Laserfiche WebLink
307715v2 LKT MU210-4 <br />and Oregon hold the filing requirement is not a condition precedent to assuming the duties of office. <br />I was unable to find any cases that found in favor of the party claiming a violation of filing and oath <br />requirements. <br /> <br /> If the City chooses to change the language, no disruption to the effectiveness of the Charter <br />should occur. In addition, as an alternative to “verified by oath”, altenative language could be <br />“verified by affidavit” which would be consistent with Minnesota Statutes § 410.12, subd. 2 as to <br />petitions to amend a charter. If the City chooses to keep the language as it now reads, it appears <br />unlikely that any action against the “oath” requirement will be successful (although it may consume <br />City resources). <br /> <br /> Please let me know if you require further review or discussion concerning this matter. <br /> <br />SJR:jms <br />