2022-02-22 Amundsen - Petition Remains Insufficient

Home Browse Search

February 14, 2022 Page 7 because it is ultimately City's responsibility to determine the sufficiency of petitions. City Clerk Ewald's failure to personally verify the Citizens' Petition is even more egregious because she expressly based her "determination" that the Citizens' Petition was insufficient on its alleged failure to meet a mere technicality as opposed to its failure to meet a mandatory requirement. And, further fatal to City Clerk Ewald's decision, Minnesota courts have consistently held that, as long as a petition meets the requirements of the statute under which it is brought, which in this case is Minn. Stat. § 410.12, subd. 7, the suspension of the ordinance is automatic, regardless of any concerns about the form of the petition. See In re Grand Rapids, 2006 WL 1985595, at *2 ("The petition contained more than the re uisite number of signatures and included a printed name and address for each signatorX. Notwithstanding the form requirements of Minn. R. 8205.1010 and the verification requirement of Minn. R. 8205.1050 (2003), the filing of the petition suspended the effective date of the ordinance pending the outcome of a referendum vote." (emphasis added)); Bauman, 2016 WL 4581497, at *2 ("The suspension of the ordinance happens automatically once a petition complying with Minn. Stat. § 205.07, subd. 3 is filed, regardless of whether there are any concerns about the form of thepetition" (emphasis added)). Second, City Clerk Ewald did not make either of the statutorily required determinations for verifying the Citizens' Petition. Specifically, City Clerk Ewald failed to determine at all, much less "within 10 days," whether (1) each paper of the Citizens' Petition was properly attested to and (2) whether the Citizens' Petition was signed by a sufficient number of voters. As stated below in City Clerk Ewald's fourth failure of her statutory duties, she did not even determine what was the sufficient number of voters. Instead, City staff, including City Clerk Ewald, have done everything in their power to frustrate the will of the people, including (1) refusing to communicate with Amundsens by phone and instead requiring all correspondence to be via email, (2) stating that Amundsens should direct all communications to City Administrator Zikmund and that City Clerk Ewald and any other City staff would not respond to any questions regarding the Citizens' Petition and (3) refusing to provide Citizen Petitioners with a sample form leading up to the filing of the Citizens' Petition or tell Citizen Petitioners whether the Citizens' Petition included all necessary requirements. Third, in addition to failing to examine the Citizens' Petition personally as statutorily required, City Clerk Ewald also failed to certify that the Citizens' Petition was insufficient to City Council. Even if City Clerk Ewald's February 4, 2022 Insufficiency Letter to Amundsens was sufficient to meet this statutory requirement, City Clerk Ewald's "determination" that the Citizens' Petition was insufficient was erroneous since, as described above, she based her entire decision on an alleged technical error in form. Fourth, despite "determining" that the Citizens' Petition was insufficient, City Clerk Ewald did not "set forth in a certificate the particulars in which [the Citizens' Petition] is defective and [] at once notify the committee of the [Citizen P]etitioners of the findings." (Emphasis and bracketed information added). As stated above in the Background section, the Elections Office notified City Clerk Ewald on January 26, 2022, which was the day after the Citizens' Petition was filed, that the