MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
MARCH 8, 2001
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chairperson Lehman called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Administration Building at 7:30 p.m. Members present were: Pat Harney, Mike Lehman, Terrence Neuzil, Sally Stutsman, and Carol Thompson.
COUNTY ENGINEER MIKE GARDNER AND ASSISTANT COUNTY ENGINEER AL MILLER: RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION FOR GRADE, DRAIN, AND PAVE PROJECT ON MEHAFFEY BRIDGE ROAD (JOHNSON COUNTY PROJECT FM-C052(57)--55-52); RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION FOR CULVERT REPLACEMENT PROJECT ON WAPELLO AVENUE (JOHNSON COUNTY PROJECT L-U-12-1); BID LETTING/NOTICE TO BIDDERS FOR JOHNSON COUNTY PROJECT L-U-12-1 (TWIN 10’X8’X42’ RCB CULVERT ON WAPELLO AVENUE SE IN SECTION 12-77-5); BIDS RECEIVED FOR SEED AND FERTILIZER TO BE USED IN CALENDAR YEAR 2001
Lehman: Business from the County Engineer.
Assistant County Engineer Al Miller: Items one, 2 and 3 under item A have to do with right-of-way acquisition for the Mehaffey Bridge Road grade and pave project from Sugar Bottom Road up to the causeway. One and 3 are pretty standard agreements. Item 2 is some right-of-way documents with the Department of Army and the Rock Island Corps of Engineers. What those include are some road easements for the project, temporary work area easement, temporary borrow license and a temporary well and mitigation license to authorize us to do the work up there. It also impacts the current project we have there to widen out the causeway and relocate the campground access road that we're getting started on. One thing I would want to tell you is the ground up there across the causeway is actually owned by the Corps of Engineers but they lease it to the DNR. These permits are with the Corps and they coordinated their license agreement with the DNR, so it takes care of everybody here.
Thompson: So all these things will be on for next week?
Miller: Yes, these 3 items will be on for next week for formal approval.
Lehman: OK. Any questions for Al and Mike? OK. Next item will be Discussion/Action Needed for the Right-of-Way Acquisition for the Culvert Replacement Project on Wapello Avenue.
Miller: I handed out a quarter-inch map to you that shows the location of this project. It’s 2 miles east of Lone Tree, and about a quarter of a mile south of Highway 22 on Wale Avenue. Basically, what it is, a bridge was replaced with a temporary tube that’s basically under capacity, and the water goes over the road every time we get about a 1/2 inch rain, and we’ve been dealing with the problem for quite some, and so have the property owners there. So, needless to say, the 2 people I have signed up for right-of-way here were fairly excited to do so.
Lehman: Questions for Al and Mike on that? We’ll see that next week in formal. Next item will be Discussion/Action Needed for the (inaudible), County Project L U-12-1.
Miller: L-U-12-1 is in the location I just described to you, and it’s replacing that temporary tube with a 10 by 8 by 42 foot reinforced concrete box culvert, and it’s located on Wale Avenue. We’d like to have you, next week, authorize the Auditor to publish a notice to bidders for that project, for a letting date on April 10, 2001. We hope to get that under construction about the 10th of May, or somewhere in that time. We’re looking at about a 6- to 8-week project there.
County Engineer Mike Gardner: With any luck, it will be completed by the end of this fiscal year.
Lehman: (Inaudible) you talk about the length of construction, they’ll come in and inform us of a detour. The roads are closed at the time? Some of these, I think, you’re going to be able to still use the road, some of them will have to close the road?
Miller: This one here, the road will be closed. Maybe what you’re referring to is the Causeway Project, possibly? We are doing the widening of the Causeway, and the relocation of the access road without affecting traffic up there. But this road will be closed during construction, and I’ve met with, obviously, both property owners and the 3 tenants down there as well, and explained to them on when we’re going to start. They’re aware of the road closure there. Like I said, they’re going to have a little inconvenience when it’s under construction, but they’re happy to see it get done.
Lehman: Long-term benefits.
Miller: Yes.
Gardner: Typically, we don’t have a marked detour on a project of this nature, a road of this type. It’s a fairly small traffic count, so people just find their own way around.
Lehman: Any questions for Mike or Al? If not, next item is Discussion/Action Needed on Bids Received for Seed and Fertilizer to be used in the Calendar Year 2001.
Gardner: OK, I passed out a bid tab from the bids that were received. We opened them Tuesday morning. We had 5 bidders. Low bid was Consumer’s Coop; bids ranged from a low of $24,164.50 up to a high of $31,875.50. There were a couple of the bids that had some errors on them. Those errors were corrected, and the bid tab in front of you reflects the actual totals of the bids.
