Amundsen Closing Argument August 20 2019

Home Browse Search

Has my conduct delayed or impaired the Commission functions under Minn. Stat. 410.12. subd. 1 or 7, which are provisional non -time sensitive acts of the Commission? No. The Plaintiff argues that the Commission has "done nothing". However, the Court has documents and testimony that the Plaintiff's claim is false. The Commission has done something. Document (Letter Attachment 6, Charter, Page 29) shows the Commission has been productive with its own initiatives, and is active. In addition, the Commission initiated review, research, and proposed amendments to Chapter 4 (Elections and Nominations). That Chapter was completed in March 2019, per Mr. Zikmunds testimony (Tr. Pg. 40, 13-18). The Court also has documents, that as secretary, I was directed by the Commission on May 21,2019 (5/21/2019 Commission meeting, https://webstrearning.ctvl5.org/viewer.t)hp?streamid-3589, time stamp 1:32:17 to 1:40:35) to email the Commission recorded and approved Chapter 4 proposed amendment language to City Attorney for review and comment. (Letter Attachment 5, May 28, 2019 comment by Mr. Zikmund). All of this shows the Commission is functioning under Minn. Stat. 410.12, subd. 1. Again, if the Commission has completed its functions under its duties of Minn. Stat. 410.12, subd. 1, then the Commission's function has neither been impaired nor hampered. Dysfunction has not been shown or proven; therefore, my removal is not necessary or appropriate. The Plaintiff has not submitted any evidence relevant to my performance or actions that would show the Commission has not functioned related to any of its duties, including Chapter 4 Elections and Nomination or Chapter 8 Special Assessments (a Commission initiative prior to my current appointment time). Chapter 8 deals with voter rights to petition a public improvement, the key reason our city adopted a charter in 1979. The Court heard Mr. Zikmund testify that the Commission has not extended meetings times "beyond the Commissions appointed time", other than on May 21 (Tr. Pg. 40, 19 to Pg. 41, 2). I want to take a moment to address the Plaintiff's Chapter 8 argument, presented in both complaint and closing arguments, but without testimony. Chapter 8 was a Commission initiative under Minn. Stat. 410.12, subd. 1, which I personally requested of the Commission due to my experience with a successful petition in 2005 to stop a City Council special assessment, again the initial key reason the city has a charter. My request was for the Commission to review one paragraph, which might need to be broken into smaller paragraphs, and add a time line chart. This topic did not have a time line requirement. It was not delayed by my conduct or belabored conversations, as Plaintiff contends in the Closing Letter, and implies that Mr. Zikmund testified. In actuality, Mr. Zikmund does not testify on this issue, and could not give first hand testimony on Chapter 8 discussion, since it occurred prior to Mr. Zikmund's hire date as city administrator. Another objective measure of Commission function is if it follows its own rules and procedures. The Bylaws of the Commission specify Robert's Rules of Order as its procedures. The May 21, 2019, Commission meeting video demonstrates that the Commission followed Robert's Rules of Order and that the Commission made the decisions on each and every motion to act at that meeting. The Bylaws were approved earlier this year with no members suggesting Roberts Rules be replaced with new rules of operation. My asking for a "Point of Order" during a meeting, is not disrespectful, in fact is the suggested phrase to use to call attention to a matter than might be "out of order". 3) Commission Functions with Authority by Size ad Quorum I agree with the Court that the Commission has no limits as to its authority and duties when quorum of its appointed members is present. The Court should again use standard rules of civil litigation, which is to read the plain language of the text. The plain language of the text has no restrictions on the Case File: 62-CV-19-4965 Page 4 of 11