Hawk Creek meeting case ends as parties 'agree to disagree'

WILLMAR -- An out-of-court settlement over an alleged Open Meeting Law violation will allow both sides to continue to disagree.

Owen Gustafson of Maynard alleged that Jeffrey Lopez, a Chippewa County commissioner, violated the Open Meeting Law when he hosted a meeting in Willmar prior to a controversial decision on a bridge over Hawk Creek. Lopez hosted the meeting as the chairman for a joint ditch authority.

In the settlement, Lopez has maintained his innocence and states that no violation of the Open Meeting Law occurred.

The Minnesota Counties Insurance Trust -- which is an insurance provider for counties and other eligible government bodies -- has agreed to reimburse Gustafson $3,567.87 for his attorney and filing fees.

Gustafson maintains his position that a violation of the Open Meeting Law occurred.

The settlement was made public by both parties in interviews with the Tribune on Friday and Monday.

Gustafson charged in his civil lawsuit that a quorum of the authority for Joint Ditch 7, or Hawk Creek, had attended a Feb. 16 meeting held in Willmar and organized by the defendant. The meeting was held without proper notification of the public, according to the civil suit.

The Open Meeting Law, which generally requires that public bodies conduct their business in public, also specifies how the public is to be notified of regular meetings and special meetings.

Lopez is chairman of the Joint Ditch 7 Authority, which includes two county commissioners from Chippewa County, two from Kandiyohi County, and one from Renville County.

Gustafson said he is convinced that the meeting was held to line up support for a vote to proceed with replacing a bridge in Lone Tree Township in Chippewa County with a bridge, rather than with a less costly culvert system recommended by the project's engineers. The Willmar meeting was held nine days before the Joint Ditch Authority was scheduled to make its decision, although that meeting was subsequently rescheduled to April 15.

Gustafson charged that the decision on April 15 "was a done deal'' as a result of the Willmar meeting. "It was obvious when you came to that meeting you went to the second day of class,'' said Gustafson.

Gustafson said that the only written notes kept of the Willmar meeting showed that the discussion focused largely on the winter flow conditions in Hawk Creek, ice buildup and bridges.

The threat of ice buildup was cited as the reason for installing a bridge instead of a culvert. The notes had been kept by Mel Odens, Willmar public works director, who was among the 12 people listed as attending the meeting.

Gustafson said nearly all of the letters of support the Joint Ditch Authority ultimately received in favor of a bridge came from people who had been at the Willmar meeting, or from communities that had a representative there.

Gustafson said he initiated the Open Meeting lawsuit in the hope that it would allow him to have the action at the April 15 meeting invalidated as the product of tainted fruit. He would like to see the issue discussed in a public forum and a new vote held.

Gustafson said he agreed to settle the lawsuit when his attorney's research showed that the Open Meeting Law does not provide a mechanism to invalidate actions. "You just can't do that,'' said Gustafson.

The most he could hope for from a victory in court was the reimbursement of his costs, and the assessment of a $300 fine against the defendant, Jeffrey Lopez.

Lopez said he has subsequently learned that he walked into some "fuzzy and gray'' area of the Open Meeting Law when he hosted the Willmar meeting. He now believes he should have placed a larger notice about the meeting in the downstairs entry of the Willmar Public Library. A small sign was posted outside the meting room itself.

He pointed out that the meeting was on the second floor of the library, which is a public place, with a clear glass wall facing the upstairs lobby. The doors were open at all times to the public.

Lopez emphasized that along with not violating the law, he had no intention of doing so.

He also refutes Gustafson's assertions about the purpose of the meeting. The meeting was held as an opportunity to discuss regional development and where things will be five, 10 and 15 years from now. It was held for community leaders and anyone else who may be interested, Lopez said.

"I invited people that are involved in this and have an interest in regional growth and where our region and communities are going and what (they will be) doing,'' said Lopez.

He said that a majority of the people who attended the meeting agree with him that no violation of the Open Meeting Law occurred. There was no attempt to predetermine or steer anything regarding the decision on the bridge, Lopez said.