Amundsen Closing Argument August 20 2019

Home Browse Search

January 5, 2017), the Court approved the amended Commission Bylaws reducing the number of Commission members from eleven to nine, pursuant the Courts authority in Minn. Stat. 410.05 sub.1. to set the size between 7 and 15. The Court, in the same order, answered the Commission's quorum authority by approval of the Bylaws two tier test. I ask the Court to direct Plaintiff to the existing Court order, and answer the Plaintiffs concerns regarding "Commissions authority is limited to certain acts and functions without a full complement of appointed members regardless if quorum is present", with the Court's answer, stating that there is no restriction of the Commission to act when quorum is present. The Plaintiffs final argument is that the Commission might not have enough members appointed to be functional if I remain on the Commission. The argument is speculative, and irrelevant to grounds for my removal. As the Plaintiff states in his closing argument, it is not dispositive. However, Plaintiff is still asking the Court to use it as a means to build a different problem. They contend it is my presence on the Commission that is limiting recruitment, and is thereby a reason for my removal. Nevertheless, the Court has facts in the Answer -Amendment Attachment 1, testimony, and Plaintiff s own Letter Attachment 2. These pieces show that during my current appointment, there have been enough Commission applicants to fill all nine seats. The Court has testimony (Tr. Pg. 4, 16) that there were more applicants than open appointments in October 2018. This was also true in 2017. My presence on the Commission has not stopped Mounds View citizens from applying to serve on the Commission. At this time, the Commission has eight members appointed, and hopefully with the Courts advertising of the open seat, there are applicants already available for appointment to seat nine again. Further, the Court has testimony from Mr. Clawson that he will continue his appointment term, while I remain. He testified (Tr. Pg. 53,/Lines 2-12) that his potential decision to not reapply is related to the frequency of meetings, length of meetings, and boring nature of the content. My name or conduct is not cited by Mr. Clawson at all as his reason for potentially not continuing after his term expires. The Plaintiff s closing argument is not supported by actual testimony, because Mr. Clawson again simply testified that if changes were made he would continue. He does not specify what changes. Certainly, due to his testimony one could infer he might be referring to the length of meetings, frequency of meetings, or any number of changes. The Court has not heard testimony or received evidence from any other Commission member who may or may not be considering resignation. The most recent resignation email (Answer Attachment 6) from Reyes -Johnson did not specify any reason for her resignation, and no testimony was offered of any resignation being due to me. 4) City Council and Staff Bias impact on Charter Commission Membership and Functions I argue, as I did in my Answer, that much of the real reason the Plaintiff wishes the Court to remove me is political and personal bias from both city staff and City Council. Plaintiff is seeking relief from "Mr. Amundsen vast knowledge of the statutes" (Tr. Pg. 17, 12) and history of the charter. Some examples of the bias were heard in the opening statement and some testimony at the Hearing. Still more bias is found in the Letter signed by Mayor Mueller, the numerous City Council meetings, and the audio recording of June 18, 2019. One clear example, is the City Council's disregard for its own Statement of Values (Answer, Attachment 7, 3.g.), which calls for giving due process to all parties in matters under consideration. I was not afforded that due process. Another example is the May 21, 2019, web stream where the Commission approved Chapter 4 draft language shows city staff influence to subvert Minn. Stat. 410.12, subd. 7 for their specific language proposal to "18 months", rather than them using Minn. Stat. 410.12, subd. 5. Although the Plaintiff claims the Charter is in desperate need of clarity, testimony from Mr. Zikmund Case File: 62-CV 19-4965 Page 6 of 11