In his Amery Free Press column this week, Bob Zank takes the entire County Board to task for going into closed session to discuss negotiation strategy for the sale of Golden Age Manor.
Mr. Zank does not mention in his column that Corporation Counsel Fuge, along with private counsel from the Riley firm in Eau Claire, advised the Board that the closed session was appropriate and legal. When a person (or the County Board) hires a lawyer to give advice, the best course for the client is to follow the lawyers' professional guidance. I'm a teacher, not a lawyer. I assumed then, and I assume now, that Mr. Fuge's advice, as well as the concurrence from the Eau Claire lawyer, was given in good faith, and that we would not be breaking the law by going into closed session.
Polk County Board members acted on advice of counsel when we went into closed session, and that's why the court today declined to impose any forfeiture for any Supervisor in this case.
I'll be looking forward to Mr. Zank's column next week, when he explains the court's ruling. Mr. Zank was there when Judge Harrington announced that we Supervisors had a right to rely on legal advice, and that forfeitures would be inappropriate because there was no intent to violate the Open Meeting Law.
I've been on the Board now for three years. By and large, it is, as Mr. Zank points out in his column, a pretty thankless job. But the occasional opportunity to make a difference and do something positive to help bring better government to Polk County makes it worthwhile for me. I'll continue to do my best, and although I probably have not made my last mistake, I pledge to work hard for the best interests of the citizens of Polk County.
In the meantime, Mr. Zank, as well as other concerned citizens, should attend a committee meeting once in awhile. The committes are where the County Board grunt work is done. Bob should drop by Land and Water, Lime Quarry and Extension Committee meeting. Human Services is another committee, which I chair, that addresses issues important to the County. Citizen attendance at these meetings is unusual. An observer who attends only the County Board meeting each month does not get a true picture of how the Board functions.
Some people run for office thinking that they're going to cut taxes and improve the roads at the same time. After they're elected, they find out how difficult it is to balance a budget. There are things I'd like to see changed in the County Board. I think we have too many Supervisors. I think we need a full-time Administrator. There are some people in County government who should be gone. Overall, though, the County is blessed to have hard-working people who are dedicated to the best interests of the citizens of Polk County.
New candidates for office are not encouraged when they read in the Amery Free Press how everyone on the County Board is essentially either an unrepentant criminal or incompetent. I don't think holding everyone on the Board up for public ridicule is a particularly effective way to drum up qualified candidates in the next election. There are several excellent Supervisors who should be re-elected, if they choose to run again. I hope that the negativity in Mr. Zank's column doesn't convince them that they should decide to spend more quality time with their family instead of shouldering the responsibility of public office, especially when that public service includes tar and feathers, courtesy of Mr. Zank.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
For some unknown reason, Mr. Zank thinks he is a reporter. At best he is a biased political columnist imposing himself as a repoter. I've watched him write the exact same thing about every board since at least the 90's. Don't waste your time. I've never met anyone who thinks little more of him other than "comic relief" and see how many times he can "report" something comepletely wrong, out of context, or misquote people.
Don't kill the messenger when you don't like the message. Zank and Swerkstrom (Osceola Sun) are echoing what many of us feel.
The efforts to sell GAM were from the beginning led by poor quality advice from lawyers and Co administration. Even the board's right to sell the facility was mis-advised.
If the board members are not willing to take responsibility for the botched process who should?
You should get new legal advisors in the future and try to recover costs from the bad lawyers.
The Co Administrator should have understood the law even if the board members feel they can plead ignorance. Mr. Drabek's advice appears to have been more accurate.
Of course, Judges, who are lawyers themselves, have to cover for each other--thus the ruling that you acted illegally but deserve no penalty would be imposed. Sort of like the "I was just following orders" argument we hear too often.
I am for open government. The effort to sell GAM has been a debacle from the start--and it is clear to those of us who followed the process that the intent of some members of the board and their advisors was to sell whether they were supported by the public or not! There was no opinion survey of the public.
The election of a majority opposed to the sale showed the opinion of the public.
Shame on all of you for trying to hoodwink the us. The judge should have said "your punishment for failure to follow the law is loss of respect for your judgment by the public."
When you started this blog, it was a useful place to visit, to see some of the action on the board in a new perspective from the local papers. But your postings have become so infrequent that I am driven to ask: what is the purpose of your blog? If it is to inform, shouldn't the postings come more often than every several months?
I'd like to respond to the Anonymous poster above addressing the open meetings law violation, the abortive sale of GAM, board members taking responsibility for their actions, etc. In the interest of full disclosure, Supervisor Diane Stoneking is my wife.
First, I agree that no one should be personally attacked, either here or in the Amery Free Press. Such personal attacks do nothing to improve the political dialogue. These attacks get in the way of rational discussion. Not only that, but when folks read in the paper each and every week that the entire county board is crooked, they will eventually give up hope in the political system, leaving the elections to those on the extreme edges of the political spectrum. That's not good for anyone. This is our government we are talking about. The dialogue should remain civil.
