HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-02-22 Amundsen - Petition Remains InsufficientFebruary 22, 2022
VIA EMAIL ONLY
Ms. Amundsen:
In the notice of insufficiency sent to you on February 4, 2022 ("Notice of Insufficiency"), I informed you of my
findings and determination that the petition you submitted to the City of Mounds View on January 25, 2022
("Petition"), was insufficient and informed you that the statutory deadline to submit an amended petition was
February 14, 2022. The Notice of Insufficiency is attached to this correspondence as Exhibit A.
On February 14, 2022, the City received a letter from your attorney, Jack Y. Perry, providing that you and Brian
Amundsen object to, seek reconsideration of, and otherwise appeal from the Notice of Insufficiency ("Perry Letter").
No new or amended petition was included with the Perry Letter nor was an amended or supplemented petition
otherwise submitted. The Perry Letter is attached to this correspondence as Exhibit B. The City Council held a
special meeting on February 18, 2022 and passed Resolution No. 9533 reaffirming the acceptance of my findings
that the Petition is insufficient. Resolution Number 9553 is attached to this correspondence as Exhibit C.
The Petition remains insufficient and no amended or supplemented petition was filed with the City. My
determination in the Notice of Insufficiency has therefore not changed. While no supplemented or amended petition
was submitted by February 14, 2022, this correspondence will be filed in the office of the City Clerk as provided in
Minnesota Statutes, Section 410.12, subdivision 3.
Best,
Rayla Sue Ewald
Mounds View City Clerk
Enclosures
cc: Scott J. Riggs, City Attorney
Exhibit A
MOUN-DtSiEW
February 4, 2022
Ms. Amundsen:
Upon review of the petition you submitted to the City of Mounds View on January 25, 2022, I
have determined that the petition is not in the proper form as required under Minnesota Rules, part
8205.1010, which has been adopted by the Minnesota Secretary of State under Minnesota Statutes,
Section 20413.071. The Ramsey County Elections Office concurs that the petition is not in the
proper form. Since the signatures were collected in an improper manner, the number of valid
signatures cannot be determined at this time. I presented these findings to the City Council at a
Special City Council meeting on February 4, 2022. An example of the proper form is attached to
this correspondence as Exhibit A.
Upon receipt of this notice you have 10 days to amend the petition to include the requisite number
of signatures in the proper form as required by Minnesota Rules, part 8205.1010 and Minnesota
Statutes, Section 410.12 and all requirements set forth therein. If you choose to submit an amended
petition, the amended petition must be submitted to the Ramsey County Elections Office no later
than 4:30pm on February 14, 2022. Ramsey County Elections Office contact information is
provided below:
Ramsey County Elections Office
Contact: Emily Hunt
Email: emily.hunt@co.ramsey.mn.us
Phone: 651-266-2171
In person: 90 W. Plato Blvd, Suite 160, St. Paul
Website: ramseycounty.us/elections
If you have any additional questions do not hesitate to let me know.
