dirt floor and a water spiket, nothing more.  That was my first encounter with the two of them. Allen stated some people could think that I had something to do with the outcome and the appointment was fixed.  My response was why would anyone think that, the interviews are done live, the votes are cast immediately after, and the appointment is made.  Allen's comment was "if you recall, when Nanette took the ballets she didn't even open them, she just said you won"  I did not recall that was what occurred and suggested a call be made to Gloria Belzer to ask if she has the visual recording of the meeting. Allen stated he did not want Gloria Belzer to be involved or in any way pulled into this. Allen's view on what happened was that one of the 3 Supervisors lied to him or Nanette made a mistake. So, Allen is calling a Township Supervisor a Liar or Nanette a Liar.  He indicated again, this could be a witch hunt and nothing may come of it and he knows innocent people could be hurt by it.  I advised Allen that I had nothing to do with what he is proposing happened or any involvement in what he referred to as a fixed appointment or a mistake.  I also advised him that Nanette would have no reason to "fix" the outcome and the integrity of the Town Board as well as Nanette and myself are being put out there basically to cast doubt on the outcome of the appointment.  If the Board of Supervisors does not want me on the Planning Commission then I shouldn't be.  Allen stated that the Supervisor's don't want to touch this.  I suggested the Attorney be contacted and Allen stated the Attorney does not want to touch this situation either; no one wants their fingerprints on this. Makes me wonder how he has all this inside information and what else is being communicated inappropriately. 

Allen stated that if he doesn't hear from someone, a Supervisor, within the next two days that he will be contacting Heather Martin to let her know what is going on, just as he did me so that no one is blind sided.  I did not agree with him, my advice to him was to wait for the discussion with the Board. He stated that he could not stand by knowing that a wrong was done to someone (Heather Martin) without doing something about it, even though this could be nothing more than a witch hunt.  Allen stated that when "we" he and the supervisors talk about “me” Lu Barfknecht, that the Supervisors don't really have anything bad to say about me as a person but they just don't like the way I vote on things when a motion is made.  He went on to say he would like to see my vote lean in favor of his direction and that he too "sometimes wonders why and where my votes on motions come from and sometimes, and I quote "I'd like to knock you off your chair".   Allen suggested that he, Heather Martin and I should all sit together before you (the Board) so that the people could see that there could be unification in the Township. I thanked Allen for coming by with the heads up so I was not to be blinded sided by his actions and told him I would call Pete Storlie since he is the Board of Supervisor Chair.  I also thanked him for not "knocking me off my chair". 

I did have a conversation with Pete immediately after Allen left my home.

(I also contacted Erik Hedkte with MAT.) 

Here is my opinion on the situation:

One can only assume that since 3 unnamed Board Supervisors along with Allen Novacek and Butch Hanson converse on a regular basis, the appointment would have been challenged by one of them at the time it was announced, it wasn't.  If the Eureka Town Board of Supervisors chooses to remove me from my appointment, then it should be handled accordingly per our Township Ordinance: Ordinance 2, Chapter 3, section 3:

Removal From Office: Vacancies

  Any Commission Member may be removed from office for just cause by a  

  minimum of 3 members of the Town Board, provided that the Member is given  

  ten days advance notice in writing of the proposed action of the Board and an 

 opportunity for a public hearing before a vote is taken.  In addition, any Member

 may be removed for non-attendance at Planning Commission meetings without 

 action by the Town Board according to the rules adopted by the Planning 

 Commission.

So if there is just cause to remove me from the appointment, then I will await the written notification from the Township and expect a Public Hearing.  I would also recommend the Board consider the removal of Allen Novacek for behavior unbecoming a representative of the Eureka Planning Commission in the Township of Eureka. He has voiced his dislike for Ordinances on several occasions, and he is unprepared and inattentive at regularly scheduled Planning Commission meetings.  One doesn't know if he will be able to restrain himself from physical violence should a vote not go in his direction on future motions.

Thank you for your time.

Lu Barfknecht

8/12/13



OF NOTE: Novacek did not attempt to deny or even to comment at that night's meeting on the above statements after Barfknecht read her response to the Board.