Besides, reading this fake outrage every week is tiresome, even mind-numbing.
The First Amendment gives Mr. Zank the right (and actually the obligation) to "tell it like it is". He needs to expose corruption. That's his job. But his job is not to manufacture corruption where none exists. The difference between the two is not too difficult to understand.
Regarding the Board's obligation to take responsibility for the botched sale of GAM, the measure passed by a single vote. While the Board certainly voted to sell the GAM, 12 Supervisors cast votes against selling the facility. Every Board member is responsible in the sense that the mis-guided attempted sale was approved by the Board. But does it make sense to vilify those members who voted against the sale? Is it too hard to distinguish between Board members who objected to the sale and those who supported it? Or is it proper to simply tar everyone on the Board the same broad brush? I don't mean to imply that those Supervisors who voted to sell the GAM cast their votes for any reason other than that they thought the decision to sell was in the best interests of Polk County. Misguided, perhaps, but certainly not dishonest or criminally culpable.
Even if a person was inclined to hold every member responsible, including the members who voted against the sale, doesn't it at least make sense to exclude current Board Supervisors who were not even on the Board when the votes were cast? Perhaps current Board Supervisors should bear some responsibility in spite of the fact that they were not on the Board at the time of the vote, but the rationale for that conclusion escapes me at the moment.
Suggesting that the Board "get( ) new legal advisors in the future and recover costs from the bad lawyers" is much easier said than done. Besides, were the lawyers and their advice "bad", or simply "wrong"? Many of these legal questions are not so black-and-white as the poster intimates. Mr. Fuge has to provide the Board legal advice "on the fly" on difficult issues that had not been addressed by an appellate court. He made the best call he could under the circumstances. His advice was not so obviously wrong at the time. Hindsight being 20/20, we know that the advice was not correct. This does not make Mr. Fuge a "bad" lawyer. Once again, it is not fair to personalize each and every action by Board members or their lawyers.
The legal advice provided by outside counsel regarding the sale transaction may be another matter. The purchase agreement was presumably the product of give and take over a period of time. Drafts were exchanged, changes were made during the process of negotiation. If the agreement is unfair to the County, the advice provided by outside counsel should be scrutinized. For example, why was there not an "escape clause" for the County in the event that the sale was declared invalid? Whether the County had the legal authority to sell the GAM was a matter of heated public debate when the County and the buyer were negotiating the purchase agreement. But that's a question for another day.
What can I say about the claim that the "County Administrator should have understood the law" when Polk County doesn't even have a County Administrator?
Mr. Drabek's advice concerning the open meeting law did prove to be more accurate. However, Mr. Drabek is not Polk County Corporation Counsel. How much sense does it make for the Board to reject legal advice from its lawyer in favor of a a lay person who also happens to be an advocate for one side of a contentious issue?
Finally, the legal profession conspiracy argument. It is true that judges are lawyers. To extrapolate from that simple observation the conclusion that judges have to cover for their fellow-lawyer golfing buddies is a bridge too far. You are entitled to your opinion. I have mine. The fact that my opinion is based on my 32-year law practice probably makes me a co-conspirator. (Heck, I even pal around with some judges who were classmates of mine in law school.)
So one man's conspiracy is another man's rule of law. But think about this for a minute: Board members have a basic familiarity with the Open Meetings Law. It's part of their training before they assume their positions on the Board. But, as I pointed out above, application of the law is not always so crystal clear. That's where Mr. Fuge's role as Corporation Counsel comes in. Board members turn to Mr. Fuge for advice on these close questions. Mr. Fuge gives the advice he feels to be legally correct and appropriate. In this particular case, he turns out to have been wrong.
Do we want to punish Board members who act responsibly, seeking legal advice and relying on it, when hindsight proves the legal advice to have been wrong? Should these people be vilified as "crooks" trying to "hoodwink" the public? Or did they do what any competent representative should have done under the circumstances?
The Open Meeting Law's answer to these questions is "no". Why? Because, for one thing, if citizen legislators were punished for their reliance on reasonable legal advice while serving on the County Board, I doubt anyone would be interested in running for election. But, more importantly, the Open Meetings Law is intended to ensure that the decisions made by State and local governmental bodies are the product of public discussion and not deals made in "smoke-filled rooms".
We're not talking Nuremberg here. Remember that the question whether or not a closed session was appropriate was at least fairly debatable. The Open Meetings Law was not intended to punish conscientious public servants for their good-faith reliance on legal advice that turns out to have been wrong. That's why the law requires proof of intent on the part of the public servant, and why good-faith reliance on legal advice negates any bad intent.
Post a Comment