FLT Fiefdom for Sale?

After suffering a major defeat in the November District 5 Chisago County Commissioner election, Fish Lake Township (FLT) Supervisor and Board Chair Bob Carter has set his sights on a new target. Carter is challenging incumbent Craig Mold of Rushseba Township for appointment as the District 5 representative to the Chisago County planning commission.

The Chisago County planning commission is comprised of seven county residents, one from each of the five geographical districts and two “at-large” members. One county board member serves as a planning commission liaison, but without voting rights. Planning commission members are appointed by a majority vote of the county board and serve a three-year term. In January 2009, Districts 3 and 5 terms expire and will be up for re-appointment. District 2 and both “at-large” positions renew in January 2010, while Districts 1 and 4 renew in January 2011. County board members have traditionally supported the planning commission citizen appointee choice of the corresponding district commissioner.

Seven members who reside in diverse regions of the county exceptionally balance the current planning commission geographically. Representation includes some current township supervisors such as the “at-large” member from Fish Lake Township. As the second of three Fish Lake Township supervisors, what would Bob Carter bring to the county planning commission?

1.) A quorum of FLT supervisors
2.) Redundant representation of FLT
3.) Conflicts of interest for FLT
4.) Open Meeting Law violations for FLT
5.) Public disclosure of financial contributors to Carter’s county commissioner campaigns?
6.) Adversarial interactions with District 5 County Commissioner opponent and current planning commission liaison Mike Robinson?
7.) A dark cloud of suspicion regarding Carter’s planning commission appointment despite the vote against him from his home District 5 Commissioner Robinson?

In the recent words of District 4 County Commissioner and attorney Ben Montzka, “Open Meeting Law has been interpreted to bar any quorum of duly sworn-in elected officials from meeting together…..…I heartily support the idea of open government that our Open Meeting Law is designed to protect.”

Appointment of Carter to the county planning commission would result in a quorum of Fish Lake Township supervisors present at every county meeting. To circumvent this issue, will Carter relinquish his Fish Lake Township supervisor “fiefdom” for a county planning commission seat?

Candidate Carter Epilog

Won the Battle, but Lost the War

Although Candidate Carter narrowly won the battle for his home township of Fish Lake (524 to 500), he suffered another major defeat in the 11/04/2008 District 5 Chisago County Commissioner race. In stark contrast to an election year where “change” was a universal campaign statement and ousting incumbents was the political norm, incumbent Robinson delivered a resounding 2525 to 1420 defeat of Candidate Carter.

Once again the District 5 voters have spoken and once again history repeats itself. Incumbent Mike Robinson has been re-elected to serve a third, four-year term as District 5 Chisago County Commissioner.

What does the future hold for defeated candidate Bob Carter?

Carter Campaign “Strategy” #11

Save Face

District 5 Candidate Carter initially joined forces with District 3 Candidate Jonathan Glassel to launch a military style campaign aimed to oust incumbents. Their combined campaign marketing blitz first began in March 2008 as a blog titled, “South County Epitaph.” After many on-line articles, a “special edition” hard copy publication was distributed in late September to incumbent Robinson’s home town of Rush City. Indeed the initial public reaction was one of shock and awe, but quickly turned to anger and disgust over the obvious and repugnant smear campaign. Candidate Carter quickly responded to the backlash of negative public feedback by updating his campaign web site with a written apology and his personal “assurance” that he had absolutely nothing to do with Jonathan Glassel or his publication. Shortly thereafter a second wave of “Epitaph” mailings were circulated in District 5, some delivered to the same persons who had received the first mailing. The resurgent outcry of angry residents caused Candidate Carter to offer profuse “apologies” for the SNAFU at every public opportunity.

Perhaps the “shock and awe” campaign stirred the hearts and minds of uncommitted voters, or perhaps it reaffirmed the public’s negative image of Candidate Carter. Whatever the impact, the bold and blinding truth will be revealed by tomorrow’s historical election results.

