V Amundsen reply to feb 22 reply to ewald

Home Browse Search

February 22, 2022 Good Afternoon Ms. Ewald, I am in receipt of you email today. However, your determination of insufficiency is invalid for numerous reasons. The Petition delivered to you on 1/25/2022 on behalf of 500 Mounds View residents was sufficient per Minn. Stat. § 410.12, subd. 7 and the general rules of Minn. R. 8205. If Minn. R. 8205.1010 is carefully reviewed, you will note that a specific form is not required. There are some “general form requirements” listed, of which most were adhered to in our petition format. However, if you review Minn. R. 8205.1050 (Verifying Petitions), you will read that the filing officer, i.e., the City Clerk, will inspect the form of the petition to see ONLY that it meets substantial compliance with regards to type size. In addition, Minn. R. 8205.1050 clearly states that the filing officer shall (required) inspect the petition to determine if the required number of signatures have been collected. The petition filed on 1/25/2022 was a proper petition under both Minn. Stat. § 410.12 and Minn. R. 8205, and should have been properly evaluated per state statutes & rules. City Clerk failed her statutory duty to properly verify signatures of voters on said petition and, more importantly, refused to provide petitioners with the number of signatures required when requested, and has still not provided petitioners with that number. The City Clerk has continued to cite form compliance as the determining factor of insufficiency; however, there is significant legal precedence that this does not negate the validity of said petition. City introduced new insufficiency findings in 2/18/2022 packet materials (ordinance required to be attached), which were not previously disclosed to petitioners, as is required, thereby reinforcing the finding that all supposed “deficiencies” were not reported on 2/4/2022. Under Minnesota law, regardless of the Minn. R. 8205.1010 form requirements, the filing of the Petition suspended the effective date of the ordinance pending the outcome of a referendum vote, or council’s reconsideration of the ordinance. In re Referendum to Amend City of Grand Rapids, Minnesota Mun. Elections Ordinance No. 04-08-11, A05-2350, 2006 WL 1985595, at *2 (Minn. Ct. App. July 18, 2006) (“Notwithstanding the form requirements of Minn. R. 8205.1010 and the verification requirement of Minn. R. 8205.1050 (2003), the filing of the petition suspended the effective date of the ordinance pending the outcome of a referendum vote”). Because you have not performed your statutory duties required by 8205.1050, and 410.12, subd. 3, nor have you ever identified the particular specific issues of form or signature required, we summarily reject your determination of insufficiency, and expect, due to your failures, you to therefore accept the petition. The Ordinance is therefore suspended, and the council must reconsider or put to the voters. Respectfully submitted, Valerie and Brian Amundsen