|
I agree that the discussions of quorum and fully appointed Commission are not related to the issue of
<br />grounds for my removal. The Plaintiff, while not contending that their rights have been restricted,
<br />turned to arguing that the Commission must have a full complement of members to act on charter
<br />amendments. This argument is false because Minn. Stat. 410.05 allows Commission business with
<br />quorum, and Minn. Stat. 410.12 does not restrict Commission authority to only be valid with a full
<br />Commission. Additionally, the City Council has used ordinances in previous years, to enact charter
<br />amendments proposed under Minn. Stat. 410.12 subd. 7 during years the Commission did NOT have
<br />full complement of members, as can be seen from the Letter Attachments 6 "City Charter" page 29.
<br />Both statute language and Plaintiff's past action, accepting charter language amendments, supports that
<br />Commission authority is present without full complement.
<br />Lastly, I argue that a commissioner's conduct should not ever be grounds for removal unless that
<br />conduct violates statutes, Commission rules, Commission bylaws, or involves a criminal, malfeasance
<br />or nonfeasance foundation against that Commissioner. None of these grounds apply to me, nor has
<br />Plaintiff presented or suggested this to be the case.
<br />2) The Commission Functions effectively and Operates according to statute and rules.
<br />The Legislature enacted Minn. Stat. 410 to address the establishment of the Commission, the adoption
<br />of a charter, the amendment process for charter language, and the authority of the Commission to set
<br />the form and powers of the local government. "Effective operation" of the Commission should be an
<br />objective measure of the Commission fulfilling its statutory functions. The purpose of the
<br />Commission, after charter adoption, is to be the custodian of the charter's amendments. Statute
<br />provides charter amendment authority, and methods in Minn. Stat. 410.12. Within the seven
<br />subdivisions for the methods allowed to amend the charter, some methods (Minn. Stat. 410.12, subd. 1
<br />and 7) dictate the Commission may act, without time specified, and some methods Minn. Stat. 410.12,
<br />subd. 1,2,3,4 and 5 dictate the Commission shall act, with time specifically stated. Commission
<br />effectiveness should be measured in relation to the amendment method being utilized. In no case can
<br />the Commission, voters, or the City Council work unilaterally to amend charter language; it requires
<br />agreement of two of the three. There have been no citizen petitions or City Council proposed
<br />amendments, to which Mr. Meehlhause testified (Tr. Pg. 50, 8-18), in the last seven years. The
<br />Commission, therefore, has operated in the mode of may propose amendment, and must meet at a
<br />minimum just once per year. A threshold the Commission has easily met and surpassed. Our current
<br />schedule of meeting every 2 months, as Brandon Clawson testified, is certainly not inactive.
<br />The Commission has functioned fully under its duties of Minn. Stat. 410.12. Mr. Meehlhause testified
<br />(Tr. Pg. 50, 12) that he was not aware of any amendments using Minn. Stat. 410.12 subd. 5
<br />(Amendment proposed by council.) having been sent to the Commission during his seven years on the
<br />City Council. Neither has any Minn. Stat. 410.12, subd. 1,2,3, or 4 petitions from voters been received
<br />by the Commission, during my appointment. If the Commission has not needed to fill an active
<br />amendment function, then my conduct did not a cause Commission dysfunction of its mandatory
<br />provisions, and should not be a grounds for my removal.
<br />My conduct, behavior, or performance, therefore, cannot be a cause or reason for removal due to
<br />"conduct causing dysfunction" that impairs the City Council's concern regarding charter language.
<br />Nor has my conduct, in any way, restricted the City Council or citizen's rights to propose amendments
<br />under Minn. Stat. 410.12, subd. 1,2, 3, 4 or 5.
<br />Case File: 62-CV 19-4965 Page 3 of 11
<br />
|