THE EUREKA NEWS!

April Eureka News!

If you attended the April Town Board

meeting you would have noticed that

the Township has engaged a temporary

Township Clerk. The Deputy Clerk

resigned before the April Re-
organizational meeting and the Clerk
resigned after the meeting.

If citizens are not able to attend the 

Township meetings they will find
that at this time there is not a
Clerk who will be posting the
minutes of the Planning Commission
and Town Board meetings on the
Township Web site.

At this time the Web site is not current as it hopefully was in the past.  This blog

will try and keep you informed as to the happenings in the Township.

On March 26, 2018, Chair Barfknecht called the Re-organizational meeting
to order. Before her lips could dry and before Supervisor Barfknecht
could explain the nomination procedure, Supervisor Ceminsky made a
motion to nominate Mr. Hansen for the position of Chair and Supervisor
Murphy for Vice Chair. The motion was executed so quickly, it almost
seemed like it was orchestrated and well planned. Butch second the motion.
Supervisor Palmquist nominated Supervisor Murphy as Chair and Supervisor
Barfknecht as Vice Chair.

There was much discussion as to the qualifications and reasons nominees
were interested or not in taking on the responsibility of Chair and Vice Chair.
It was felt by some that the Chair has the best opportunity of bringing a
team together.

There was, which seemed to be quite unusual, input taken from attending
citizens.

Donald Storlie felt that Mr. Hansen is the most qualified as "he knows more
about what is going on with the Board than anyone he knows." He also made
the comment that in the past it has been "like coming to a Town Board
meeting that Hitler was running." Imagine a citizen making a
comment that is so offensive! He stated he would appreciate it if "Butch
was put in as Chair."

Ralph Friedland stated he was in favor of Supervisor Murphy being selected
as Chair. He felt Supervisor Murphy would be unbiased and that past Boards
had allowed too many illegal operations to exist by ignoring the Ordinances.
Supervisor Ceminsky interrupted and took offense to Friedland's comment.
Mr. Friedland restated his intent.

Nancy Sauber commented that Supervisor Murphy would be more likely to
bring about harmony and unity to the Board.  She stated that the Ordinances
were written for legitimate reasons. She was very dismayed to witness
undermining and side meetings in the lobby. She felt Supervisor Murphy
would be neutral.
Supervisor Ceminsky once again took offense
and rudely interrupted Ms. Sauber and stated
that he wanted to be treated with respect.
In my opinion he was out out of line.

Supervisor Ceminsky felt that Butch would be
 "good" in a leadership role. "Butch needs to be
Chair; Tim is new to the Board."

Jody Arman-Jones reminded the Board that
she believes Supervisor Murphy's election
result was the largest majority in the Township that she could remember.
The citizens spoke and she felt Supervisor Murphy should be the Chair.

Supervisor Hansen spoke very highly of himself stating that he has always
been an advocate for citizens and stated there should be compassion for all
citizens. He felt the past year has been rough. In my opinion ALL
Supervisors should be advocates for All citizens. Those with integrity have
done so. However, there is one caveat; while advocating for citizens,
the ordinances, procedures and policies must be followed in order for
ALL citizens to be treated fairly.

Supervisor Barfknecht suggested voting for a Chair and utilizing one
ballot to vote for Chair.  After this position was filled and one nominee
was eliminated, another ballot should be utilized to vote for a Vice Chair.
Supervisor Ceminsky disagreed and wanted to vote as a group which
is what happened. A mistake in my opinion.  This led to much confusion,
Supervisor Murphy was selected as Chair and Supervisor Hansen as
Vice Chair.

The following were addressed and voted on by the Board.