Carter Campaign “Strategy” #10

Public Forum

Provided with an opportunity to outshine each other in the public eye, Candidate Carter and incumbent Robinson recently appeared at a local public forum. A moderator asked each candidate several prepared questions in alternating fashion and allowed them to respond within a specified amount of time. Two of the discussion issues were particularly noteworthy.

The first such issue was the contentious new jail/courthouse. Candidate Carter was first to provide a quick response stating that building a new jail/courthouse was “bad timing” due to the current economic climate. He further added that “it should be located in North Branch” not Center City. Candidate Carter did not provide any explanation or description of the lengthy legislative process required to move the county seat from Center City to North Branch in order to meet the legal requirements of building a new jail/courthouse in North Branch. Incumbent Robinson responded next by informing the public that whether the antiquated Center City jail was remodeled or a new jail was built would ultimately cost taxpayer dollars to resolve the current problem of an overcrowded, non-compliant jail. He did not believe the issue or costs should be compounded by attempting to relocate the state mandated county seat a few miles further north.

On the second noteworthy issue, each candidate was asked what measures they would propose to reduce or eliminate crime and vandalism plaguing the local area. Incumbent Robinson answered in part by suggesting that the creation of more local jobs would help alleviate the situation. When asked the same question, Candidate Carter initially responded, “I wish I knew.”

Carter Campaign “Strategy” #9

Evade, Evade, Evade

Recent editions of the Cambridge Star, North Branch Post Review, and Chisago County Press newspapers published a “Letter to the Editor” from Robert Pearson of Rush City and Candidate Carter’s response. In the letter, Pearson asked Candidate Carter to answer some disturbing questions about a ~$234,000 joint road paving project between Nessel and Fish Lake Townships. To accomplish the Joint Powers Board (JPB) project, Supervisor Carter served as the JPB representative for Fish Lake Township and Supervisor McKenzie served as the JPB representative for Nessel Township.

One particularly poignant question from Pearson asked, “Why did Supervisors McKenzie and Carter approve and sign a paving contract to spend ~$234,000 outside of an open public meeting?” Candidate Carter responded, “Supervisor McKenzie and I, acting under the Joint Powers Agreement, authorized by our respective town boards, signed the paving contract after it was reviewed by both boards. I signed the agreement on June 11, 2007 at a regular township board meeting. Mr. McKenzie signed it at a properly noticed meeting on June 19, 2007.”

A comprehensive review of the approved, Fish Lake Township meeting minutes for June 11, 2007 reveals some inconsistencies with Candidate Carter’s recollection of the facts. While the meeting minutes do not document any board decision or action taken on a ~$234,000 paving contract, they do state, “Chair Carter signed the agreement and notice to proceed on the Blue Heron Trail Paving Project..”

A simple review of the two disputed documents and time lines removes all doubt. The Blue Heron Trail paving contract was signed by both Supervisors Carter and McKenzie on November 15, 2006, approximately 7 months before the Joint Powers Agreement document was signed by either in June 2007.

Perhaps an even more disturbing question arises;
Why would Candidate Carter attempt to mislead the public?

Carter Campaign “Strategy” #8

Ask the Tough Questions

The onslaught of Candidate Carter’s campaign to unseat incumbent Robinson has raised many political issues. Candidate Carter has supplied voters with a list of 10 questions and challenged them to ask incumbent Robinson for answers. Perhaps Candidate Carter could answer the following 10 questions regarding his 11 year reign as a Fish Lake Township Supervisor and Board Chairman;

1.) Why did you sign a $234,000 paving contract for Blue Heron Trail outside of an open public meeting?

2.) Why did you ignore $50,000 offered by the DNR to help pay for paving Blue Heron Trail? Why weren’t the subordinate service district (SSD) taxpayers that were paying for this project informed or consulted?

3.) How can you criticize the county for the recently completed shouldering work on Stark Road when you compromised the engineering plan for Blue Heron Trail by using black dirt instead of Class I for shouldering?

