Spatenka claims Fry silenced him in board meeting

Gary Spatenka went to the Sept. 10 Steele County Board meeting, purportedly planning to address the commissioners about concerns he had that certain items weren't brought to the Planning Commission.

Spatenka is the chairman of the Planning Commission Board.

After the Sept. 10 work session ended, but before the formal meeting began, County Administrator Renea Fry approached Spatenka, who is also a candidate for county commissioner.

Fry said she was told Spatenka was there to speak about a matter that had already been in front of the planning commission and had already had a public hearing.

Fry did not identify who told her that.

She told the Times that once the planning board has a public hearing on a matter, there can't be any new evidence introduced, and she was concerned.

But as it would turn out, Spatenka wasn't there to talk about the planning board; instead, Fry said, "He was there to complain about another committee."

She said he disagreed with a decision made by the Board of Adjustment, and that he told her he had already contacted individual county board members.

Fry said she told him that he should talk to County Attorney Rob Jarrett about what rights and remedies were available before he talked to the full board, "because they're going to refer the matter back to the county attorney anyway."

Fry and Spatenka do not agree if he said he was there in his role as planning commission chairman.

Regardless, Fry said she suggested not to bring the matter up for public comment until he had the chance to talk to Jarrett, "to make sure (Spatenka) had his facts straight, and knew exactly what the remedy available to the landowner might be."

Fry sees her role as advisor to the elected and appointed officials who typically aren't experts on the inner workings of government ethics or meeting rules.

It is the county board chairman who typically manages the meeting in real-time, deciding when to cut off repetitive comments or enforce established limits. At no point during the Sept. 10 board meeting, however, did Board Chairman John Glynn or any other commissioners speak.

Fry said Spatenka knows once a decision of a body is made, "It's not appropriate for an individual member of that body to speak ill of the decision."

Concerned Spatenka was going to talk about a decision already made, she decided to confront him before he got the chance to speak.

"Gary indicated that he was upset about the decision from the board of adjustment and that the matter should have come to him and the planning commission," Fry wrote in an email. "He mentioned two or three other situations that he considered similar in nature that had come to the planning commission for a (conditional use permit). He did not indicate that he was planning to comment as a member of the community. He had indicated that he had already called board members on the topic.”

Spatenka denies saying he would be speaking as the planning commission chairman and said he was speaking as a resident of Steele County. 

“I think this was a case where I thought that's what Gary was trying to do, and he's also running for office,” Fry said. “I don't want him to look bad. I don't want him to stand up and say something out of turn … This is about maintaining a professional approach to decision-making in the county. So that's why I thought he was talking about planning commission stuff.

“But then when I found out he was actually … coming forward as the planning commission chair critical of what another committee was doing about something that had never been to the planning commission, had never been decided by the planning commission, I was concerned that it wasn't going to serve the needs of the property owner until we knew exactly what the appeal rights were.”

She denies stopping him from speaking. 

“If he wants to speak, he can, but I also wanted to make sure that … he at least had some advice and direction on a way that he could handle it,” Fry said.

Public comment over 

Typical of most public meetings, public comment takes place at the beginning of county board meetings.

The incident took place just minutes before the meeting started; Fry asked Spatenka to step out into the hallway.

He then missed the opportunity to give public input. 

Fry said she gave Spatenka the opportunity to speak following the first agenda item – which was the report of the county’s audit.

“I asked Mr. Spatenka to step out in the hall, which means he missed public comment,” Fry said, then turned to Spatenka, who was also in the board room, but out of camera view.

“No, I’ll talk to a lawyer,” Spatenka responded, and the meeting continued.

Spatenka told the Times the public comment portion was not re-opened officially by Glynn. 

Fry, in a follow-up email, agreed that public comment was not reopened. 

“Sorry, I did not specially ask to re-open; that was my characterization of my effort to give Gary the opportunity he missed out on,” Fry wrote. “I did invite Gary to make comments because he missed public comment.”

County attorney weighs in 

Following the meeting, Spatenka reached out to County Attorney Jarrett, who responded via email, telling Spatenka he received a message that he had questions about a land issue, according to emails obtained by the Times. 