Thompson: The corrected totals?
Miller: Yes. So Consumer’s Coop would be the low bidder, and our recommendation would be for you to award the contract to them.
Thompson: Who had it last year?
Miller: Gringers.
Lehman: They are…
Neuzil: Which is now Consumer’s Coop.
Lehman: They are one and the same now. Can you explain the criteria here? They post a bond until the seed is used, or the germination standards are met?
Miller: Each one of the bidders had to put up a proposal guarantee of $2,000, basically just to make sure that they would stand behind their bid, and so that a contract was signed.
Lehman: OK.
Miller: Once a contract is signed, the checks from the 4 bidders that did not get it will be returned to them. Then eventually, the $2,000 will be returned to Consumer’s Coop as well.
Lehman: OK. Any of you take samples of this seed, in case you have a problem with it?
Miller: We test it for germination and purity. There are specs that are required for both.
Lehman: OK. More questions for Al and Mike on that subject?
Stutsman: I’m OK with going with Consumer’s. Put that one for next week.
Lehman: OK. Anything other?
Miller: No, I don’t.
Lehman: OK. Thank you very much. Next item is Business from the County Attorney.
County Attorney J. Patrick White: No reports, no other business.
Lehman: OK.
Lehman: Next is Business from the Board of Supervisors. We have Discussion/Action Needed Regarding a Letter from the Eagle’s Lodge Requesting the Return of the Ten Commandments Monument, a Report from the County Attorney. Sally, did you have a comment you wanted to make first?
Stutsman: Yes, I wanted, before we get started with discussion on that, I wanted to clarify a quote that I made in the newspaper. I’m not placing the blame with the reporter; I misunderstood the question. Anyway, I said that I had gotten one formal complaint, and I did receive, as all the Board members, a number of e-mails concerning this issue. I just wanted to clarify that, that this wasn’t one complaint. I take responsibility for not understanding the reporter’s question.
Lehman: We do have some members on behalf of the Eagles here tonight. If they have some questions later on they’d be happy to ask, or if they’d like to address this. I know Terrence kind of took a lead in this. We received this letter. I thought maybe Terrence, you’d like to read this letter that we received from the Eagles for the benefit of the public.
Neuzil: I’d be happy to. The letter, again, was submitted to the Board of Supervisors from the President of the Eagles Lodge, Dale O’Brien. The letter states: "Dear Supervisors: I’m writing this letter on behalf of the officers of the general membership of the Iowa City Fraternal Order of the Eagles, RA 695, regarding the Ten Commandments monument in front of the Johnson County Courthouse. We have learned through recent federal court action that the monument our chapter donated to Johnson County in the 1960s is potentially in conflict with the laws of our land. To ensure that the monument will continue to be seen in the public view, to avoid any lawsuits that will ultimately cost the citizens of our county many thousands of dollars, and for the good of the Eagles and the county, we are requesting the Johnson County Board of Supervisors for authorization to give the monument back to the Eagles. We feel saddened that a monument so special to the hearts of so many, after 35+ years, has found a time in our county’s history where a minority of citizens can interpret, pressure, and threaten lawsuits against the majority. We’re equally saddened that the laws have evolved across the country where those of us who wish to preserve the symbolic message portrayed on this monument, and others like it across the country, are faced with an ultimate dilemma, either fight our fights in the courts, spending thousands of taxpayers’ dollars, and the dollars that the Eagles would otherwise designate for those less fortunate, or give in to the threats. We feel we have chosen the most honorable avenue, to have the monument given back to us, so that its message will ultimately be preserved. The Ten Commandments Monument was donated to Johnson County by the Iowa City Eagles, like many other monuments donated by the Eagles across the country during the same time, to provide guidance to our nation’s youth. The idea was developed by a Minnesota juvenile law judge, who believed the message of the Ten Commandments would express to youth one of mankind’s earliest codes of conduct. His goal was to speak to children and teens, hoping they and their parents would read, think, and act in a way that was consistent with the Ten Commandments and, in the process, reduce crowding of the courts and jails. The value of that goal is even more clear today. Unfortunately, as a society, we seem still to be going in the wrong direction in terms of values. The judge made it very clear that placing the Ten Commandments in our courts were to provide standards of behavior, not to promote a certain religion upon those who read it. We hope that this message, and what it has meant to the youth that it has helped, will not be lost. For more than 100 years, the Eagles have been leaders in the effort to make the world a brighter and better place to live. We speak with pride of our past accomplishments, and assist those that cannot assist themselves. We are fraternally and morally obligated to continue our causes. We should challenge all that will listen to find an organization that does more to preserve liberty, insist on truth, demand justice, and promote equality. The Eagles are hometown builders. We support our police and firefighters and others who protect and serve us. We fund research, in areas such as heart disease, kidney disease, diabetes, as well as cancer. We help raise money for neglected and abused children and for those who are aged. We are the Eagles, and we’re people helping people. We are an organization that looks for peaceful resolutions and fights for the community’s common good. We feel removing the monument from the courthouse and placing it back into the hands of the Eagles is for the common good of all of us. If you agree to return the monument to us, we would install it at our Lodge, with an appropriate ceremony. In fact, the negative presented by a selective minority could be turned into a positive renewal of our belief in the Ten Commandments, not as a religious monument, but as an inspiration for a life of values that truly make this country the great nation that it is. We hope that you will give favorable consideration to our request. We will be happy to work with you and the County Attorney to facilitate this relocation. We thank you, and your predecessors, who have for so many years, honored our original goal by allowing this monument to rest on the courthouse lawn. We are very proud of that monument." That is the letter that was submitted to the Board this past week.
