Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAmundsen Closing Argument August 20 2019August 19, 2019 The Honorable Chief Judge John H. Guthmann Ramsey County District Court Administration 15 West Kellogg Boulevard Room 170 St. Paul, MN 55102 Court File Number 62-CV 19-4965 Re: In the Matter of the Petition to Remove Brian Amundsen Dear Honorable Chief Judge John H Guthmann: Your Honor, Request of the Court This letter is the closing argument, which you requested in the Matter of the Petition to remove me from the Mounds View Charter Commission. I again state that I have done nothing that could be considered grounds that warrant my removal from the Commission and respectfully ask Your Honor to: • deny the request for my removal from the Commission; • affirm that the Commission has full statutory authority to conduct all Commission business, including amendment proposals, when meeting with a quorum, as is established in statutes and Commission Bylaws. Introduction I humbly ask that you deny the City's request and allow me to continue serving the citizens of Mounds View as a Charter Commission member. As I shared at the hearing, I am a long time 40 year resident of the city, and place a high value on giving back to society by being of service to others. My service is not for my own accolades, but to improve the lives of others, care for citizen's rights, and use the God given gifts with which I have been blessed. My faith instructs me that my charisms are gifts to be shared, and not stored up for my own benefit, and so this has been my life's focus. As such, I have served the community in many capacities, as stated at the hearing. I tend to have a highly analytical approach when looking at issues. I place a high value on good open and honest communication and dialogue, respect for all, and valuing differing opinions. My numerous encounters with other groups, detailed in letters submitted to the Court, corroborate just that. I do not seek to be the leader, but when asked or when no others step forward, I am willing to take on that role. Frankly Your Honor, I find the situation in which I find myself quite disturbing. I find the Plaintiff's complaint highly slanderous. I again contend that I have done nothing and said nothing that warrants the action they call upon you to render. Neither testimony nor documents submitted to the Court, support the case they are attempting to make. Much of the "evidence" is opinion, suggestions, hearsay, or is simply not supported in real facts. In addition, key facts have been conveniently omitted, which would have made more clear the situation that lead up to the some -what contentious meeting of May 21 st. I would suggest, therefore, that Your Honor's stipulation at the outset of the hearing, that "grounds" should be found, has simply not been presented in this case. Case File: 62-CV 19-4965 Page 1 of 11 Review of the Issues 1) Has the Plaintiff proven Grounds exist to consider removing Brian Amundsen from Charter Commission due to his actions? The Plaintiff has not presented testimony or evidence that connects any of my actions, performance, behaviors, or presence, to any inability of the Commission to function. I argue that the Plaintiff has not proven grounds exist to request my removal from the Commission. The Plaintiff stated at the August 5, 2419, Hearing, and documented in the case transcript (Tr. Pg. 16, 5 to 8) that the "main issue has been the inability to keep a fully functioning Charter Commission in place" However, the Commission has been fully appointed and functioning, and the Plaintiff has failed to show or clearly connect any actions, on my part, to any Commission failure to fulfill its function. Furthermore, in the Plaintiff's closing argument, letter dated August 12, 2019, the Plaintiff makes several claims, which are not based on actual testimony, but instead are based on hearsay, or are witness opinion or speculation. The Court has heard testimony from current Commissioners, and has exhibits (exhibits A to M), including former Commissioners, of my respectful behavior, conduct, and knowledgeable contributions to the Commission. The Plaintiffs letter argues that it is my very presence at the Commission meetings that is preventing the Commission from functioning, and speculates that there may be insufficient applicants to fill open seats in the future. However, the Court has documentation (Answer Amendment Attachment 1) that during my current appointment there have been applicants to fill open seats on the Commission. The documents and testimony also fails to show that my presence or actions at meetings has been the source of resignations of members (Answer Attachment 6 and Answer Amendment Attachments 1 and 5). In addition, the Plaintiff has not presented any specific conduct, or behavior, on my part, for the Court to evaluate. If a Plaintiff can accuse any member of general conduct and have the Court remove that member, then the Commission's authority to set its own rules, procedures and operations by statute, are no longer by that body, but by the whim of a 3rd pasty request to the Court. I would also suggest that "conduct "is highly subjective, and evaluation of said conduct can easily be influenced by bias of the evaluator (City), as will