Letter to the Editor

To the Editor:

I am writing to address the recent “Meeting Watch” article by Trinity Gruenberg and to clarify the public record regarding the reported meeting.

First, I would like to clarify that my mention of a closed police case was made in reference to previous and ongoing false allegations involving Robert, not Gaudette.

Second, I believe key information presented during the public meeting was omitted from the report. Members of the public may request the official meeting recording to review these details directly. The omitted statements include:

- Concerns regarding the accuracy of the 2024/2025 annual budgets.

- Discussions on the city’s infrastructure deficit caused by expenses exceeding revenue, as well as the preliminary tax levy.

- Inquiries regarding a letter from the Office of the State Auditor, which I received directly, questioning why it was not provided to the full council or the finance committee when received by the clerk or the mayor.

During the meeting, I noted that deficiencies in fiscal management fall under the council’s responsibility. Consecutive late audits and the failure to maintain standard monthly financial duties place an unnecessary financial burden on residents, including unbudgeted expenditures that exacerbate the infrastructure deficit and hinder efforts to maintain a thriving community. For context, the late 2024 audit discussed at the November 2025 meeting cost residents over $10,000.

Government transparency is essential to maintaining public trust. While I understand documenting a fast paced meeting capturing every statement is impossible I’d like to request that future coverage focus less on interpersonal disputes and more on the substantive matters presented to the public.

Thank you,

Lauri A. Greiner

Bertha

Editor’s Note:

Meeting Watches are summaries of meetings, and in this case nearly a five hour meeting, and anything said at a public meeting is a matter of public record.