Lehman: Thank you, Terrence. Pat, would you like to make any type of comments?
White: I will start by saying that I think the Eagles are to be commended for a very statesmanlike proposal, here. I recommend the Board honor their request. I do that with really mixed feelings, because the lawyer in me would love to litigate this. Someday, somebody’s going to take this issue to the United States Supreme Court. It hasn’t gotten there yet, but I’m not sure that that would be the best use of our time. I have said, I was the attorney who handled the actual court challenge that occurred in Johnson County back in 1978, and we successfully defended against an attempt to have it removed then, based on a 10th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals decision out of Utah. But the law has continued to evolve. What I’ve said a number of times in response to people who call me, or who stop by the building, or who write to me, is that the evolution of the law would suggest that if the decision to install it were being made today, it would probably be best not to have installed it on the courthouse lawn. That doesn’t mean it wouldn’t survive constitutional muster; I think the answer is, we wouldn’t know until the case were fully litigated and over. More recently, a 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, which is another federal district, deciding a case in Elkhart, Indiana virtually identical to ours. There’s some differences in context, about how the monument got there and where it’s placed, and I won’t go into that sort of detail for you unless you want to hear it, but there are lots of specifics about this. The reason is, the courts always say you have to look at each specific case in its context and content, and they all are slightly different. Many of them are identical as to what’s on them. In fact ours, I believe to be identical to the one that the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ordered removed in Elkhart, Indiana, last December. But the context is a little different. When they installed theirs, they had speeches by the proverbial minister, rabbi, and priest, and a variety of other people. And so I don’t know how a court would ultimately decide on this particular one, but my feeling, much like what you hear from Mr. O’Brien and the Eagles, is, I think we probably have more important things to do with our time. I’m not sure it’s worth the time and effort that it would take, particularly if they are able, as they seem to believe they are, to give a fitting site to it and to bring to it renewed attention and publicity for what were their original goals. So, my recommendation is that we honor the request. I would add one thing to it. I feel pretty strongly that if the Board chooses to honor their request, there’s going to be some expense involved. I feel very strongly that the County ought to absorb whatever expense is attendant toward removing it and returning it to a site of their choice, presumably at their own Lodge. Should that be the Board’s decision, I would be happy to work with the new Facilities Director to see that that gets done promptly and appropriately. I think we ought to, because the County made the decision to accept the donation, I think we ought to be responsible for whatever expense is associated with this. I’d be happy to elaborate on the state of the law, or the specific court cases in whatever detail you'd like, if you’d like any of that tonight.
Lehman: Well, normally, this is just for Board discussion. We have Inquiries and Reports from the public at the end of the meeting, but I think that with the Board’s permission I’d like to open it up to anyone to the public at this time who wishes to make a comment.
Neuzil: I know we have members of the Eagles, but I think the letter pretty much summarizes the Chapter’s thoughts. I have had the opportunity, and I thank the Board for giving me the opportunity to kind of work on this project. I’m really pleased to see that the Eagle’s Lodge was willing to extend their hand, extend their hand out to the County and find a peaceful resolution while preserving the integrity of the message on the monument. I’m pleased to hear that they’d be willing to take it back, that they’d be able to put it in front of the public eye at their location. I think that would be appropriate, and I want to also thank our County Attorney for providing the perspective and background that we are so lucky to have in Johnson County. People don’t realize the importance of the kind of experience and background that Pat has, and you truly learn it firsthand when you have an opportunity to work with Pat White on a project.