Meeting Minutes and CD copies: Supervisor Hansen felt that the minutes
should ONLY be kept to motions and action. Supervisor Ceminsky agreed
with Supervisor Hansen. It is my opinion that citizens would NOT be well
served with such minimal information in the minutes. The minutes should
be posted on the web site for citizens who cannot attend meetings and should
include enough detail to keep citizens informed.  Supervisor
Hansen felt if citizens would like to be informed with more information
they can purchase a CD for $5.00. The Minnesota Association of Townships
has recommended not keeping the CD recording after the written minutes are
approved. For those who do not know, the Township must adhere to the
Data Practices Act. Both Nancy Sauber and Jody Arman-Jones correctly
stated that the minutes are the legal record. In my opinion, Supervisors
need to be able to access past minutes to prepare for future issues that might be
addressed. I hope this is not an attempt to keep citizens in the dark regarding
what is happening in the Township as well as their ability to hold their
representatives accountable for their actions.

Abstained ??????

Posting Place: Town Hall Bulletin Board and also
post on the Web site as a courtesy. Supervisor
Hansen abstained from voting.
No reason given.

Official Newspaper: Dakota County Tribune,
Farmington, Rosemont, Eagen, Lakeville and
Sun This Week . Supervisor Hansen abstained.

Official Bank:  Castle Rock Bank. Supervisor
Hansen abstained.

Town Board Check Signers:  Treasurer, Clerk and Chair. Supervisor
Hansen abstained.

Visa Credit Card Signers:  Clerk, Treasurer and Chair. Supervisor Hansen
abstained.

Financial Report Form: Treasurer will submit to the State after the
2018 Board Review at the March Town Board meeting.

Meeting Pay Scale for Commission and Town Board Members:
After much discussion, Chair Murphy suggested a small
committee meet to clarify and define various meetings, Supervisor
Hansen stated he is not into committees. Supervisor Palmquist
was asked to work on the issue and clarify. Supervisor
Hansen abstained.

Mileage Rate reimbursed:  54.5 cents for mileage reimbursement.
Supervisor Hansen abstained.

Town Hall Expenses: Authorized reimbursement for appropriate repairs.
Supervisor Hansen abstained.

Approval of Bond for Clerk: Bond comes from the Minnesota
Association of Township Insurance. Supervisor Hansen abstained.

Benefits Program: No one is currently utilizing the program.

Payment For Training Opportunities: Must have prior approval.
$50 will be paid per training plus the Training Session fee and IRS
mileage.

Professional Services: The Board voted to retain the Law
Firm of Kelly & Lemmons. Supervisors Hansen and Ceminsky
abstained.

Attorney Review Date: Prior to the August 13 Board meeting.

Other Professional Services: Currently the TKDA Planning and
Engineering Firm is being utilized. RFPs will be sent out to
solicit Planning and Engineering Firms to check on the current
status of charges.

Policies: Motion was made to approve the current policies listed as
ABC - 1,2,3,4. To avoid a possible Conflict of Interest, Planning
Commissioners and Board members should not be considered
for any work awarded by the Township.

Supervisor Hansen abstained from voting on 10 of the above, mostly
mundane and non controversial topics which are routinely addressed
and clarified at every re-organizational.meeting. Basic housekeeping!

Board Assignments: 

Fire Service:   Lakeville and Farmington - Supervisor
Barfknecht, #1; Supervisor Murphy #2

Roads:  Supervisor Ceminsky #1; Supervisor Hansen #2

Airport:  Supervisor Murphy #1, Supervisor Hansen #2

Dakota County:  Supervisor Barfknecht #1; Supervisor Hansen #2

Building Inspector Contact:  Supervisor Ceminsky #1; Supervisor
Palmquist #2 ((Contact Supervisors; not co-inspectors).

Town Hall Contact:  Supervisor Barfknecht #1; Supervisor
Ceminsky #2

Ambulance Service:  Supervisor Barfknecht #1; Supervisor
Murphy #2

Weed inspection: Supervisor Palmquist #1; Supervisor Murphy
#2.