Lu Brafknecht went on to do a fine job on the Planning Commission-my opinion.

WHAT THIS BLOG PROVIDES FOR YOU, A LOOK IN THE REVIEW MIRROR...

This blog has already been in existence for a few YEARS! Tempus fugit! This blog serves to educate and update Eureka citizens about what goes on at your Town Hall. Unless you are there in person or have listened to the disc recordings, you might never have the bald facts!

Here are some of the more notable points made in various posts from the past.

Each of these entries gives the post title and date, so you can easily look these up for yourselves to read more. In my opinion, these excerpts tend to be about jaw-dropping instances whereby it came to light that some apparently do not have an understanding of even the simpler results and discussions of many topics important to Eureka and its governance.

On Friday, September 22, 2017, in the post "IS IT REALLY THAT HARD TO UNDERSTAND?" we reported the total misconceptions that former Commissioner Al Novacek had regarding the airport and commercial/industrial use. He was simply incorrect on three main issues.


Here is an excerpt:
******************************************************
At the last Town Board meeting, Allen Novacek had placed himself on the agenda as wanting to address the "Airport Issue." During the course of his presentation to the Board, Mr. Novacek stated that in order to be able to access the sewer interceptor to serve the airport Eureka would need to put 1,000 acres into commercial/industrial land.

Sorry, wrong. The Metropolitan Council would require that Eureka set aside 1,000 acres for (much) higher-density housing and other uses as well, not just commercial/industrial before it would even consider allowing access to the interceptor.  Such a proposal would require expensive planning and engineering work up front. And that does not mean that the Council would even accept this proposal after Eureka spent all the money since it sees Eureka as ag until 2040.



Mr. Novacek went on to say that making the northern portion of the Township commercial/industrial would provide a "buffer" to Lakeville.

Sorry, wrong. All indications from both the Commercial/Industrial Study and the recent Boundary Protection Study (which includes sound advice from other townships that have been in similar situations) are that putting such a use along our northern border would serve as an enticement for Lakeville to want to annex more of Eureka land, not to discourage it. (Uses such as churches along the border would be a deterrent because of the non-tax status.)



Another point made by Mr. Novacek was that "it has been said" that an area with fewer than 5,000 people is "too small" for commercial/industrial uses.

Sorry, wrong. No one has ever said this that I know of. What has been said in reference to  a population of 5,000 is that 5,000 is probably the minimum size to make incorporation as a city financially feasible. Since the County has different expectations of cities for road expenses than it does of townships, the resulting increase in taxes with fewer people would not be welcome. (I believe Sherri Buss, from TKDA, has told us during one meeting with her of one instance whereby an Local Government Unit (LGU) of fewer than 5,000 people did incorporate, but they agreed ahead of time that they were willing to pay the higher taxes. From what I have heard at Eureka meetings of all sorts over many years leads me to think that the Eureka citizenry would object to that.

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

On Tuesday, August 29, 2017, in the post "LET'S CLEAR THE FOG...OR IS IT SMOG?" we reported the odd idea that Supervisor Butch Hansen and former Commissioner/former Supervisor Mark Ceminsky put forward.



Here's an excerpt:
***************************************************
On a further note, it will be of interest to many of you that, again put forward by Mark Ceminsky and supported by Supervisor Hansen, another proposed resolution (reportedly to be used if the airport resolution mentioned above isn't adopted!) promotes the annexation by Lakeville of all the Eureka land north of 225th Street W. where it abuts the City of Lakeville!

So we've gone from being upset about likely losing the Airport to Lakeville as we have the Hat Trick/Launch Properties 98 acres, to wanting Lakeville to annex all the Township land north of 225th that touches its southern border! Does this make any sense to you? 

In exchange, Ceminsky and Hansen have proposed that Lakeville turn over all taxes for this land (for seven years), agree to pay all involved fees of any sort including engineering, pay to pave all of 225th, shoulder all future improvement costs to the road as well as plow snow from it in alternate years, (with no end in sight)-- also all at no cost to Eureka.

