I attended the Menahga City Council meeting on June 28th, specifically to voice my opinion on the funds spent on administration and some other issues.

For those who don’t know, anyone who registers before the meeting will have five uninterrupted minutes to express their opinion.

About halfway through my “speech” I was interrupted by the mayor who disagreed and stopped me from pursuing my line of reasoning, which was based on the fact that the person training the new clerk and treasurer was making more than anyone with experience had ever made in Menahga.

I felt that the League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) and an individual who previously held this position in Menahga would be a much more cost-effective option for on-the-job training.

I suggested to the mayor that we meet and she could correct me if I am wrong. However, that meeting never took place.

I also “stepped on the toes” of another Council member, as I will explain later.

At the same meeting, a closed session was opened when Councillor Jody Bjornson was accused of code of conduct violations and asked that the public be allowed to continue to attend.

The rest of the council was aware of the complaint, but Bjornson was simply told that a complaint had been received and that they would investigate the matter within 30 days as required.

As I stood up to leave the meeting, I found Councilman Mike Netland, nose to nose as they say. He said I had misquoted his statement from a previous meeting. He was quite agitated. This was witnessed by about half a dozen people and was recorded at City Hall, although without audio.

I filed a Code of Conduct complaint the next day and requested a copy of the video of that public meeting in a public place. At first, they didn’t comply with the video request because they had to talk to their attorney. They talk to the city attorney a lot.

The July 29 meeting was well attended, with many people supporting Bjornson because of his support of Menahga taxpayers.

When the agenda turned to the complaint against him, he again demanded a public meeting.

The city attorney was present via Zoom and explained the code of conduct to the councilors, made strong suggestions and had already sent copies of his opinion on where to pin the defendant. This was evident, because the council was busy noting the highlighted areas and crossing out some of the alleged violations while deciding what should happen as a consequence of Bjornson’s actions.

Eventually they let Bjornson speak. He had no legal representation. He showed emails to the plaintiff, City Clerk and Treasurer Brett Gagnonpalick, in which he stated that he felt Gagnonpalick was doing a good job. He and Gagnonpalick confirmed that they had had a conversation in which Bjornson said he hoped Gagnonpalick would stay in the job for 10 years. (Gagnonpalick felt humiliated because one email suggested as evidence that some things might change in January if there was a new mayor.)

At this point, the council could have made a recommendation and asked Björnson to apologize or something of that nature, but instead his fate will be decided by the next council meeting in August.

At the end of the July 29 meeting, to my surprise, there was a closed session for Netland. I guess the lawyer’s clock was running.

It was handled very differently than what I just described. Netland was informed of the complaint. The council and the lawyer watched the video with the sound off, along with Netland somehow defending his aggressive actions towards me, and they swept the matter under the rug. Done deal. A meeting.

It appears to me and others that the City Council is pursuing proceedings against Bjornson because he said he would run for mayor and they are trying to make that impossible.

If council members can interrupt and verbally attack someone during their five minutes for presenting facts, the Menahga City Council has become something I don’t understand. It also makes no sense to have two completely different ways of handling complaints. Netland’s actions are forgiven, but Bjornson has to endure three separate meetings?

The $2,000 (just an estimate) spent on two complaints that should have been handled by the council itself represents 20% of the entire legal budget five years ago. (Again, contact the LMC.)

Note to those affected, citizens and taxpayers: Don’t mess with this advice!