White: Thank you Terrence.
Thompson: I would certainly commend the Eagles for making a positive outcome to something that could have been very divisive in our community. I think that’s a very nice thing that they’ve done, and I certainly would agree, that we should pay for any costs in moving the monument.
Lehman: I’ve done a little research, and I had an estimate of around $300 to basically remove the monument. There may be some more cost to…we need to work with the Eagles on establishing a new base to put it on. But just the movement itself is about $300; this is possibly subject to more negotiations, too.
Stutsman: Where would this be relocated? On Highway 1?
Neuzil: That’s where the Eagles’ Lodge is.
Stutsman: OK.
Neuzil: It’s my understanding that the monument would be still in the view of the public, and hopefully in the view on Highway 1, even, even if it’s next to the Lodge.
White: I don’t want to speak for them too far, but my sense is to await a final decision to see what the Board’s feeling was and the Board’s decision. If you concur, then I’d be prepared to work with your new Facilities Manager and them, and determine where it would go so that we coordinate both removing it and getting it installed. I think there a couple of options in front of their lodge, which would work fairly well, but I’m probably not the right person to make that decision.
Neuzil: In some respects, it will be seen by even more eyes in front of the Eagle’s Lodge that it would towards the building where it’s currently located in front of the courthouse.
White: This, by the way, is a picture of it. I don’t know if the camera can pick that up. I’ve given Board members a smaller version of that picture, and you’ve got a separate page with the actual language on the face of it, that’s attached.
Harney: I as well would like to thank the Eagles for donating that to us many years ago. It’s stood there for a long time, reminding us all of, provided us all standards to live by, and I think that’s the intent of that monument. I didn’t see that one particularly as a religious overtone as much as I do the dollar bill where it says, In God We Trust. I think the Eagles have bent over backwards for us, and their willingness to take this and reconstruct it somewhere else, I’d like to thank them for that. I think that, reluctantly, I’m going to have to vote to go along with allowing them to move that. I would personally, I’d like to see it stay there.
Lehman: Any members of the public wish to address that. Would you like to identify yourself for the Auditor, please? You can come forward to the microphone, if you like.
Evan Thales: I'm Evan Thales of Iowa City. I think the first thing I want to do is to express my appreciation to the Eagles for what I think is an appropriate resolution of the issue, and one which I get the sense that the Board, in its wisdom, will approve of, and if you do, I want to thank you for that as well. Let me say that I’m one of that minority that are supposedly threatening the removal, or the forceful removal of the monument. There is an issue here that I just want to speak to for a moment, because it concerns me. There seems to be, in the letter that the Eagles wrote, the implication that this is an issue that is subject to decision by a majority. It is not, as a matter of fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Now, that issue has not, in some final way addressed by the Supreme Court, I understand. I think the legal situation is clear enough. Indeed, I don’t think it takes a great deal of intelligence to recognize that this is a case in which it would be almost impossible for someone approaching the Courthouse not to interpret that monument as involving some sort of government endorsement of a particular religious tradition. I don’t think it really matters whether the population of Johnson County is 50% Hindu and 50% Christian, or whether it’s 100% Christian or 100% Jewish, or what it is. It still seems to me to be a situation in which you have very embarrassing entanglement between the government and a particular religious tradition. I think it’s especially fitting that, in the year in which the courthouse will be celebrating its 100th birthday, that we remove from the front lawn a condition which seems, to me, to ironically be a violation of one of the most fundamental laws which our courts are instituted to protect. Thanks.
Lehman: Thank you for your comments. OK, if that’s all anyone wishes to address. I’d like to again thank the Eagles for their letter and for their presence here tonight.
Stutsman: I don’t want to be redundant. I feel the same way that I think the Board has expressed, an appreciation for the Eagles. I don’t know who wrote this letter, but they did an outstanding job of explaining why it was put there originally, and what the reasons for the monument. So, I appreciate them writing the letter, and I guess I agree with Carol; I appreciate everybody’s willingness to work on this so that we can come with a positive outcome. I look forward to seeing the monument in front of the Eagle’s Lodge.
Thompson: So this will be on for next week?
Lehman: Yes.
White: Based on what I hear from you, I’ll prepare a proposed motion for you to act on next week.
Neuzil: Can I add one thing?
Lehman: Yes.
Neuzil: Proud to be an Eagle.
Lehman: Appreciate your help, and Pat’s help, and members of the Eagle coming to a reasonable solution here. Thank you very much.