February 10, 2010

Commissioner Gerard called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m.

Present: Commissioners Gerard, Ciesielski, and Hinz
Absent: None
Also Present: Lynn Tamblyn, WRCSD; Duane Erickson, Operations Superintendent; & Debbie Nelson, Administrator

Due to Hinz's absence at the December 09, 2009 meeting and Ciesielski's absence at the January 13, 2010 meeting, the minutes for the December 09, 2009 meeting were held over for approval. Gerard motioned to approve the minutes from the December 09, 2009 meeting as printed. Ciesielski had prepared and handed out his interpretation of "Correction to minutes of December 9 2009 Meeting" stating he would not approve the minutes without his list of "corrections" being made. Administrator Nelson explained that these are not "corrections" but rather Ciesielski's comments and explanations on issues that have been approved in minutes from previous meetings or otherwise documented. Nelson further explained that the minutes are compiled of her notes in addition to the audio tape from the meeting. Since Ciesielski is disputing the minutes he should challenge the audio tape, listen to the tape, and if the minutes are in error the appropriate corrections could be made. Discussion ensued. Since Hinz could not vote due to his absence, Gerard reiterated his motion to accept the minutes as printed, Ciesielski did not respond. Gerard stated that if Ciesielski was not going to agree to the minutes then he should state that he is not going to agree to the way the minutes were written. Ciesielski stated he was not accepting these minutes. Motion died for lack of a second. Gerard stated for the record that Ciesielski did not accept the minutes as he feels they were written incorrectly as far as the tape language is concerned. Also that Ciesielski has until next meeting to ask or submit a letter of request for a new special meeting or next months meeting to go over the tapes, listen to them, and correct them if in error.

Hinz motioned to approve the minutes from the January 13, 2010 meeting as printed, seconded by Gerard. Two in favor, Ciesielski abstained due to absence. Motion carried.

Tamblyn questioned how much the district commissioners are paid as the WRCSD commission is currently involved in discussions with State Representative Voss regarding the law that restricts their compensation, which is currently $50 per diem. Tamblyn was informed each sanitary district commissioner receives $333.33 per meeting whether in attendance or absent.

There was no "Old Business" to be discussed.

Gerard asked if anyone had any questions, comments, or remarks regarding the Commissioners Code of Conduct, a minimum standard by which commissioners should conduct themselves by. Ciesielski remarked this is for state public officials which the commissioners are not and there isn't anything pertaining to a sanitary district commissioner. Hinz commented that they were not going to approve this as he had the state statutes and none of the words matched. Gerard explained that this was not verbatim, but a compilation of many different sources which are not all listed and was meant to be informational. Gerard further stated that a lot is common sense of what you should be thinking about when you take a public office. If you feel nothing in this code applies to you and you don't do any of it then naturally you're not going to like what it says, however, if you tell the truth, your honest, and do things the way that things should be done then there isn't a problem. Tamblyn asked for a copy to share with his commissioners.

Although not on the agenda, Hinz wanted to know why Gerard had requested copies of his phone records via open records request with the clerk's office instead of having his request as an agenda item. Gerard stated his request was for public information, he does not feel that Hinz should have been made aware of his request, and since his request was not sanitary district business it was not a district agenda item. Hinz asked that due to the sensitivity of the records Gerard keep the phone numbers found in his records confidential. Ciesielski stated this is the first he is aware of Gerard's request and questioned why Gerard has made such a request. Gerard stated Hinz is a public servant and it is public information, furthermore it is none of Ciesielski's business. Ciesielski asked Nelson how long she kept tapes of the commissioner meetings. Nelson stated she believes back to when she started with the district in 1999.

Monthly O&M Report:

" LS 1 is tentatively set to be changed over to three phase in April.
" Erickson said he received the information for the WI Rural Water Conference after the agenda was closed so he is asking to attend under O&M. Ciesielski motioned to send Erickson to the Rural Water 22nd Annual Technical Conference March 23-26 in the amount of $155, seconded by Hinz. All in favor. Motion carried.

Administrator Comments:

" Nelson acknowledged Gerard, Erickson, Norm Nelson, Kelly Crawford, and Michael Erickson for their part in remodeling the kitchen. Nelson explained that it has been 10 years since the building was remodeled and other than some minor changes things had basically stayed the same. Nelson thanked everyone that helped stating it was great to work together to make this happen. Nelson invited everyone to take a minute to stop by and reminded everyone we are still in need of a stove to finish the kitchen area.
" Frances Koukol, who was a sanitary district commissioner from December 1986-April 2005, has her 90th birthday coming up. If anyone is interested in sending a card to Fran they could see her for the address. Gerard wanted to see a card and perhaps a nice plant be sent to Koukol from the district. Hinz motioned to send a card from the district along with a plant in the approximate price range of $30, seconded by Ciesielski. All in favor. Motion carried.

Correspondence consisted of:

" WRCSD Agenda & Minutes

Hinz motioned to accept the account payables. Ciesielski questioned if the "Check Register" is being considered and called the "Accounts Payable". Hinz and Gerard stated it was part of the accounts payable as the Check Register is one of several reports provided. Nelson was perplexed by Ciesielski's question as the same process for approving the accounts payable has been done for years (2002). Nelson pointed out and explained the different reports given to each commissioner for review: "Check Register", a computer generated report showing the date, check number, payee, invoice description, invoice number, and invoice amount for the checks processed for the meeting; "Waterford Sanitary District No. 1 Monthly Accounts Payable", a summary of the payables and additional payables; and "Waterford Sanitary District No. 1 Previous Monthly Accounts Payable", a report (added in 2007) listing check number, payee, date, description of invoice, and total asking Ciesielski if that answered his question. Ciesielski did not answer. Gerard asked Ciesielski to state his question again. Ciesielski said he was wondering if "you" were calling the "Check Register" the "Accounts Payable" further stating that he was not confused but rather questioning the verbiage being used. Nelson again explained the reports that are used in the approval of the accounts payable and said that if Ciesielski would review his information provided in the past he would find it to be the same (verbiage). Gerard called for a second to Hinz's motion. Ciesielski questioned Erickson on how many cell phones we have, however he was unsure. Gerard stated there are three phones on a group package. Ciesielski questioned why it didn't say Nextel & Sprint. Nelson explained the bill. Ciesielski seconded the motion. All in favor. Motion carried.

Hinz motioned to adjourn at 5:49 p.m., seconded by Gerard. All in favor. Motion carried.

Respectfully submitted,

Debbie Nelson
Administrator