Laserfiche WebLink
10 <br />1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />history lesson in the history of the Mounds View <br />charter commission or what the charter commission <br />generally has or has not done or what other members <br />of the charter commission have or have not done <br />unless that's relevant to Mr. Amundsen's <br />performance. <br />The statute that's involved here, Minnesota <br />Statute 410.05, Subdivision 2, has two sentences <br />that relate to removal of commissioners from office, <br />a short sentence and a very long sentence that <br />concludes Subdivision 2. The first sentence says, <br />"Any member may be removed at any time from office, <br />by written order of the district court, the reason <br />for such removal being stated in the order." The <br />second sentence, which is the long one, says, "When <br />any member has failed to perform the duties of <br />office and has failed to attend four consecutive <br />meetings without being excused by the commission, <br />the secretary of the charter commission shall file a <br />certificate with the court setting forth those <br />facts, and the district court shall thereupon make <br />its order of removal, and the chief judge shall fill <br />the vacancy created thereby." <br />Anyone here claim that the second sentence <br />applies to this case? <br />