NEW ULM — Brown County Commissioners suspended Roberts Rules of Order during their May 5 meeting to hear concerns about public comments and whether Brian Domeier property near Clear Lake is a wetlands or not.

Domeier said he came to the board meeting for two reasons. First, the county’s policy to speak at meetings. He said he’s made repeated requests to talk at meetings and was turned down. He asked commissioners to consider an ordinance to allow public comments at board meetings.

Domeier said he would prefer solving whether or not his property is a wetlands without going to court.

“Two engineers have reviewed this,” he said. “The McLeod County Soil & Water Conservation District manager reviewed this and determined the area (claimed to be impacted), is not a wetland.”

Commissioner Windschitl asked Attorney Hanson if commissioners should be hearing his (Domeier’s) arguments.

Brown County Attorney Chuck Hanson said the wetlands expert attorneys Brown County hired in the case would advise commissioners to make no comment.

“I’d advise you to make no comment. The board is following legal advice. Public information requests, which I highly recommend, can be made to the appropriate attorneys and BWSR (Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources) to receive public data,” said Attorney Hanson.

Domeier said he was concerned about the county spending $25,000 in taxpayer money on the issue and that money has been wasted on Minneapolis attorneys studying his property that he and engineers he consulted claim is not a wetland.

Commissioner Windschitl said he and the commissioners can’t comment on subject.

“You don’t have to,” said Domeier. “I’ve spent money. This could be resolved. Minneapolis attorneys are arguing to keep my evidence out. It’s not treating the taxpayers right. People need to be able to come here and talk about it.’

The rules suspension was required because the two individuals who addressed the board, Domeier and Samantha Janni, were not on the meeting agenda.

Commissioner Scott Windschitl explained the board’s position on how to deal with the matter.

“Our general policy is when a constituent has a concern, they contact the county administrator who would contact the committee supervisor so it goes through the proper channels and the committee has a chance to correct it,” said Windschitl. “The committee goes to administrator Hansen and put the topic on a (meeting) agenda so you can speak. We can’t give everybody who walks through the (county boardroom) doorway time to speak. There wouldn’t be enough time in the day. This isn’t a public hearing.”

Commissioner Windschitl told Domeier he needs to go to the county administrator who can direct him to whom to talk to about an issue. He said commissioners are aware of Domeier and Janni’s concerns and will take them under advisement.

Janni said she contacted several Minnesota counties about their hearing public comments at county board meetings and said some of them allowed individuals three minutes to speak at the beginning of county board meetings.

Brown County Attorney Chuck Hanson said the Chapter 13 of the Minnesota Open Meeting Law requires meetings of governmental bodies be open to the public but it does not create a general right for any citizen to speak at a meeting.

“The laws purpose is to ensure public access and the ability to present views, but whether a specific county board allows public comments depends on its own operating procedures and home rule charter provisions,” said Hanson. “Some counties have adopted public procedures that allow the public to address the board on certain matters, while others do not. Because each county’s rules are unique, there is no single, statewide number of counties that allow citizen comments.”

Hanson said he feels the purpose of the law is meetings are open to the public it doesn’t necessarily create a right for citizens to comment.

“The county board sets its operating procedures at the beginning of the year. If county board operating procedures are amended, it would happen at the beginning of the year,” said Hanson. “We have rules we have to follow by law. The board suspended rules for this meeting, but I don’t think it wants to get into a situation where it suspends rules for the rest of 2026 to hear public comments.”

Attorney Hanson said if a citizen wants to discuss something at a county board meeting that is in litigation (the process of taking a case to a court of law to settle a dispute) with the county, it’s not appropriate because its in litigation.

“The board won’t be able to respond to the subject (in litigation),” he said.

Attorney Hanson said Minnesota laws describe that when something is in litigation — judicial and administrative actions and arbitration are considered to be in litigation.

He said the argument that wetland concerns are not in litigation because it’s in the administrative process is false.

“The chief legal officer of the county will determine when something is in litigation. As the chief legal officer of the county, I’m the one who determines when something is in litigation. When someone continually threatens to sue the county and get attorneys involved, I consider that pending litigation. To me, any attorney worth their salt dealing with a matter like like will advise their client to wait for an attorney to contact them.”