Actions taken Thursday following a mediation session on a contested portion of an annexation plan were disappointing.

And it wasn’t just the actions taken by the Koochiching County Board and the Ranier City Council that disappoints us, it was the process used by Ranier officials leading up to the actions.

Wednesday’s mediation session was intended to resolve International Falls’ opposition to a joint plan by Ranier and the county to annex into Ranier the property containing a foreign trade zone and potential road routes to it. International Falls officials petitioned to annex the FTZ property into its own city limits. The FTZ is a portion of a larger plan by Ranier to also annex Jameson and French additions and other areas around the city, which was not a part of Wednesday’s mediation session.

While we continue to believe that some sort of annexation plan deserves strong consideration for several reasons, we must again use this space to question the handling of the process.

No. 1 disappointment: The county board and Ranier officials, as well as this newspaper, have maintained since July (when the county board joined in the plan with Ranier) that area residents – both for and against annexation – would have a voice at a public hearing in front of the chief administrative law judge of the Office of Administration Hearings, who will make the decision on the annexation plan.

On Thursday, Ranier and county officials amended their annexation agreement to state that no consideration for a public hearing by the law judge is necessary.

County and Ranier officials said in prepared statements their reasons, which conclude that public comment was given due process through meetings and comment periods from May through July.

We disagree that all parties who may have wanted to provide input did, because many people believed what they were told by their elected officials – a formal hearing would allow them the opportunity to speak on the issue in front of the judge.

By taking such action, these officials are lending credibility to critics who say that Ranier and county officials are not listening to the people who have the most at stake in the issue. In this case, they appear to be correct.

No. 2 disappointment: Ranier’s special meeting was opened behind closed doors, without a prior public statement of its reasons for closing the session in open session. The public was left to stand in the rain while the council opened its meeting and conducted its closed session. Then the doors were opened to allow the public to view the actions. In most cases, meetings begin in open session and then are closed, based on the recommendation of an attorney.

No. 3 disappointment: The Ranier council did not notify The Journal of Thursday’s special meeting. While not legally required to inform the newspaper, we believe that it could have helped us to inform the general public of the special meeting through our Web site and print edition. Thanks to a local resident for letting us know of the legal posting of the special meeting inside the Ranier Post Office, where many of those interested in the issue don’t regularly visit.

Again, critics of the annexation plan sound more credible as they question the process and motivations to move forward.

Ranier officials have maintained that jurisdiction of Jameson and French addition, as well as other areas around the city, was needed to obtain grants and loans to replace water lines in those areas.

Just last week it was announced that Ranier will receive a $1.24 million loan and a $296,000 grant to replace old lines. It’s good news for the community, but the money is tied to the approval of Ranier’s annexation plan.

The timing of the announcement just prior to the mediation session and subsequent actions is questionable.

Proposing and studying annexation makes clear sense. The process being used to move the plan forward muddies the waters.