be argued later in this closing. In civil litigation, it is the responsibility of the plaintiff to prove grounds exist with a preponderance of clear convincing evidence that a defendant has limited the plaintiffs rights. The foundational issue is this: Can this Plaintiff ask the Court to remove a Commissioner, me, because of the Plaintiff's concern about general conduct without presenting what Plaintiff right has been restricted? Furthermore, can Plaintiff ask the Court to remove a Commissioner based on Plaintiff's own evaluation of the Commissioner's conduct and actions, without regard to what the statutes, and said body's own rules set as the function of the Commission and duty of a Commissioner? No testimony or evidence was presented that I acted or conducted myself in a way that violated statute requirements, or the Commission rules and procedures. I argue that the Court should not remove a Commissioner on Plaintiff's description of conduct, which Plaintiff does not base on any standard or claim of restricted right, and may be politically or personally motivated. I submit that the statutes set the standard for evaluating the Commission functions. I also argue that the Court has both testimony and evidence that the Commission has had full authority to function during my current appointment, has not failed to perform the duties required by statute, and has not restricted Plaintiff's rights to propose amendments. Consequently, there exist no grounds for my removal due to my conduct, which has been supportive of the Commission fulfilling its function. Case File: 62-CV-19-4965 Page 2 of 11 I agree that the discussions of quorum and fully appointed Commission are not related to the issue of grounds for my removal. The Plaintiff, while not contending that their rights have been restricted, turned to arguing that the Commission must have a full complement of members to act on charter amendments. This argument is false because Minn. Stat. 410.05 allows Commission business with quorum, and Minn. Stat. 410.12 does not restrict Commission authority to only be valid with a full Commission. Additionally, the City Council has used ordinances in previous years, to enact charter amendments proposed under Minn. Stat. 410.12 subd. 7 during years the Commission did NOT have full complement of members, as can be seen from the Letter Attachments 6 "City Charter" page 29. Both statute language and Plaintiff's past action, accepting charter language amendments, supports that Commission authority is present without full complement. Lastly, I argue that a commissioner's conduct should not ever be grounds for removal unless that conduct violates statutes, Commission rules, Commission bylaws, or involves a criminal, malfeasance or nonfeasance foundation against that Commissioner. None of these grounds apply to me, nor has Plaintiff presented or suggested this to be the case. 2) The Commission Functions effectively and Operates according to statute and rules. The Legislature enacted Minn. Stat. 410 to address the establishment of the Commission, the adoption of a charter, the amendment process for charter language, and the authority of the Commission to set the form and powers of the local government. "Effective operation" of the Commission should be an objective measure of the Commission fulfilling its statutory functions. The purpose of the Commission, after charter adoption, is to be the custodian of the charter's amendments. Statute provides charter amendment authority, and methods in Minn. Stat. 410.12. Within the seven subdivisions for the methods allowed to amend the charter, some methods (Minn. Stat. 410.12, subd. 1 and 7) dictate the Commission may act, without time specified, and some methods Minn. Stat. 410.12, subd. 1,2,3,4 and 5 dictate the Commission shall act, with time specifically stated. Commission effectiveness should be measured in relation to the amendment method being utilized. In no case can the Commission, voters, or the City Council work unilaterally to amend charter language; it requires agreement of two of the three. There have been no citizen petitions or City Council proposed amendments, to which Mr. Meehlhause testified (Tr. Pg. 50, 8-18), in the last seven years. The Commission, therefore, has operated in the mode of may propose amendment, and must meet at a minimum just once per year. A threshold the Commission has easily met and surpassed. Our current schedule of meeting every 2 months, as Brandon Clawson testified, is certainly not inactive. The Commission has functioned fully under its duties of Minn. Stat. 410.12. Mr. Meehlhause testified (Tr. Pg. 50, 12) that he was not aware of any amendments using Minn. Stat. 410.12 subd. 5 (Amendment proposed by council.) having been sent to the Commission during his seven years on the City Council. Neither has any Minn. Stat. 410.12, subd. 1,2,3, or 4 petitions from voters been received by the Commission, during my appointment. If the Commission has not needed to fill an active amendment function, then my conduct did not a cause Commission dysfunction of its mandatory provisions, and should not be a grounds for my removal. My conduct, behavior, or performance, therefore, cannot be a cause or reason for removal due to "conduct causing dysfunction" that