|
Review of the Issues
<br />1) Has the Plaintiff proven Grounds exist to consider removing Brian Amundsen from Charter
<br />Commission due to his actions?
<br />The Plaintiff has not presented testimony or evidence that connects any of my actions, performance,
<br />behaviors, or presence, to any inability of the Commission to function. I argue that the Plaintiff has not
<br />proven grounds exist to request my removal from the Commission. The Plaintiff stated at the August 5,
<br />2419, Hearing, and documented in the case transcript (Tr. Pg. 16, 5 to 8) that the "main issue has been
<br />the inability to keep a fully functioning Charter Commission in place" However, the Commission has
<br />been fully appointed and functioning, and the Plaintiff has failed to show or clearly connect any
<br />actions, on my part, to any Commission failure to fulfill its function. Furthermore, in the Plaintiff's
<br />closing argument, letter dated August 12, 2019, the Plaintiff makes several claims, which are not based
<br />on actual testimony, but instead are based on hearsay, or are witness opinion or speculation. The Court
<br />has heard testimony from current Commissioners, and has exhibits (exhibits A to M), including former
<br />Commissioners, of my respectful behavior, conduct, and knowledgeable contributions to the
<br />Commission. The Plaintiffs letter argues that it is my very presence at the Commission meetings that is
<br />preventing the Commission from functioning, and speculates that there may be insufficient applicants
<br />to fill open seats in the future. However, the Court has documentation (Answer Amendment
<br />Attachment 1) that during my current appointment there have been applicants to fill open seats on the
<br />Commission. The documents and testimony also fails to show that my presence or actions at meetings
<br />has been the source of resignations of members (Answer Attachment 6 and Answer Amendment
<br />Attachments 1 and 5).
<br />In addition, the Plaintiff has not presented any specific conduct, or behavior, on my part, for the Court
<br />to evaluate. If a Plaintiff can accuse any member of general conduct and have the Court remove that
<br />member, then the Commission's authority to set its own rules, procedures and operations by statute, are
<br />no longer by that body, but by the whim of a 3rd pasty request to the Court. I would also suggest that
<br />"conduct "is highly subjective, and evaluation of said conduct can easily be influenced by bias of the
<br />evaluator (City), as will be argued later in this closing.
<br />In civil litigation, it is the responsibility of the plaintiff to prove grounds exist with a preponderance of
<br />clear convincing evidence that a defendant has limited the plaintiffs rights. The foundational issue is
<br />this: Can this Plaintiff ask the Court to remove a Commissioner, me, because of the Plaintiff's concern
<br />about general conduct without presenting what Plaintiff right has been restricted? Furthermore, can
<br />Plaintiff ask the Court to remove a Commissioner based on Plaintiff's own evaluation of the
<br />Commissioner's conduct and actions, without regard to what the statutes, and said body's own rules set
<br />as the function of the Commission and duty of a Commissioner? No testimony or evidence was
<br />presented that I acted or conducted myself in a way that violated statute requirements, or the
<br />Commission rules and procedures. I argue that the Court should not remove a Commissioner on
<br />Plaintiff's description of conduct, which Plaintiff does not base on any standard or claim of restricted
<br />right, and may be politically or personally motivated. I submit that the statutes set the standard for
<br />evaluating the Commission functions. I also argue that the Court has both testimony and evidence that
<br />the Commission has had full authority to function during my current appointment, has not failed to
<br />perform the duties required by statute, and has not restricted Plaintiff's rights to propose amendments.
<br />Consequently, there exist no grounds for my removal due to my conduct, which has been supportive of
<br />the Commission fulfilling its function.
<br />Case File: 62-CV-19-4965 Page 2 of 11
<br />
|