Best,
/s/ Rayla Sue Ewald
Rayla Sue Ewald
Mounds View City Clerk
cc: Scott J. Riggs, City Attorney
DOCSOPEN\MU210\4\778305.v 1-2/4/22
i
IL z
0
w
m
Or
0
0
CA
w
z
z
2
Lkj
e41 -i 1 4 1 kA
oi
0
I-'l k ni
F7FIF1
N
cn
00
4 17' 1W-1
Taft/
Jack Y. Perry
612.977.8497
JPerry@Taftlaw.com
VIA E-MAIL AND U.S. MAIL
Rayla Sue Ewald
Clerk
City of Mounds View
2401 Mounds View Boulevard
Mounds View, MN 55112
Nyle Zikmund
City Administrator
City of Mounds View
Carol Mueller
Mayor
City of Mounds View
Theresa Cermak
City Council Member
City of Mounds View
Exhibit B
2200 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Tel: 612.977.8400 1 Fax: 612.977.8650
taftlaw.com
Affirmative Action, Equal Opportunity Employer
February 14, 2022
Al Hull
City Council Member
City of Mounds View
Bill Bergeron
City Council Member
City of Mounds View
Gary Meehlhause
City Council Member
City of Mounds View
Re: City Clerk Ewald's February 4, 2022 Insufficiency determination
(Insufficiency Letter) regarding 500 City of Mounds View (City)
Citizens' Petition
DEAR CITY CLERK EWALD, CITY ADMINISTRATOR ZIKMUND, MAYOR MUELLER
AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS HULL, BERGERON, MEEHLHAUSE AND CERMAK:
OVERVIEW
Petition Committee Sponsors Brian and Valerie Amundsen (Amundsens), who submitted
on behalf of the five -member Petition Committee (Petition Committee) and the 500 City of
Mounds View (City) registered voters (Citizen Petitioners) who signed the January 25, 2022
Petition (Citizens' Petition), (1) object to, (2) seek reconsideration of and (3) otherwise appeal from
City Clerk Rayla Sue Ewald's (Ewald) February 4, 2022 insufficiency "determination" regarding
Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
Chicago / Cincinnati / Cleveland / Columbus / Dayton / Delaware / Denver / Indianapolis / Minneapolis / Northern Kentucky / Washington, DC
February 14, 2022
Page 2
the Citizens' Petition (Insufficiency Letter). City Clerk Ewald determined the Citizens' Petition to
be insufficient because it "is not in the proper form as required under Minnesota Rules, part
8205.1010." Fatally, however, this is not a sufficient ground for a determination of insufficiency
under state law, as the filing of a petition which meets the statutory requirements under which it
was brought automatically suspends the effective date of the ordinance pending the outcome of a
referendum vote, regardless of the form requirements of Minn. R. 8205. 10 10 and the verification
requirement of Minn. R. 8205.1050. See In re Referendum to Amend City of Grand Rapids,
Minnesota Mun. Elections Ordinance No. 04-08-11, No. A05-2350, 2006 WL 1985595, at *2
(Minn. App. July 18, 2006) ("The petition contained more than the requisite number of signatures
and included a printed name and address for each signatory. Notwithstanding the form
requirements of Minn. R. 8205. 10 10 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"); Bauman v. City of New Brighton, No. 62-CV-1 6-4804,2016 WL 4581497,
at *2 (Minn. 2nd Jud. Dist., August 25, 2016 Order) ("The suspension of the ordinance happens
automatically once a petition complying with Minn. Stat. § 205.07, subd. 3 is filed, regardless of
whether there are any concerns about the form of the petition").
Further, despite her statements to the contrary in her February 4, 2022 Insufficiency Letter,
City Clerk Ewald neither (1) "presented these findings to the City Council at a Special City Council
meeting on February 4, 2022," nor (2) "determined that the petition is not in the proper form as
required under Minnesota Rules, part 8205.1010." Those statements are presumably in the letter
because City Clerk Ewald is aware that she is statutorily obligated to do both. See Minn. Stat. §
410.12, subd. 3 ("Within ten days after such petition is transmitted to the city council, the city clerk
shall determine whether each paper of the petition is properly attested and whether the petition is
signed by a sufficient number of voters.... Upon completing an examination of the petition, the
city clerk shall certify the result of the examination to the council" (emphasis added)). In fact,
City Attorney Scott Riggs (Riggs) is the one who presented the determination of insufficiency to
the City Council, and City Clerk Ewald did not even attend. Similarly, it was the Ramsey County
Elections Office (Elections Office) that found the form requirements of Minn. R. 8205.1010 were
not followed after City Clerk Ewald emailed it the Citizens' Petition the morning after it was
received, and the Elections Office emailed her back that same day asking her to promptly notify
Amundsens of the alleged basis for the insufficiency of the Citizens' Petition. City Clerk Ewald
did not, however, promptly notify Amundsens, as her first communication with Amundsens was
with the February 4, 2022 Insufficiency Letter.
City Clerk Ewald and City must now correct City Clerk Ewald's errors and certify the
Citizens' Petition as sufficient.
BACKGROUND
1. January 26, 2021. Chair Russell Warren (Warren) of City's Charter Commission
(Charter Commission) stated that he recently met with City Council and City Council requested
February 14, 2022
Page 3
that Chair Warren have the Commission review and change the City Charter language in Chapter
7 Taxation and Finances, Section 7.03, subdivision 1, which limits the City annual levy by a
percentage. Warren introduced the topic to Charter Commission, and it agreed to look at the issue
at its regularly scheduled meeting in March and a special meeting in April.