impairs the City Council's concern regarding charter language. Nor has my conduct, in any way, restricted the City Council or citizen's rights to propose amendments under Minn. Stat. 410.12, subd. 1,2, 3, 4 or 5. Case File: 62-CV 19-4965 Page 3 of 11 Has my conduct delayed or impaired the Commission functions under Minn. Stat. 410.12. subd. 1 or 7, which are provisional non -time sensitive acts of the Commission? No. The Plaintiff argues that the Commission has "done nothing". However, the Court has documents and testimony that the Plaintiff's claim is false. The Commission has done something. Document (Letter Attachment 6, Charter, Page 29) shows the Commission has been productive with its own initiatives, and is active. In addition, the Commission initiated review, research, and proposed amendments to Chapter 4 (Elections and Nominations). That Chapter was completed in March 2019, per Mr. Zikmunds testimony (Tr. Pg. 40, 13-18). The Court also has documents, that as secretary, I was directed by the Commission on May 21,2019 (5/21/2019 Commission meeting, https://webstrearning.ctvl5.org/viewer.t)hp?streamid-3589, time stamp 1:32:17 to 1:40:35) to email the Commission recorded and approved Chapter 4 proposed amendment language to City Attorney for review and comment. (Letter Attachment 5, May 28, 2019 comment by Mr. Zikmund). All of this shows the Commission is functioning under Minn. Stat. 410.12, subd. 1. Again, if the Commission has completed its functions under its duties of Minn. Stat. 410.12, subd. 1, then the Commission's function has neither been impaired nor hampered. Dysfunction has not been shown or proven; therefore, my removal is not necessary or appropriate. The Plaintiff has not submitted any evidence relevant to my performance or actions that would show the Commission has not functioned related to any of its duties, including Chapter 4 Elections and Nomination or Chapter 8 Special Assessments (a Commission initiative prior to my current appointment time). Chapter 8 deals with voter rights to petition a public improvement, the key reason our city adopted a charter in 1979. The Court heard Mr. Zikmund testify that the Commission has not extended meetings times "beyond the Commissions appointed time", other than on May 21 (Tr. Pg. 40, 19 to Pg. 41, 2). I want to take a moment to address the Plaintiff's Chapter 8 argument, presented in both complaint and closing arguments, but without testimony. Chapter 8 was a Commission initiative under Minn. Stat. 410.12, subd. 1, which I personally requested of the Commission due to my experience with a successful petition in 2005 to stop a City Council special assessment, again the initial key reason the city has a charter. My request was for the Commission to review one paragraph, which might need to be broken into smaller paragraphs, and add a time line chart. This topic did not have a time line requirement. It was not delayed by my conduct or belabored conversations, as Plaintiff contends in the Closing Letter, and implies that Mr. Zikmund testified. In actuality, Mr. Zikmund does not testify on this issue, and could not give first hand testimony on Chapter 8 discussion, since it occurred prior to Mr. Zikmund's hire date as city administrator. Another objective measure of Commission function is if it follows its own rules and procedures. The Bylaws of the Commission specify Robert's Rules of Order as its procedures. The May 21, 2019, Commission meeting video demonstrates that the Commission followed Robert's Rules of Order and that the Commission made the decisions on each and every motion to act at that meeting. The Bylaws were approved earlier this year with no members suggesting Roberts Rules be replaced with new rules of operation. My asking for a "Point of Order" during a meeting, is not disrespectful, in fact is the suggested phrase to use to call attention to a matter than might be "out of order". 3) Commission Functions with Authority by Size ad Quorum I agree with the Court that the Commission has no limits as to its authority and duties when quorum of its appointed members is present. The Court should again use standard rules of civil litigation, which is to read the plain language of the text. The plain language of the text has no restrictions on the Case File: 62-CV-19-4965 Page 4 of 11 Commission's functions with reference to being fully appointed. The Attorney General opinion of 1961 clearly states that the Office's earlier opinions of 1950 and 1954 were based on statutory language, which have since been repealed, and superseded, by Article XI Sections 3 and 4. (Article XI Section 3 and 4 were a result of the Legislature's 1958 repeal and replacement of the earlier Article IV Section 36. Article XI Section 3 and 4 were re -numbered to Article XII Section 4 and 5 in 1974). Further, in 1971 the Legislature, with House File 1172, clearly states that the legislature authorized the Commission to establish its rules, including quorum requirements, with reference to its operations and procedures (i.e. its function). There is no stated restriction of statutory functions of the Commission, to propose amendments, to author recommendations, to review petitions, to review and propose amendment language changes to petitioner and governing body