Order-Other - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

6 27. Right after the May 21, 2019 meeting, Commission Chair Reyes-Johnson tendered her resignation. However, no evidence concerning the reason for the resignation was offered to the court. It would be sheer speculation for the court to ascribe a reason for her resignation. 28. Apparently, two other commissioners have considered resigning, but there have been no additional resignations. Moreover, no admissible evidence was offered as to the reason other members considered or reconsidered resigning. 29. At most, petitioner demonstrated that petitioner, the Mounds View City Council, and one or more members of the Charter Commission do not agree on what constitutes a productive or meaningful Charter Commission meeting and they may not share the same philosophy about how to conduct or prioritize Charter Commission business. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. By statute, a city charter commission member is subject to removal on two grounds. First, removal may occur when “[a]ny member has failed to perform the duties of office and has failed to attend four consecutive meetings without being excused by the commission.” Minn. Stat. § 410.05, subd. 2 (2018). The parties agree that the first statutory basis for removal is inapplicable to the present Petition. 2. Second, “[a]ny member may be removed at any time from office, by written order of the district court, the reason for such removal being stated in the order.” Id. The Petition to remove respondent relies on the second statutory basis for removing a charter commissioner. 3. The charter commission statute does not contain a standard to guide the court in determining whether petitioner’s stated reason for requesting respondent’s removal is sufficient in law to justify removal. There is no case law interpreting the charter commission statute. The statute requires a “reason for such removal.” Citing this language, petitioner contends that the