2. March 23, 2021. Charter Commission received City finance information on the
topic.
3. April 27, 2021. Charter Commission approved three alternative language choices
for discussion at a joint meeting with City Council and Charter Commission.
4. June 22, 2021. Joint City Council and Charter Commission meeting where the
three alternate languages were presented and in discussion all City Council members said they
were not satisfied with the alternative language and favored the Fridley model.
5. August 17, 2021. Charter Commission is presented with the language drafted by
City Attorney Joseph Sathe (Sathe) to meet City Council consensus request, the language is
discussed, amendments made, and eventually tabled. Charter amendment processes of Minn. Stat.
§ 410.12 were also discussed at the August meeting, where City Attorney Sathe advised Charter
Commission that it could choose Minn. Stat. § 410.12 subd. 7 or subd. 5.
6. September 21 2021. Charter Commission met and City Attorney Sathe again
presented the August amended draft ordinance along with Charter Commission resolutions for
City Council to adopt the draft ordinance language under Minn. Stat. § 410.12, subd. 7 and another
resolution under Minn. Stat. § 410.12, subd. 5. By motion, Charter Commission failed to approve
the Minn. Stat. § 410.12, subd. 5 resolution, but it approved the Minn. Stat. § 410.12, subd. 7
resolution and sample ordinance, with Charter Commission's amendments. Sathe and City
Administrator Nyle Zikmund (Zikmund) were present at Charter Commission's September 21
meeting. City Attorney Sathe agreed to make the changes and forward to Charter Commission
Secretary Brian Amundsen (Amundsen) for signature.
7. September 24 2021. City Attorney Sathe sends final form of ordinance and
resolutions to Secretary Amundsen for transfer onto Charter Commission letterhead and signatures
of Chair Warren and Secretary Brian Amundsen. Although signatures are not required by Charter
Commission Bylaws, it has been tradition for both Chair and Secretary to sign the resolutions.
8. September 27,2021. Resolution transferred onto Charter Commission letterhead,
signed by Secretary Amundsen and emailed to Chair Warren for signature and deposit at City Hall.
Signed resolution is also emailed to City Attorney Sathe and cc'd to City Administrator Zikmund.
9. October 25, 2021. Chair Warren signs resolution and drops printed copy off at City
Hall.
February 14, 2022
Page 4
10. November 9.2021. City publishes notice of a public hearing for Ordinance 984 in
the Shoreview Press, City's official newspaper.1
11. December 13, 2021. City Council holds public hearing on Ordinance 984, adopting
the Ordinance to change City Charter language. The packet and Ordinance specifically say that
Minn. Stat. § 410 is a "prescriptive process" and is "the Act" controlling City Council's action and
petitions. City Council adopts Ordinance 984 by unanimous vote.
12. December 16-20, 2021. Valerie Amundsen emails with City Administrator
Zikmund about the petition process.
13. January 25, 2022. The Citizens' Petition submitted to City Administrator Zikmund
and City Clerk Ewald. Amundsens learned from Elections Office that the Citizens' Petition was
forwarded to the Elections Office electronically the next day.
14. January 26, 2022. Elections Office emails City Clerk Ewald to say the Citizens'
Petition is not following Minnesota Secretary of State petition form of Minn. R. 8205.1010 and
please contact Valerie Amundsen. City Clerk Ewald replies to Elections Office that she would
discuss with City Administrator Zikmund on his return and with Valerie Amundsen after that. But
City Clerk Ewald provided no such communication to Valerie Amundsen until February 4, 2022.
15. February 1, 2022. Valerie Amundsen receives email, as she is on special list
requesting notice of all City Council Special Meeting notices, that a Special Meeting of City
Council will happen on February 4, 2022 via Zoom. The notice lists the Citizens Petition, but no
packet material of the meeting is delivered.