4.) Why have people coined 437th Street, the road you live on, as “The Million Dollar Road?” Why did you trade a township dump-truck in partial payment for this non-budgeted road improvement project?

5.) Why have you approved and signed final development hard shells (such as Andrews Acres) outside of open public meetings and without required town board decisions?

6.) Why have you routinely approved and signed township fire coverage and fuel contracts without required board decisions and outside of open public meetings?

7.) Why did you hide and lock away township records and documents from another elected township supervisor?

8.) Why has graveling township roads dwindled from 14,000 to 6,000 cubic yards from 1996 to 2006 while the number of gravel roads has remained unchanged during your reign?

9.) Why have township services been reduced during your reign while taxes have continued to rise at a rate of 7% per year for the last three years alone?

10.)Why have you never provided a vision for the future of Fish Lake Township or Chisago County?

Carter Campaign “Strategy” #7

One Chance to Make a First Impression

The impact of Candidate Carter’s campaign web site has reached 161 hits to date. While recent revisions and corrections have remedied most of the typographical and grammatical errors initially launched, today’s version of “www.bobcarterdistrict5.com” can not change the on-line public’s first impression of Candidate Carter.

Carter Campaign “Strategy” #6

Honesty is the Best Policy

After nearly two weeks of suspense, Candidate Carter’s campaign web site was finally launched. Riddled with typographical and grammatical errors, “www.bobcarterdistrict5.com” provides a telltale testament of Candidate Carter’s credibility.

Carter Campaign “Strategy” #5

Mobilize the Internet

Candidate Carter campaign signs began sprouting up along Chisago county roadsides on 9/8/08 bearing the brief message, "Bob Carter Commissioner" followed by "www.bobcarterdistrict5.com."
Lured by the expectation of lofty campaign promises and endless personal accolades, a quick glimpse at the web site revealed all. A simple, three-line message read, "Vote For Bob Carter for Chisago County District 5 Commissioner. We are working hard to bring you an informative and complete website. Check back soon."

Carter Campaign “Strategy” #4

Mass Marketing

“Dump the Good Old Boys. Elect Bob Carter” was the message printed in bold, half inch letters on a private publication of the “South County Epitaph” recently distributed in the Rush City area. Why its author Jonathan Glassel, a District 3 Chisago County Commissioner candidate, would team up with District 5 candidate, Bob Carter, is unclear. What is clear is that Glassel suffered a major defeat in the District 3 primary election on 9/9/08 and will not appear on the general election ballot in November. Not only did Glassel finish last in a field of six District 3 primary candidates, he garnered only 5% of the vote (77 of 1496). Apparently Candidate Carter hitched his wagon to a falling star.

Carter Campaign "Strategy" #3

Rebuild Burned Bridges

The Precipitous Event
When Fish Lake Township (FLT) Board Chair and Supervisor Bob Carter voted to re-key the town hall and outbuildings and change the “key holder” policy in April 2007, he had no foresight or vision of the future. Supervisor Carter’s angry, knee-jerk reaction came in response to a “Letter to the Editor” published in the Cambridge Star newspaper titled “Special Treatment for Special People?” Supervisor Carter blamed new-elected Supervisor O’Keefe for “leaking” information to the letter’s author and audaciously challenging his integrity and authority. Supervisor Carter vowed to prevent any further access to township documents and records by Supervisor O’Keefe.

The Conundrum
With only four months to go before the November 2008 Chisago County District 5 Commissioner election, candidate Carter needs all the political support he can muster to unseat two-term incumbent Mike Robinson. How can candidate Carter regain Supervisor O’Keefe’s trust, but more importantly his voter-based support?

The Solution
At the June 2008 FLT monthly meeting, the unwritten township “policy” of key holders was discussed. Supervisor Carter suggested that he and Clerk Andrea Nekowitsch purchase and install a large, new safe in the town hall at a cost of ~$2500. All township records and documents would be assembled and locked inside for “safe-keeping.” Supervisor Cupit agreed and made a motion to re-distribute keys to the town hall and outbuildings to all three supervisors (including O’Keefe) once the safe was installed. Supervisor Carter seconded the motion. The caveat; only Clerk Nekowitsch would have keys for the new safe and retain sole access to all township documents and records locked inside.

