Over the past few months in Barron County there has been a minor controversy smoldering over the County Board Agenda. As with any small fire, if it isn't extinguished immediately it will grow into a bigger fire. Thus, this editorial from the Rice Lake Chronotype.

Agenda issue getting in way

County board supervisors are the public's direct representatives in county government. So it seems reasonable to think that their concerns should be priorities for those who administer county government. But at times that doesn't appear to be the case in Barron County.

Of late there have been instances in which county supervisors have asked to have an issue placed on the agenda of the board's monthly meetings. Without a specific listing on the agenda, state law prohibits supervisors from discussing or acting on an issue. But county government leadership seems, at best, to be hesitant to deal directly with those requests. To outside observers this foot-dragging has the appearance of either obstructionism or ineptitude.

Supervisors are now questioning what it takes to get an issue on the agenda. The answers they've been getting haven't been reassuring. In fact, even those reportedly involved in that decision-making process have been seeking clarification about this most basic and critical part of county board governance.

It is literally incredible that County Board leadership can't give even County Board supervisors a straight answer on the agenda issue. And, if county supervisors are confused, what chance does the average citizen have of comprehending the procedures of county government? What confidence can they have that the county is going to be responsive to their needs?

It hasn't helped that two of the most recent requests have involved issues directly related to the job performance of administrator Duane Hebert. In one instance a supervisor has asked repeatedly for a closed meeting on Hebert's performance. In another, a supervisor asked when the board would consider a petition signed by 450 citizens calling for Hebert to be placed on administrative leave and elimination of the administrator's post. Hebert told that supervisor the issue may or may not appear on a future agenda.

The County Board's own rules seem to state clearly in Rule 2 that the board chair "shall decide all questions of order and the agenda" as the presiding officer for meetings of the board. The duties and responsibility of the county administrator states that the administrator, in consultation with the board chair, "shall prepare the agenda for meetings of the County Board of Supervisors." If there is some ambiguity or conflict in these two statements, county leadership should bring to the board a proposal to end this confusion.

The lack of action to date leaves citizens wondering just what is the "agenda" of county leadership.

Thursday, July 10, 2008

-----------------------------

The Rusk County Lake Classification Study and recommendations went to the County Board. The recommendation of enlarging the minimum shoreland lot size was defeated for a completely logical reason. The entire ordinance will need to be looked at after new NR 115 rules are completed. When exactly that will happen is totally unknown, but it is a foregone conclusion it will happen sometime in the near future. The following is the report from the Ladysmith News.

The board members ... were not in agreement during earlier action on proposals introduced after about a year and a half of meetings by the Rusk County Lake and Stream Classification Ad Hoc Committee, which was chaired by Bob Wiltrout.

It was approved by a 12 to 6 roll call with Tom Costello, Eldon Skogen, David Willingham, James Hofacker, James Platteter, Phil Schneider, Henry Golat, Roger Svoma, Wayne Stevens, Lucinda LaPorte Lyle Lieffering and Chairman Randy Tatur in favor. Voting no were John Stencil, Cliff Taylor, Gene DuSell, Tony Hauser, Sandra Roth and Phil Kaiser.

A motion by Phil Kaiser to amend the resolution so it would simply acknowledge completion and thank the committee instead of adopt the classification was defeated by a 12 to 6 vote prior to adoption of the original proposal.

Stencil said the classification was “based on not science but guess” and was just the start of a process toward more regulation and he could see no benefit.Tony Hauser said the whole purpose of classification of lakes was to “set the stage for future regulation and restrictions.”

Jason Gillis, a member of the ad hoc committee, made similar points and criticized the classifications themselves.

Cliff Taylor thanked the committee but said he could not support their classification plan. He said the population around lakes at Madison is 250 times that in Rusk County and said the ad hoc committee conclusions could be used by people developing Smart Growth in the county.

Board member Wayne Stevens said the classification was “something we can use in the future. There is no regulation in it. Any regulation would have to pass through the board.”

He said he agreed with Supervisor Tom Costello who described Phil Kaiser’s amendment as asking the board to tell the hard working committee members “Thank’s for turning it in. Here’s a cookie.” Costello also had referred to opponents’ comments at the meeting as a “little coup attempt at the 11th hour” after the ad hoc committee had worked more than a year.

Wiltrout addressed board members about the ad hoc committee work and Ken Parejko, a retired professor of biology from Sheldon who worked with the committee answered questions. “I think we had a robust system” to determine classification, he said, and maintained that the committee’s “science” which Stencil belittled was stronger than that similar groups in other counties. David Willingham said the county was “extremely fortunate to have someone with the background he (Parejko) had.”

At one point, Board Chairman Tatur cut short Stencil’s comments saying “We’re gonna move on John. You’ve got a minute and that’s it.”

A resolution from the ad hoc committee calling for the zoning committee to consider a minimum shoreline width of 150 feet for newly developed lots was amended to a recommendation, then defeated by a 10 to 7 vote. Wiltrout in comments to the board indicated that resolution had been forwarded because the committee had been asked to do so.

Sentiment seemed to be that such changes should not be talked about until new state law regarding resources is announced.

-------------------------------

The Great Lakes Compact has now been approved by the last of the eight Great Lakes States.

This AP article from MLive.Com explains where the Compact goes from here.

The pact still needs approval of Congress and the White House. The Canadian provinces of Ontario and Quebec have adopted a nearly identical document but cannot join the compact because U.S. states cannot make treaties with foreign governments.

Measures to ratify the deal in Congress will be introduced shortly, said David Naftzger, executive director of the Council of Great Lakes Governors.

More than 20 members have endorsed it, including Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain, the presumptive presidential nominees. Obama, an Illinois Democrat, said he would be a co-sponsor.
"I am committed to working to fully implement this compact to protect America's truly Great Lakes," Obama said.

Carl Levin, D-Mich., and George Voinovich, R-Ohio, will be the primary Senate sponsors. In the House, support will be led by Rep. James Oberstar, a Minnesota Democrat and chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

Supporters hope the pact will be approved this fall and sent to President Bush, whose administration has voiced no opposition.

The agreement outlaws diversions of Great Lakes water from its natural drainage basin with rare exceptions, while requiring the states to regulate their own large-scale water uses and promote conservation.