proposals, to hold meetings, and to recommend appointments. The current statutory language clearly states that the Commission has authority to set its quorum. Nowhere in Minn. Stat. 410 is the business, procedures, resolutions, recommendations or activities restricted to being only accessible during a full appointment of the Commission or requiring all Commissioners being present at a meeting. The Commission Bylaws also do not limit the Commission's authority or powers to only when all appointments have been filled. Plaintiff s claim that all nine members must be appointed to function, fails when evaluated in the light of the statute authority for quorum, and the meaning of quorum, i.e. "the minimum number of members present to fulfill the function and duties of the body.". At the hearing, the Court heard the Plaintiff argue that it doesn't believe the Commission has full functionality without a full appointment of members, a contention with which I disagree and actually provided evidence (exhibits N "Attorney General opinion dated 4/27/1961" and O "Chapter 208, 1971 Minnesota Session Laws") that refutes Plaintiffs argument. In Plaintiffs closing letter, the discussion of full complement is shifted to me, to which I object. There is nothing in testimony where I inquire or ask for testimony about full complement. In the Hearing, I inquire about "quorum" as understood by Plaintiffs witnesses and Mr. Thomas's research on quorum. My opening statement (Tr. Pg. 21, 14) says that City Council was "under the impression that the Commission is required to have a full complement.", but I do not inquire further on full complement during examination. Plaintiffs opening statement (Tr. Pg. 13, 11-25) and now in their closing letter seems to re -iterate that it is a concern of theirs. I would like to ask the Court to consider addressing the issue by review of the plain language of statute. In considering the Minnesota League of Cities, a profession association with lobbying functions for the city, the League refers to Minn. Stat. 410.05 in its footnotes, and advocates for a "should have full complement", but not "must have full complement" to function. Their statement is consistent with my position that there is no impediment for a quorum of appointed members, to meet and have full function and authority. The Plaintiff imagines that I am advocating for the Commission to only be of quorum size, which is speculation, and to which I object on the grounds I have not stated this. If the Court were to view the joint work session (City Council & Commission) of October 3, 2016, (https://webstreaming.ctvl5.org/viewer.php7=2094, time stamp 8:25-10:50) prior to my current appointment, the Court would hear me advocating for the City Council to use its appointment authority, and engage in recruitment to fill the Commission with nine members. Both the City Council and Charter Commission agreed that nine appointments was an appropriate Commission size. The Plaintiff also questions the Court on the validity of Commission's bylaws setting the Commission size. The Court has already answered this question on January 3, 2017. In file 62-CV 11-1263 (filed Case File: 62-CV-19-4965 Page 5 of 11 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 and Mr. Meehlhause state that the City Council has not submitted any amendments to correct their perceived Charter language issues they believe needs clarity. In the letter, Attachment 8 "Letter July 11, 2019 to Brandon Clawson, signed by Mayor Mueller", the mayor describes how the Council sees the Commission acting, and states that the City Attorney should be the primary drafter of Commission Ianguage. In the "Letter", the Mayor provides another half-truth to the Court by including minutes, which are a test of a service, but not the Commissions official draft minutes (see my explanation in Answer -Amendment referring to the Plaintiff's Letter Attachment 8). City Council members Mayor Mueller, Mr. Bergeron, and Mr. Hull verbalize similar bias during the June 18, 2019, open meeting recording (Answer -Amendment Attachment 3) City Administrator Mr. Zikmund displays personal bias towards me as is evidenced by his conduct & interaction (or lack thereof) with me. City Administrator Zikmund testified that he had not brought any concerns or City Council priorities to me for the Charter Commission to address, though I was Commission chair in 2017 and 2018. Mr. Zikmund's testimony exhibits his bias since he states (Tr. Pg. 26 23) that he has had extensive interaction with the charter Commission and that the Commission is a top focus (Tr. Pg. 26 18-20). However, later in his testimony (Tr. Pg. 33 7) he admits that he has had no conversations with me as chair, until May 2019, 17 months after his hiring as permanent City Administrator. As the liaison to the Commission, and believing that there were significant inefficiencies with the Commission, I would have expected him to initiate some contact with me, regarding his thoughts and those of the City Council. Mr. Zikmund also testifies (Tr. Pg. 29, 8) that at the May 21, 2019, Commission meeting "they belabored the agenda for 45 minutes". However, the actual time stamp of the video shows the agenda discussion started at 0:52 and was adopted and approved at the 14:46 