Carter Campaign "Strategy" #2

Amass the Anti-Incumbent Vote

Candidate Bob Carter initially challenged incumbent Mike Robinson for the District 5 Chisago County Commissioner seat in 2004. At that time, the anti-incumbent sentiment netted Carter 1083 votes against Robinson’s 2692. Surely after serving two consecutive terms, Commissioner Robinson will have accumulated more dissatisfied voters in 2008 than in 2004.

Carter Campaign "Strategy" #1

Put All Your Eggs in One Basket

This year there will be no primary election in the District 5 Chisago County Commissioner race. Candidate Bob Carter missed his window of opportunity to mandate a primary election by soliciting a third party to enter the race. Instead of procuring two opportunities to unseat two-term incumbent Mike Robinson, candidate Carter has only one, in the November 2008 general election.

......try, try again.

Once again Robert “Bob” Carter is challenging (second-term) incumbent Mike Robinson for the District 5 Chisago County Commissioner seat. Carter’s first attempt in 2004 resulted in a dismal defeat by Robinson (1083 to 2692). In fact, Carter even failed to carry his home township of Fish Lake (405 to 562).
What audacious campaign strategy will Carter employ to succeed over Robinson in the November 2008 election?

Fish Lake Township the next mark?

Appearing in the 1/19/2008 Cambridge, Minnesota, STAR newspaper "Area Crime Report," Chisago County Sheriff section, is the name of “Crystal Lee Guse.” Crystal, of Harris, Minnesota, is the wife of the only full-time Fish Lake Township maintenance worker, Gary Guse, Jr. On the surface, the crime report entry “writing a worthless check” appears rather unremarkable, perhaps just an unfortunate circumstance for Crystal. However; the true story is revealed in Chisago County criminal court file #13-CR-07-2454.

According to the criminal complaint, Crystal obtained employment in June 2007 with “Nature Rental Properties, LLC” of Forest Lake, MN. In mid-July, she began creating and forging computer-generated company checks made payable to herself. This continued until mid-August when she abruptly quit her job. Court records show Crystal created and forged 9 checks for a total amount of $12,535.55.

Crystal was subsequently charged with “offering a forged check–value greater than $2,500 in violation of 609.631 Subd. 3; 609.631 Subd. 4(2)” which is punishable by up to “10 years imprisonment and/or $20,000 fine.”

The court record summary states; “On or about July 12, 2007–August 15, 2007, Defendant, with intent to defraud, offered or possessed with intent to offer, a forged check(s), in an amount greater than $2,500, whether or not it was accepted, namely check number(s) nine checks in an amount(s) of totaling 12,535.55. These offenses occurred in Chisago County and Washington County, Minnesota.”

On a converging front, at the April 2007 Fish Lake Township monthly meeting, the two attending township supervisors (Bob Carter and Bob Cupit) voted to re-key the town hall, shop and garage, to keep township assets “safe.” The supervisors’ decision was, in part, prompted by an unsubstantiated complaint from Gary Guse, Jr. himself, who claimed to have witnessed an unauthorized person rifling through the clerk’s desk in her absence. The two supervisors also voted to provide new building keys to only the township employees; groundskeeper, hired clerk, and maintenance worker (Gary Guse, Jr.). Township supervisors would no longer have access to township records or equipment unless a hired employee accompanied them. Township employees would be “managed” using the hands off concept of “self-directed work activities,” a situation subsequently likened by others to “the nuts running the asylum.”

Will Fish Lake Township taxpayers be horrified and outraged when they discover and make the connection of Crystal Lee Guse to Gary Guse, Jr.? Considering the facts, would an investigative audit of Fish Lake Township be prudent? Does the township of ~2100 residents even maintain and manage an asset list? Are the township records and assets truly protected, or has Fish Lake Township unwittingly poised itself to be ............ the next “mark?”