Amundsen Closing Argument August 20 2019

Home Browse Search

Commission's functions with reference to being fully appointed. The Attorney General opinion of 1961 clearly states that the Office's earlier opinions of 1950 and 1954 were based on statutory language, which have since been repealed, and superseded, by Article XI Sections 3 and 4. (Article XI Section 3 and 4 were a result of the Legislature's 1958 repeal and replacement of the earlier Article IV Section 36. Article XI Section 3 and 4 were re -numbered to Article XII Section 4 and 5 in 1974). Further, in 1971 the Legislature, with House File 1172, clearly states that the legislature authorized the Commission to establish its rules, including quorum requirements, with reference to its operations and procedures (i.e. its function). There is no stated restriction of statutory functions of the Commission, to propose amendments, to author recommendations, to review petitions, to review and propose amendment language changes to petitioner and governing body proposals, to hold meetings, and to recommend appointments. The current statutory language clearly states that the Commission has authority to set its quorum. Nowhere in Minn. Stat. 410 is the business, procedures, resolutions, recommendations or activities restricted to being only accessible during a full appointment of the Commission or requiring all Commissioners being present at a meeting. The Commission Bylaws also do not limit the Commission's authority or powers to only when all appointments have been filled. Plaintiff s claim that all nine members must be appointed to function, fails when evaluated in the light of the statute authority for quorum, and the meaning of quorum, i.e. "the minimum number of members present to fulfill the function and duties of the body.". At the hearing, the Court heard the Plaintiff argue that it doesn't believe the Commission has full functionality without a full appointment of members, a contention with which I disagree and actually provided evidence (exhibits N "Attorney General opinion dated 4/27/1961" and O "Chapter 208, 1971 Minnesota Session Laws") that refutes Plaintiffs argument. In Plaintiffs closing letter, the discussion of full complement is shifted to me, to which I object. There is nothing in testimony where I inquire or ask for testimony about full complement. In the Hearing, I inquire about "quorum" as understood by Plaintiffs witnesses and Mr. Thomas's research on quorum. My opening statement (Tr. Pg. 21, 14) says that City Council was "under the impression that the Commission is required to have a full complement.", but I do not inquire further on full complement during examination. Plaintiffs opening statement (Tr. Pg. 13, 11-25) and now in their closing letter seems to re -iterate that it is a concern of theirs. I would like to ask the Court to consider addressing the issue by review of the plain language of statute. In considering the Minnesota League of Cities, a profession association with lobbying functions for the city, the League refers to Minn. Stat. 410.05 in its footnotes, and advocates for a "should have full complement", but not "must have full complement" to function. Their statement is consistent with my position that there is no impediment for a quorum of appointed members, to meet and have full function and authority. The Plaintiff imagines that I am advocating for the Commission to only be of quorum size, which is speculation, and to which I object on the grounds I have not stated this. If the Court were to view the joint work session (City Council & Commission) of October 3, 2016, (https://webstreaming.ctvl5.org/viewer.php7=2094, time stamp 8:25-10:50) prior to my current appointment, the Court would hear me advocating for the City Council to use its appointment authority, and engage in recruitment to fill the Commission with nine members. Both the City Council and Charter Commission agreed that nine appointments was an appropriate Commission size. The Plaintiff also questions the Court on the validity of Commission's bylaws setting the Commission size. The Court has already answered this question on January 3, 2017. In file 62-CV 11-1263 (filed Case File: 62-CV-19-4965 Page 5 of 11