time -mark, just 14 minutes later. That 14-minute conversation had multiple members in the conversation, including the City Attorney, whose presence is not typical and was requested by Mr. Zikmund as stated by City Attorney in the video. Mr. Zikmund did testify that he had a conversation with me on May 16, 2019, which is correct, but stated it was about my concerns. In fact, this call occurred after I contacted Mayor Mueller to report that Mr. Zikmund was not returning my phone calls or emails for over two weeks. Further bias was exhibited on the stand by Mr. Zikmund when I asked if another Commissioner had been asked to resign, he was evasive. When I questioned Mr. Zikmund about Letter Attachment 2 and the quorum standard used, he was non descript, even though he testified he had read all the Charter Commission documents back to 1978, which include the older quorum standard. In March 2019, the Mr. Zikmund and City Attorney conducted training for the whole Commission, which included Mr. Clawson. Yet Mr. Clawson testified (Tr. Pg. 62, 2-10) that he was confused about the process for Chapter 4 now that the Commission finished its draft proposed amendment. At the May 21, 2019 Charter Commission meeting (time stamp 1:41:00), the City Attorney stated that he would have his comments back for the Commission's July meeting. However, in Mr, Zikmund history file (Letter Attachment 5), Mr. Zikmund states that City Attorney was directed to use City Council discussion for drafting a chapter 4 amendment, instead of the Commission's proposed language or resolution, which is City Council subversion of Minn. Stat. 410.12 subd. 7 for an amendment the City Council is proposing, not the Commission. This was after the Commission meeting. This again creates an obvious conflict of interest, similar to the one Your Honor noted at the hearing. It is difficult, if not impossible, for the same Attorney to serve different parties, City Council and Charter Commission, who may be pursuing different proposed amendment language. One last example, Mr. Zikmund included in City's Letter (Letter, Attachment 4), a forwarded partial email from Case File: 62-CV 19-4965 Page 7 of 11 me to City Attorney, that deceptively omits the last part of my email, which confirms City Attorney and I had a congenial relationship. The Plaintiff points to Mr. Meehlhause's testimony where he stated that he observed Commission's conduct, but Meehlhause actually simply testifies that he has "attended meetings" and only spoke once (Tr. Pg. 45, 23 to Tr. Pg. 46, 3). City Council member Meehlhause does not testify about observing meeting conduct or any member's individual conduct. In fact, the Court did not hear testimony describing what conduct was observed. In addition, Mr. Meehlhause testified that he did not know the statutes or bylaws, so his evaluation of Commission conduct has no standard against which to be measured. While Mr. Meehlhause testifies (Tr. Pg. 46, 20) that recruiting "has been a challenge", his comment is not put into any time context, thereby identifying when it was a challenge. Plaintiff's closing argument also claims Mr. Meehlhause as saying recruiting has become "increasingly difficult", whereas this is not supported by the actual text of the hearing testimony. In addition, Mr. Meehlhause has decided he "probably" will not recruit for the Commission at this time, but as a party (City Council member) to this request of Your Honor to remove me from the Commission, I would suggest he has some bias against me. While it is a personal prerogative of Mr. Meehlhause to choose not to recruit, it has no relevance to grounds for my removal. In my Answer and Answer -Amendment, the Court received evidence of the bias of city staff towards me, along with efforts to control the Commission. The Plaintiff in its Letter Attachment 8 admits it controls other Commissions established under Council's authority, and would like to have the Charter Commission use the same procedures and rules. I argue that this is more evidence of the City Council and city staff attempting to control the Commission agenda and amendment proposals. Has the Plaintiff attempted to also apply a conduct standard to other Commission members? Yes. The Court heard testimony from Mr. Zikmund and Mr. Thomas, that initially Plaintiff applied the conduct argument to Mr. Thomas as well, by asking him to resign or be removed by Court order. In the last 9 months, the City has attempted and continues its campaign to fundamentally change the Charter Commission, its membership and makeup. As testified, in October 2018, the City Council recommended to the Court, that Mr. William Doty should not be re -appointed. Moreover, he was not reappointed, though he was interested in continuing. As testified, Mr. Jonathon Thomas received a phone call from City Administrator Zikmund shortly after the June 3rd meeting (as did I), and was asked to resign from the Commission. He and I were both informed that if our resignations were not received by Friday, June 7, the City Council would submit letters to the Court asking for both of us to be removed from our appointments. All three of these Commission members have traits in common; concern for the independent authority of the Commission, and all three are long standing older (age) members of the Commission. Both Mr. Thomas and I have an understanding of statutes, and understand the Commission to be an independent authority, not under the authority of the City Council. We are members who are willing to question the City Council and staff, if necessary, and not simply rubber stamp. 