Home Page

Opinion

News from a Nessel resident

To the editor:
For those of you who were wondering how the town board could go ahead and build a building after the citizens had voted it down, the answer is-they can not.
This started over a year ago when the board said they needed a new township garage, because the old garage was old and run down. Also, that they needed more storage space for the equipment. They held an open house to show us how crowded they were. They had the main building jammed full of equipment, but I climbed over the snow banks to look in the pole barn, and found it empty, except for two small pieces of equipment.
Then they told us that if OSHA came out, they would padlock the building (more on that later). Then they called in the building inspector from the county and told us it would cost $97,000 to bring the garage up to code. When we asked to see a list of the code violations, they did not have one and still do not. Question: Is the building inspector going to check all township buildings in the county, plus the county buildings to bring them up to code, or just Nessel?
In the next election, they put it on the ballot as an ìadvisory ballot.î It was voted down, ñ 143 to 81. They did not want to accept the vote and spent about $600 to find an attorney who would give them a way around the vote. At that time they were told there was no such thing as an advisory ballot. Their attorney said that since there was another vote, they could go ahead. There was no other vote. They claimed the $35,000 in the budget that they were going to tax us for five years represented a vote. It did not. The township manual states that the ìBoard can not build a building unless the voters approve it.î They proceeded to let bids out and spent over $10,000 preparing the building site. (About $1,244 of it are for lawyerís fees.)
Then the annual meeting in March 2002, the talk of OSHA came up again, but there were two women in the audience who had run businesses and had dealt with OSHA. They disagreed with the board, that OSHA would padlock the building. They said OSHA would come in and consult with you, tell you what has to be fixed, and give you ample time to fix it. It was decided that OSHA be invited in. Prior to OSHAís arrival, after the monthly meeting, citizens were invited to again look at the garage. It appeared not as crowded as the first time, so one had to assume they were finally using the pole barn for storage. There was, however, a sewing machine and other household goods in boxes being stored there at the time. A group of five concerned citizens, along with two board members, were present when OSHA did the inspection. The building was found to be sound and there were only minor safety violations, easily fixed.
Finally, a group of concerned citizens got money together and hired their own attorney, who sent the board a letter. It included: 1. There is no such thing as an advisory ballot in the state of Minnesota. 2. The electors must give the vote, permission to build a building and must authorize the money for it. In other words, they cannot build it without both of these components in place. This is an Attorney Generalís ruling from 1953.
So, so far they have spent over $10,000 of taxpayerís money on a building they did not have the authority to build and now have gone back to their attorney again, (more taxpayerís money) to see what their options are to go ahead and build. They have decided to put out a flyer to every household, restating their case for a new garage. Then they will hold a hearing and put it back on the ballot in the general election on Nov. 5. They can do this legally, but at what cost of the taxpayerís money? All this for a garage that is not needed.
It is time for a change. For honest and open government, on Nov. 5 please vote for Ray Henderson, Helen Leier and Stan Iskierka for the Nessel Township Board.
Thomas L. Hennemann
Rush City, MN

Top of Page

©ECM Post Review

6448 Main Street
North Branch, MN 55056
Telephone: 651-674-7025
Fax: 651-674-7026
E-mail: editor.postreview@ecm-inc.com