Wetlands - DNR:  Supervisor Hansen #1; Supervisor
Ceminsky #2

Vermillion River Wastershed:  Supervisor Ceminsky #1; 
Supervisor Hansen #2

Professional Services:  TKDA - Supervisor Ceminsky #1; 
Supervisor Hansen #2

IT Consultant:  Supervisor Murphy #1; Supervisor Barfknecht #2

The Clerk Will be Directed to forward the Officer Form to the
Minnesota Association of Townships

North Cannon Contact: Supervisor Ceminsky #1; Supervisor
Hansen #2

There was much discussion regarding who should be the contact
person for the North Cannon Watershed Board. The North Cannon 
Watershed Board requested past Supervisor Carrie Jennings be 
appointed via a letter to the Township. 
Carrie was very involved in representing the Township in the past, is
very knowledgeable and a very good representative for the Township.
Ms. Jennings has been involved with One Watershed, One Plan
from its beginning.
Supervisor Hansen stated that this has not been done in the past.
Is it possible that he could think out of the box and honor who
is the best choice to represent the Township? There is no logical
reason why honoring the North Cannon Watershed request 
should not be considered. After all,  this is Ms. Jennings' 
area of expertise. Supervisor Hansen stated he was 
UNCOMFORTABLE with the Board appointing Carrie Jennings. 
He stated Supervisor Ceminsky won the election and it would not
be "FAIR" to Supervisor Ceminsky to appoint Carrie Jennings.
I am Not sure what that has to do with the Board decision. Perhaps 
personal! Decisions should be made on who is the most qualified
to represent Eureka Township.

Planning Commission monthly meeting dates and the request by
the Planning Commission members to engage the Attorney
at Planning Commission  meetings will be discussed at a
later Town Board meeting.

After the meeting adjourned, the Clerk, Mira Broyles, resigned.
The Township is utilizing a temporary person to help in the
office until a Deputy Clerk and Clerk can be hired. Please be
patient.

                                                 Stay Tuned!    

• 

                                           


.

DON'T LET THOSE PRETTY COLORS FOOL YOU...

About a month ago, you probably received some very colorful candidate mailings covered with American flags and other inspiring symbols and statements. On the surface, this can look so wonderfully rosy...HOWEVER:

A person can "wrap himself in the flag" and still try repeatedly to shut down another's right to free speech. Do rights evaporate because of dislike and disagreement? Do rights evaporate when the light of day is shed upon the outrageous things one does at a public meeting, always with the confidence that what you said and did will not show up in the Township minutes? Does the truth hurt when it's out in the open?

One can claim to act with integrity, yet apparently have his campaign flyers attached to the outside of mailboxes in lieu of required postage and contrary to federal regulations.. If that person doesn't respect federal authority, how are things going to go on a local level?

One can accuse others of "venom" even though he has told another he wants to "knock you off your chair." WHY? Because that person didn't agree with the opinion expressed or the action supported! Is a man threatening to knock another off her chair something one wants to see in a public official? Is this the level of civility in our Township today? I surely hope not!



One can accuse others of "venom" and yet enter baseless complaints against someone you simply dislike and don't agree with, about an event you weren't even witness to and which you have all wrong. But that doesn't stop you. Inaccurate hearsay appears to be good enough for your purposes. This constant and repeated effort to remove responsible people from office while falsely accusing them of impropriety and bad motivations should be alarming to you as a Eureka citizen.






Dr. Carrie Jennings, a person who has integrity, experience and knowledge and who has served Eureka ably and faithfully, was recently defeated in the Township election. She has so much more to offer than the person who was chosen over her ever will!

The person worthy of being your representative is the person who does NOT have a self-interested agenda in, say, Ordinance changes, who has respect for the law (our Ordinances), and who fully understands that, yes, a citizen does have a right to what is permitted under Ordinances, but that those Ordinances' processes must be followed and respected. That is what is fair for all and that is what should be followed by all.

Yet I have personally witnessed efforts (yes, plural) to push through certain matters for certain people in direct contradiction of Ordinance requirements. These very requirements were deliberately put in place, understood by at least some of the citizens on a task force, with attorney assistance, to protect the Township and avoid unintended and harmful consequences. These changes were unanimously approved by the task force, yet seem to be forgotten by certain people who were members of that committee. These very persons trying to push things through to look good to constituents (my opinion) have actually claimed to have "written" the Ordinance they seem to be so poorly informed about! Is this your idea of good government?

So don't let those pretty colors fool you! 

Sometimes it's just camouflage! What the true colors are is more important!

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.