Spatenka corrected Jarrett, saying, “It has nothing to do with a land meeting, it has to do with being pulled out of a public meeting, in front of the Commissioners and being told I better not be saying anything without first talking to you, and then she (Fry) took me out into the hallway and said things that I consider would be bullying me and threatening if I say things at the Public Comment at the Commissioner Meeting.

“You can’t take away a person’s First Amendment right of free speech, by taking me out of a public meeting and telling (me) I can't say things that aren’t on the agenda at the meeting,” Spatenka continued. “What she did (in) my eyes was totally illegal to do, and to do it in front of your assistant attorney, the County Commissioners, the media and all the people in the audience is really infringing on my rights as a citizen, and not only that it was totally embarrassing to walk back into the meeting and the public comment was over.”

Jarrett defended Fry, according to an email obtained by the Times.

“I appreciate your concerns and encourage you to speak with an attorney if you believe your rights were violated,” Jarrett wrote. “In my opinion, your First Amendment rights were not violated. I watched the recording. You could have spoken to the board of commissioners when the board reopened public comment.”

Jarrett did not respond to a request for comment for this story regarding whether or not public comment was formally reopened.

Spatenka also asked Jarrett to “email all the Board members and get their take at what took place on (Sept. 10) at the Commissioners meeting.”

Jarrett denied a request to contact each board member, saying, “We do not conduct business in violation of open meeting laws.”

“I cannot ask around and have a string of meetings,” Jarrett said in an email obtained by the Times.

“I believe your concerns are misplaced,” Jarrett continued in the email. “Renae is an excellent county administrator and is looking out for everyone's best interests. If you have issues with a specific item/issue, let us know, and we can look into it. The board doesn’t manage the day-to-day business of the county; the county administrator and department heads do.”

Different circumstances 

Just a week before the incident at the commissioners meeting, Jarrett himself attended an Owatonna City Council meeting, where he spoke in defense of City Administrator Jenna Tuma. 

In addition to Jarrett’s relationship with Tuma regarding various issues in their administrative roles, Jarrett’s wife also works for the city. 

When asked what Jarrett has worked on with Tuma, he provided the following list to the Times:

- County attorney contract for city prosecution (updated the 1980s contract)

- Mayo Clinic Health System/Allina removal of OBGYN in 2025

- Data practices issues for the police department 

- Rainbow Owatonna event 

- East Side Corridor matters

- Cannabis Ordinance meetings

- Stormwater drainage issue 

- Joint Powers Master BCA agreements

Those issues do not constitute representing the county in any way, Fry said. 

“Rob spoke as a resident of the community in support of Jenna,” she wrote in an email. “He identified himself at the beginning of his comments by saying he was a resident of the city. He said he had worked with her but did not tie it to his position or the county. He did not claim to represent Steele County or the office of the Steele County Attorney in expressing his opinions. I believe he approached the matter in an appropriate manner.”

Text messages? 

While giving public comment at the Owatonna City Council meeting, Jarrett displayed what he said were copies of jury instructions to help make his points in defense of Tuma. 

How those materials were printed is unclear. 

Multiple requests for comment went unreturned by Jarrett. 

If Jarrett had printed out the jury instructions using any county resources, including accessing them from his work computer, would that mean he was in some way representing Steele County?

Fry says no. 

“No, what he printed and how it was printed would not constitute a declaration that he was speaking as a representative of the county,” Fry wrote. “He used information as an exhibit. At best, it was indicative of his occupation – meaning being an attorney, since the average person would not generally use jury guides.”

The Times then asked Fry for a copy of the county policy on using work computers/resources for personal things.

This led to a new revelation: accusations of texting. 

“I will need to check with IT for the official policy, but generally county property is used for county business which is why most of us carry a personal and a business cell phone,” Fry wrote in response.

“I suspect, however, you are referencing something that Gary is claiming – that I was texting during the meeting,” she said. “I do check my phone during meetings to make sure no one is trying to get ahold of the county after hours, but I certainly wasn’t texting someone because ‘I thought I had done something illegal.’”

As it would turn out, Spatenka did make these types of accusations, in an email obtained by the Times. 

Fry told the Times a reporter’s questions “started sounding like a cross examination to me and Gary is making a variety of claims. Sorry if I assumed you were privy to them,” she wrote. 

When asked what claims Spatenka had made, Fry declined to elaborate.

“As to your question, I would prefer not to share Gary’s claims out of concern the information will become an article based on his complaints,” she wrote.