Note that this "resolution" states that Lakeville will annex the property north of 225th. Presumably, this would include the north half of 225th since property lines go to mid-road. (The southern half of the road would go with the properties to the south of 225th, again, presumably.) Somehow, it is envisioned that Lakeville would be okay with all this, pay to pave the road, pay for all improvements to the road going forward, and share its winter upkeep with no end date.   LIKELY??????????

What reason was given by Hansen at a recent meeting for why this would be attractive to Eureka?
...Wait for it...He said, "We'd get rid of all our problems."

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

On Thursday, August 10, 2017, in the post "GAG ME WITH  SPOON?!" one of the many attempts that Mark Ceminsky made to try to shut down this blog in spite of First Amendment rights was addressed.

Here's an excerpt:
****************************************************

Well, it happened again!!! At the August 7th Town Board meeting, during the public comment period, Mark Ceminsky got up and commented negatively about this blog. Since he is both a former Planning Commissioner and a former Board Supervisor, I personally would think he should know better than to complain about others' freedom of speech, but I guess not.

It seems this blog is distressing to him. That's okay. He doesn't have to like it. But it can still be here. Never mind that we have been through all this before with him and his "compadres."

See also October 20, 2015, "STIFLE YAHSELF, EE-DIT', STIFLE YAHSELF" on the same topic-and there are other posts on this as well!

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

Again, on the important topic of sewer and water in the northern portion of the Township, the Met Council has always been very clear.
Yet there are those who have spoken publicly and repeatedly as if the facts were never presented at all! I speak about Hansen, Novacek, and Ceminsky. Check out April 22, 2016, "JUST THE FACTS, MA'AM..." and May 24, 2016, "WHAT'S THE LATEST SKINNY ON THE AIRPORT ANNEXATION?" among other posts for details on this topic. Note the dates just given are from YEARS ago, and yet these certain persons have seemingly refused to take the Met Council at its word and seem to think that they can just ignore what they have been told.

Here's an excerpt following discussion with Met Council reps on March 29, 2016:
******************************************************

The document goes on to say:
"If the airport is served through a direct connection to the interceptor, the Council will expect land to be set aside for future development as described below. If additional property in the Township is to receive service, the comprehensive plan must reflect that, which will require a comprehensive plan amendment for both land use and Tier II components including long-term sewer service area." (I point out that this is not doable in the current updating, as budgeted and timed, but would have to come after it. The Planning Commission received no such directive from the Board.) "Furthermore, to serve [even just] AirLake Airport, Council policy requires that the Township identify at least 1,000 acres developable acres (not including the airport area) for future development in a long term service area. This development must include land set aside to accommodate the region's growth (residential land) and not just for industrial development."

As stated at the meeting, this would entail Eureka's changing from an agricultural to an urban township, which would include a number of requirements such as affordable housing from which the Township is currently exempt. The Council would expect a density of three residences per acre of land in those developable acres, it was said.

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

On the topic of officials recusing themselves, here is an excerpt from June, 8, 2016, "DOES A RECUSAL MEAN AN OPPORTUNITY TO ACCUSE???" I published this post after at meeting at which my very appropriate recusal on a topic led to a public questioning about my motives by a citizen. To question someone's motives after she has removed herself from discussion and vote on a topic is nonsensical in every way. If a public official were to have bad motivation, wouldn't one expect that official to "lie low" and discuss and vote on the area of conflict anyway?! Yet I was castigated for doing the right thing.  How confused are some? This topic of recusal has come to the forefront very recently, as you know.

Here's an excerpt:
*****************************************************
These comments come after an incident that took place recently at a public hearing in Town Hall.

When a Commissioner or a Board Supervisor recuses him or herself from weighing in on a decision before the relevant Township body, does this mean that something is amiss? Does this mean that the Township's interests are not being represented fairly? Does this mean there is a conspiracy afoot? Does this mean that you, the citizen, are being misrepresented or taken advantage of?

Quite to the contrary!!! What it means is that the public official is doing the proper thing to remove him or herself from decisions regarding a topic wherein it could be argued that there is a personal financial interest, however indirect, or even just the appearance of such a lack of impartiality. This is the public official being transparent about something of which you, the citizen, may be, and most likely are, totally unaware.

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

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.