5) Defense of My Conduct and actions serving on the Charter Commission Finally, the Court heard testimony and received evidence, which describes my presence and conduct on the Commission. I have been described as professional, courteous, open to dialog, welcoming to all members and it has been stated that my knowledge is an asset to the Commission. The Court also has other reference letters that describe my actions and interactions with other organizations and individuals, as also being courteous, professional and dedicated to following the organization's rules. I Case File: 62-CV 19-4965 Page 8 of 11 will briefly summarize them here. Mr. Thomas, a current Commission member, testified that he did not find me to be disrespectful at the May 21, 2019, Commission meeting (Tr. Pg. 71, 24 to Pg.72, 2). Mr. Thomas also provided a letter, July 30, 2019, after serving many years on the Commission with me, stating that I have faithfully attended meetings, worked on my own time to research information for the Commission, treated everyone with fairness and respect, and allowed everyone the opportunity to speak, even encouraging some to state their concerns. Mr. Peterson, a current Commission member, testified that I was never disrespectful at a Commission meeting, was always willing to listen to different viewpoints, and he is "very mystified" as to why the City Council would accuse me (of disrespect), because he cannot find any reason for it. Mr. Peterson also provided a letter, July 30, 2019, stating that my character is superb, as both chair and secretary. He states that I listen to all points of view, and actively ask other's opinions. He comments that there was no misconduct at the May 21, 2019 meeting or any other (he was there). He also references the City Council's disrespect towards me and Bill (William) Doty, who City Council opposed for reappointment. He addresses the Court with concerns about the City Council attempt to make the Charter Commission a puppet of the City Council. Ms. Barbara Thomas -Smith, a former Commission member who served with me, also sent a letter, July 31, 2019, in which she describes my conduct as "extremely helpful resource to guide a new member and new office holder" and that the Commission cannot afford to lose the "institutional knowledge" which I have gained in my service time. Mr. Bill Mori, a former Commission member who also served with me, sent a letter, July 31, 2019, and wrote "he never once witnessed any behavior that was less than professional and courteous. Consequently, I was shocked and dismayed when I learned that the Mounds View City Council was seeking his and another senior members' (Mr. Thomas) dismissal from the Commission." He and 11 others (including Mr. Peterson, Ms. Thomas -Smith, and Mr. Thomas) expressed their support for Mr. Thomas and myself at the City Council June 10, 2019 meeting after viewing the Commission's May 21, 2019 meeting and saw no reason for the City Council to request my dismissal. Mr. Joshua Kiley, Ramsey County Elections, Elections Administrator 2, with whom I work part-time as Head Election Judge, managing polling locations, provided a letter July 30, 2019. Mr. Kiley states, "Brian has consistently demonstrated patient, assistive and accommodating attitude toward the voters of our community" and "offices around the state need dedicated individuals, like Brian, that are reliable, accurate in their work, detail conscious, and very passionate about serving their community." Mr. Kiley closes with "Our office plans to ask Brian to serve as a Head Election Judge in 2019, and I hope he is willing to serve in the years beyond." Mr. Tom Pavlovich's (Parish Administrator) letter, July 30, 2019, reiterates his experience that my character is to conduct myself in a professional and constructive manner, respectful and thoughtful. Mr. Michael McDonald's (former Parish Administrator) letter, July 31, 2019, writes to describe my behavior, my unique skills, and insightful analysis as being an asset to the organization, and that my contributions were essential to responsible management, while being an asset to responsible leadership. Case File: 62-CV-19-4965 Page 9 of 11 Others wrote the Court of my integrity, and that I take obligations seriously, describing me as a caring person within the community. They said I act based on rules, integrity and ability to put others before myself, and am not afraid to speak up when an injustice or persons rights are being infringed upon. No testimony was given connecting my conduct or presence to a delay of Commission business, or hampering its ability to fulfill its function as measured by statute standards. Testimony of Jonathon Thomas, Jerry Peterson, and Brandon Clawson — all Commission members, with whom I serve, all testified that I treat them with respect. No testimony was given that I abuse or disrupt the meeting process and procedures. The online video recording of the May 21, 2019, