Laserfiche WebLink
February 14, 2022 <br />Page 8 <br />Citizens' Petition did not meet a technical form requirement of Minn. R. 8205.1010, and it asked <br />City Clerk Ewald to contact Valerie Amundsen. City Clerk Ewald responded to the Elections <br />Office that she would discuss with City Administrator Zikmund first upon his return and then <br />would promptly discuss it with Valerie Amundsen. City Clerk Ewald did not, however, discuss <br />the alleged error with Amundsens or any other member of the Citizens' Petition Committee. <br />Amundsens did not learn about the alleged error until February 4, 2022, or nine days after the <br />Election Office emailed City Clerk Ewald, and they only learned of the error then because Valerie <br />Amundsen independently learned of the Special Meeting scheduled for that day and attended via <br />Zoom. At the February 4, 2022 Special Meeting, City Attorney Riggs presented the February 4, <br />2022 Insufficiency Letter. <br />Amundsens have repeatedly reached out to City Clerk Ewald and other City staff on behalf <br />of Citizen Petitioners asking that the number of required signatures be calculated and the alleged <br />particular deficiencies of the Citizens' Petition be given, as City Clerk Ewald was and is statutorily <br />required to do, but City Clerk Ewald and City Administrator Zikmund have refused to do either. <br />For example, on February 10, 2022 (or 16 days after the Citizens' Petition was submitted and four <br />days before the deadline given by City for Citizen Petitioners to amend the Citizens' Petition), <br />Amundsens requested the official calculation of the required number of signatures from City Clerk <br />Ewald. City Clerk Ewald's response was, in its entirety, "[w]e have not calculated that." <br />Amundsens responded that they were "astonished" to learn that she had not even calculated the <br />required number of signatures with only four days remaining before the amended Citizens' Petition <br />was supposedly due, and they reasonably asked City Clerk Ewald to let them know the required <br />number by first thing the next morning. But, instead, City Administrator Zikmund responded the <br />next day, telling Amundsens that not only is "there is no need for us to calculate [the number of <br />valid signatures required] at this time" but also, "[g]iven [Amundsens'] tone and inability to <br />understand staff does not take direction from you," City Clerk Ewald and all other City staff would <br />not be responding to any further inquiries and they should direct all future communications to City <br />Administrator Zikmund. City Administrator Zikmund's email was sent 17 days after the Citizens' <br />Petition was submitted and three days before the deadline given by City to Citizen Petitioners to <br />submit an amended Citizens' Petition, which, in City Clerk Ewald's own words, must "include the <br />requisite number of signatures in the proper form." <br />H. ERROR NO. 2: CITY CLERK EWALD USED AN IMPERMISSIBLE <br />CONSIDERATION TO CLAIM THE CITIZENS' PETITION WAS INVALID <br />BECAUSE, EVEN IF THE FORM REQUIREMENTS OF MINN R. 8205.1010 <br />APPLIED TO THE CITIZENS' PETITION, THE VERIFICATION PROCESS <br />UNDER MINN. R. 8205.1050 MANDATES THE CITIZENS' PETITION TO BE <br />VERIFIED AS SUFFICIENT <br />The only justification used by City Clerk Ewald to "determine" that the Citizens' Petition <br />was insufficient was the non -binding assertion by the Elections Office that the Citizens' Petition <br />did not meet all of the form requirements of Minn. R. 8205.1010. But, even if Minn. R. 8205. 10 10 <br />