Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Annexation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Dodgeland board rescinds prior action, effectively approving annexation after public conflict allegation
Summary
After public comment alleging a board member had a financial conflict, the Dodgeland School District board rescinded an earlier action and adopted a motion that effectively approved a property-annexation petition; the vote was taken by roll call and carried.
The Dodgeland School District board on March 10 moved to "clean up" conflicting motions from a prior meeting and, by rescinding one prior motion, effectively approved a petition to adjust school district boundaries.
A public commenter, Robert Trebel of Maple Road, urged the board to apply state ethics law and recuse a board member. Trebel cited state statute 19.591(c)(1) and said, “it is my opinion that board member Hahn … has a substantial financial interest” related to the petition to move several properties into the Dodgeland School District, and that the member should have abstained or recused himself.
At the board meeting an administrator acknowledged earlier incorrect advice about the voting threshold and apologized to the board, saying they had advised members in error about needing a 75% vote when a simple majority was required. To resolve the record the board considered motions to rescind either the earlier denial or the earlier approval so that one clear outcome would stand. The board then took a motion (mover: Bruce; second: Stacy) to rescind one of the prior motions; a roll-call vote recorded seven votes in favor and two opposed and the motion carried.
Board members and the administrator said the practical effect of the rescission is that the petitioners’ request is now approved and that petitioners retain any statutory right to appeal. The petitioner’s statement to the board included a valuation for the parcels on the petition ($1,893,600 as listed on the petition); that figure is reported here as stated by the petitioner.
The board did not enter any further findings on the allegation of conflict of interest during the meeting and no board member entered a formal recusal at this session. The board’s action was procedural to correct the record; any appeals or separate ethics inquiries would be handled under the statutory processes referenced by the commenter.
The board moved on to other business after the roll call. The petitioners may still appeal to the appropriate state agency if they choose.