16. February 4, 2022. Valerie Amundsen continues to ask City for the packet of
information by email, but City Administrator Zikmund says there is no packet, and it is with City
Attorney to be presented at the meeting. At the meeting Zikmund shares his screen of documents
and introduces City Attorney Riggs who presents the February 4, 2022 Insufficiency Letter, which
states "the [Citizens' P]etition is not in the proper form.... Ramsey County Elections Office
concurs that the [Citizens' P]etition is not in the proper form." (Bracketed information added).
1 Minn. Stat. § 410.12, subd. 7 states, as follows, that the hearing must be held within one month
of publication:
Within one month of receiving a recommendation the city must publish the
announcement of a public hearing which must contain the text of the proposed
amendment, and not sooner than two weeks and not later than 30 days after
publishing the Council must hold the public hearin .
The public hearing was held more than 30 days after publishing date.
February 14, 2022
Page 5
The February 4, 2022 Insufficiency Letter also states that "[City Clerk Ewald] presented
these findings to the City Council at a Special meeting on February 4, 2022." But City Clerk Ewald
was not even present at the meeting and the presentation was done by City Attorney Riggs. The
February 4, 2022 Insufficiency Letter also directs that Amundsens "have 10 days to amend the
[Citizens' P]etition to include the requisite number of signatures in the proper form as required by
Minnesota Rules, part 8205. 10 10 and Minnesota Statutes, Section 410.12 and all requirements set
forth therein," and Amundsens should submit the amended petition to Elections Office no later
than 4:30 pm on February 14, 2022.
After the meeting, Valerie Amundsen emails City Administrator Zikmund for a copy of
the documents shown on the Zoom, but she receives an email reply that only the unofficial version
is available and signatures and official forms will arrive next week by mail because City Clerk
Ewald is out of the office. City Administrator Zikmud emailed Amundsens the unofficial version.
17. February 9, 2022. The signed version of the February 4, 2022 Insufficiency Letter
is received by Amundsens from City.
18. February 14, 2022. Purported deadline given by City for submitting amended
petition.
19. February 22, 2022. City Administrator Zikmund declared this the end date of 60
day period to submit a petition for ordinance to be reconsidered by City Council.
ARGUMENT
City Clerk Ewald failed her statutory duties under Minn. Stat. § 410.12, subds. 1, 3 and 7,
including without limitation her duties to (1) determine the sufficiency of the Citizens' Petition
personally, (2) verify the Citizens' Petition within 10 days of its filing, (3) determine whether each
paper of the Citizens' Petition is properly attested, (4) determine whether the Citizens' Petition is
signed by a sufficient number of voters, (5) certify the result to City Council, (6) set forth in a
certificate the particulars in which the Citizens' Petition was allegedly defective.
L ERROR NO. 1: WITH HER FEBRUARY 4, 2022 INSUFFICIENCY LETTER,
CITY CLERK EWALD FAILED EACH OF HER STATUTORY DUTIES UNDER
MINN. STAT. § 410.12 AND THEN RELIED ON AN IMPERMISSIBLE
CONSIDERATION IN DETERMINING THE CITIZENS' PETITION WAS
INSUFFICIENT
City Clerk Ewald altogether failed to perform her statutory duties under Minn. Stat. §
410.12, subds. 1-3 and 7, and she or City must correct those errors by verifying the Citizens'
Petition as sufficient using the proper statutorily mandated considerations. Citizen Petitioners filed
the Citizens' Petition on January 25, 2022 under Minn. Stat. § 410.12, subd. 7, which, as follows,
February 14, 2022
Page 6
states in relevant part the requirements for a petition requesting a referendum on an ordinance
amending a city charter:
Within 60 days after passage and publication of such an ordinance, a petition
requesting a referendum on the ordinance may be filed with the ci clerk. The
petition must be si ed by registered voters a ual in number to at least five percent
of the registered voters in the city or 2,000, whichever is less. If the requisite
petition is filed within the prescribed period, the ordinance shall not become
effective until it is approved by the voters as in the case of charter amendments
submitted by the charter commission, the council, or by petition of the voters,
except that the council may submit the ordinance at any general or special election
held at least 60 days after submission of the petition, or it may reconsider its action
in adopting the ordinance. As far as practicable the requirements of subdivisions
1 to 3 applygpply to petitions submitted under this section, to an ordinance amending a
charter, and to the filing of such ordinance when approved by the voters.
(Emphasis and bracketed information added). "'Shall' is mandatory." Minn. Stat. § 645.44, subd.
16.
The "requirements of subdivisions 1 to 3," as they apply to City Clerk Ewald here, are
found primarily in Minn. Stat. § 410.12, subd. 3, which, as follows, states in relevant part (1) that
the city clerk has the duty of verifying petitions filed with City and (2) what those duties entail:
Within ten days after such petition is transmitted to the city council, the city, cle
shall determine I whether a each a er of the petition is 12werly attested
and b whether (lie petition is signed by a sufficient number of voters. The city
clerk [(2)] shall declare any petition paper entirely invalid which is not attested by
the circulator thereof as required in this section. Upon completing an examination
of the petition, the city clerk shall 3 certify the result of the examination to the
council. If the city clerk shall certify that the petition is insufficient the city clerk
shall 4 set forth in a certificate the particulars in which it is defective and shall
at once notify the committee of the petitioners of the finding.§.
(Emphasis and bracketed information added). City Clerk Ewald completely failed, nevertheless,
each of her above duties.
First, City Clerk Ewald ignored her responsibility to personally verify the Citizens' Petition
by immediately forwarding it to the Elections Office. Elections Office staff member Emily Hunt
(Hunt), when contacted by Amundsens, admitted the Elections Office staff did not consider the
Citizens' Petition under the requirements of Minn. Stat. § 410.12, subd. 7 because they were not
aware that it was a petition for referendum and not a ballot initiative. Hunt also told Amundsens
that City did not have to base its determination that the Citizens' Petition was insufficient on the
Elections Office's finding that a form requirement of Minn. R. 8205.1010 was allegedly not met
February 14, 2022
Page 7
because it is ultimately City's responsibility to determine the sufficiency of petitions. City Clerk
Ewald's failure to personally verify the Citizens' Petition is even more egregious because she
expressly based her "determination" that the Citizens' Petition was insufficient on its alleged failure
to meet a mere technicality as opposed to its failure to meet a mandatory requirement. And, further
fatal to City Clerk Ewald's decision, Minnesota courts have consistently held that, as long as a
petition meets the requirements of the statute under which it is brought, which in this case is Minn.
Stat. § 410.12, subd. 7, the suspension of the ordinance is automatic, regardless of any concerns
about the form of the petition. See In re Grand Rapids, 2006 WL 1985595, at *2 ("The petition
contained more than the re uisite number of signatures and included a printed name and address
for each signatorX. 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." (emphasis added));
Bauman, 2016 WL 4581497, at *2 ("The suspension of the ordinance happens automatically once
a petition complying with Minn. Stat. § 205.07, subd. 3 is filed, regardless of whether there are
any concerns about the form of thepetition" (emphasis added)).
Second, City Clerk Ewald did not make either of the statutorily required determinations for
verifying the Citizens' Petition. Specifically, City Clerk Ewald failed to determine at all, much
less "within 10 days," whether (1) each paper of the Citizens' Petition was properly attested to and
(2) whether the Citizens' Petition was signed by a sufficient number of voters. As stated below in
City Clerk Ewald's fourth failure of her statutory duties, she did not even determine what was the
sufficient number of voters. Instead, City staff, including City Clerk Ewald, have done everything
in their power to frustrate the will of the people, including (1) refusing to communicate with
Amundsens by phone and instead requiring all correspondence to be via email, (2) stating that
Amundsens should direct all communications to City Administrator Zikmund and that City Clerk
Ewald and any other City staff would not respond to any questions regarding the Citizens' Petition
and (3) refusing to provide Citizen Petitioners with a sample form leading up to the filing of the
Citizens' Petition or tell Citizen Petitioners whether the Citizens' Petition included all necessary
requirements.
Third, in addition to failing to examine the Citizens' Petition personally as statutorily
required, City Clerk Ewald also failed to certify that the Citizens' Petition was insufficient to City
Council. Even if City Clerk Ewald's February 4, 2022 Insufficiency Letter to Amundsens was
sufficient to meet this statutory requirement, City Clerk Ewald's "determination" that the Citizens'
Petition was insufficient was erroneous since, as described above, she based her entire decision on
an alleged technical error in form.
Fourth, despite "determining" that the Citizens' Petition was insufficient, City Clerk Ewald
did not "set forth in a certificate the particulars in which [the Citizens' Petition] is defective and []
at once notify the committee of the [Citizen P]etitioners of the findings." (Emphasis and bracketed
information added). As stated above in the Background section, the Elections Office notified City
Clerk Ewald on January 26, 2022, which was the day after the Citizens' Petition was filed, that the
February 14, 2022
Page 8
Citizens' Petition did not meet a technical form requirement of Minn. R. 8205.1010, and it asked
City Clerk Ewald to contact Valerie Amundsen. City Clerk Ewald responded to the Elections
Office that she would discuss with City Administrator Zikmund first upon his return and then
would promptly discuss it with Valerie Amundsen. City Clerk Ewald did not, however, discuss
the alleged error with Amundsens or any other member of the Citizens' Petition Committee.
Amundsens did not learn about the alleged error until February 4, 2022, or nine days after the
Election Office emailed City Clerk Ewald, and they only learned of the error then because Valerie
Amundsen independently learned of the Special Meeting scheduled for that day and attended via
Zoom. At the February 4, 2022 Special Meeting, City Attorney Riggs presented the February 4,
2022 Insufficiency Letter.
Amundsens have repeatedly reached out to City Clerk Ewald and other City staff on behalf
of Citizen Petitioners asking that the number of required signatures be calculated and the alleged
particular deficiencies of the Citizens' Petition be given, as City Clerk Ewald was and is statutorily
required to do, but City Clerk Ewald and City Administrator Zikmund have refused to do either.
For example, on February 10, 2022 (or 16 days after the Citizens' Petition was submitted and four
days before the deadline given by City for Citizen Petitioners to amend the Citizens' Petition),
Amundsens requested the official calculation of the required number of signatures from City Clerk
Ewald. City Clerk Ewald's response was, in its entirety, "[w]e have not calculated that."
Amundsens responded that they were "astonished" to learn that she had not even calculated the
required number of signatures with only four days remaining before the amended Citizens' Petition
was supposedly due, and they reasonably asked City Clerk Ewald to let them know the required
number by first thing the next morning. But, instead, City Administrator Zikmund responded the
next day, telling Amundsens that not only is "there is no need for us to calculate [the number of
valid signatures required] at this time" but also, "[g]iven [Amundsens'] tone and inability to
understand staff does not take direction from you," City Clerk Ewald and all other City staff would
not be responding to any further inquiries and they should direct all future communications to City
Administrator Zikmund. City Administrator Zikmund's email was sent 17 days after the Citizens'
Petition was submitted and three days before the deadline given by City to Citizen Petitioners to
submit an amended Citizens' Petition, which, in City Clerk Ewald's own words, must "include the
requisite number of signatures in the proper form."
H. ERROR NO. 2: CITY CLERK EWALD USED AN IMPERMISSIBLE
CONSIDERATION TO CLAIM THE CITIZENS' PETITION WAS INVALID
BECAUSE, EVEN IF THE FORM REQUIREMENTS OF MINN R. 8205.1010
APPLIED TO THE CITIZENS' PETITION, THE VERIFICATION PROCESS
UNDER MINN. R. 8205.1050 MANDATES THE CITIZENS' PETITION TO BE
VERIFIED AS SUFFICIENT
The only justification used by City Clerk Ewald to "determine" that the Citizens' Petition
was insufficient was the non -binding assertion by the Elections Office that the Citizens' Petition
did not meet all of the form requirements of Minn. R. 8205.1010. But, even if Minn. R. 8205. 10 10
February 14, 2022
Page 9
applied to the Citizens' Petition, Minn. R. 8205.1050, subp. 2 provides, as follows, the procedure
for verifying petitions to determine whether they comply with Minn. R. 8205.1010, including the
requirement that the filing officer — in this case City Clerk Ewald — declare the Citizens' Petition
sufficient as long as it "substantial[ly]" complies with type size requirements:
Subp. 2. Verifying petitions. The filing officer shall verif each etition usin the
method in items A to C.
A. The filing officer shall inspect the form of the petition to determine
whether it complies with part 8205.1010. The filing officer need only
determine substantial com liance with regard to any a size on the form.
B. The filing officer shall inspect the petition to determine whether it has
been signed by the required number of signatories and whether the
signatories meet the applicable eligibility requirements.
If the petition has not been signed by the required number of qualified
signatories, the filing officer must notify the person who filed the petition:
(1) that the petition has not been signed by the required number of
signatories; and
(2) of the number of additional signatures needed.
If the time for circulating the petition has not expired, the
petitioners may collect additional signatures and submit
them at one time to the filing officer before the circulation
period expires.
C. If the petition satisfies the form requirements in part 8205.1010 and has
been signed by the required number of qualified signatories during the
applicable time period, the filing officer shall notify the person whose name
is on the RLtition receipt that the petition is sufficient.
(Emphasis added). Minn. R. 8205.1050, subp. 3 adds that "[t]he filing officer shall complete the
verification of a petition as soon as practicable but no later than ten working days after the day_
on which the petition was filed." (Emphasis added).
Here, City Clerk Ewald not only (1) never determined that there was not substantial
compliance with regard to any type size on the Citizens' Petition form but also (2) did not even
inspect the Citizens' Petition within 10 working days to determine whether it had been signed by
February 14, 2022
Page 10
the required number of signatories and whether the signatories meet the applicable eligibility
requirements.
Even if the Citizens' Petition had not substantially complied with regard to any type size
on the form, however, as stated above, it still would not matter because the Court of Appeals has
held that, "[n]otwithstanding the form requirements of Minn. R. 8205.1010 and the verification
requirement of Minn. R. 8205.1050 (2003), the filing of [an otherwise valid] petition suspend[s]
the effective date of the ordinance pending the outcome of a referendum vote." In re Grand Rapids,
2006 WL 1985595, at *2.
III. ERROR NO.3: CITY CLERK EWALD ERROUNOUSLY BASED HER FEBUARY
4, 2022 INSUFFICIENCY LETTER ON AN ALLEGED "MERE
TECHNICALITY," NOT ON A MANDATORY STATUTORY REQUIREMENT
Even if City Clerk Ewald's attempts to find a statutory loophole actually had merit,
Minnesota courts, including the Supreme Court, have been extremely reluctant to allow a mere
technicality to exclude such a citizens' petition. For example, In re Grand Rapids, 2006 WL
1985595 at *2, the Court of Appeals states, as follows, this principal:
Under Minn. R. 8205.1010, subp. 2, petitions must meet nine technical form
requirements. Here, while the petition for referendum met all of the r uirements
of the statute, it failed to meet five of the nine technical requirements of the rule.
This is a significant number of technical deficiencies, but we are reminded that the
Minnesota Supreme Court has stated:
Courts can take notice of how difficult it is to prepare and to circulate any
petition. Frequently such petitions are prepared by laymen, not skilled in the
technical aspects of the law. Courts should exercise extreme caution in
ruling out, on mere technicalities, such documents f as petitions] which are
the result of democracy working at the grassroots level.
Bogen v. Sheedy, 304 Minn. 62, 71, 229 N.W.2d 19, 24 (1975). The district court
did not err in exercising such caution.
(Emphasis added; bracketed information in original). The Supreme Court in Butler v. City of Saint
Paul, 936 N.W.2d 478, 481 - 82 (Minn. 2019) affirmed, as follows, that the policy stated by Bogen
has not changed:
We turn first to Butler's argument that the district court erred in upholding the City's
reliance on the SVRS to reject signatures contained in Butler's petition. Butler's
petition involves a citizen -led effort to urge residents of Saint Paul to vote to amend
the city charter. We have long romoted "the enfranchisement of qualified
voters[.]" Bell v. Gannaway, 303 Minn. 346, 227 N.W.2d 797, 802 (1975)
February 14, 2022
Page 11
(upholding challenged absentee ballots). And we have been reluctant to exclude
such petitions "on mere technicalities," because the can be "the result of
democracy working at the Uassroots level." Bogen v. Sheedy, 304 Minn. 62, 229
N.W.2d 19, 24 (1975). But we also recognize that we must adhere to mandatory
statutory requirements, such as a voter's "affidavit of residence and eli ibilit " to
vote, to ensure that only those who are qualified to participate do so. Bell, 227
N.W.2d at 803 (concluding that absentee voters "must be held to a strict
compliance" with all substantial requirements of absentee voter statutes).
(Emphasis added). And, in Butler, the Supreme Court upheld St. Paul's determination that the
petition was insufficient because it did not adhere to the mandatory statutory requirement for
minimum number of valid signatures from registered voters.
Here, City Clerk Ewald not only (1) did not determine whether the Citizen Petitioners had
met their required number of valid signatures in the Citizens' Petition but also (2) refused to even
calculate the required number. City Clerk Ewald must, therefore, immediately reverse the February
4, 2022 Insufficiency Letter and accept the Citizens' Petition as sufficient.
Sincerely,
TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP
/s/ Jack Y. Perry
Jack Y. Perry
JYP:fcb
cc: Brian & Valerie Amundsen
Scott Riggs, City Attorney
Emily Hunt, Elections Office
Exhibit C
RESOLUTION NO.9553
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION REAFFIRMING RESOLUTION NO. 9547
REGARDING A PETITION FILED UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTES,
SECTION 410.12, SUBDIVISION 7
WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 410.12, subd. 7, the Mounds View
Charter Commission presented to the Mounds View City Council a proposed ordinance amending
section 7.03 of the Mounds View City Charter; and
WHEREAS, on December 13, 2021 the Mounds View City Council passed Ordinance No.
984 to enact the proposed amendment to section 7.03 of the Mounds View City Charter and
Ordinance No. 984 was published on December 21, 2021; and
WHEREAS, the amendment to the Mounds View City Charter becomes effective on
March 21, 2022 unless a petition requesting a referendum on the ordinance is filed by February 22,
2022; and
WHEREAS, on January 25, 2022 a petition was filed with the City Clerk; and
WHEREAS, on February 4, 2022, the City Council called a special meeting regarding the
petition and passed Resolution No. 9547 accepting the findings of the City Clerk that the petition
was deficient; and
WHEREAS, petitioners were provided with a notice of insufficiency on February 4, 2022,
which provided that February 14, 2022, was the 10-day statutory deadline for submitting an
amended petition; and
WHEREAS, petitioners submitted a letter through their attorney on February 14, 2022,
objecting to, seeking reconsideration of, and otherwise appealing the notice of insufficiency and
stating that the City Clerk must immediately reverse the notice of insufficiency and accept the
petition as sufficient; and
WHEREAS, the letter did not explicitly state that the letter constituted the submission of
an amended or new petition nor was an amended or new version of the petition submitted with the
letter; and
WHEREAS, the City Clerk may respond to the letter using the process for an amended
petition as described in Minnesota Statutes, Section 410.12 even though no actual petition has been
submitted; and
DOC SO PEN\MU210\4\780902. v2-2/ 17/22
WHEREAS, under Minnesota Statutes, Section 410.12, subdivision 3, the City Clerk is
required to review the amended petition within five days and if the petition is still deficient, the
City Clerk is not required to present the findings to the City Council, but must notify the petitioners
and file the certificate of insufficiency in the office of the City Clerk; and
WHEREAS, it has been determined that no amended or new petition or supplemental
information to the original petition submitted on January 25, 2022, has been provided to the City;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that since no new or amended petition has been
provided to the City, Resolution No. 9547 is still valid along with the City Clerk's findings
provided therein.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mounds
View hereby reaffirms Resolution No. 9547 adopted on February 4, 2022, in its entirety and
acknowledges that the City Clerk may provide notice thereof to the Petitioners consistent with
Minnesota Statutes, Section 410.12.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mounds View this 18th day of February 2022.
Carol A. Mueller, Mayor
Attest:
Nyle Zikmund
City Administrator
(SEAL)
DOCSOPEN\MU2 ] 0\4\780902.v2-2/17/22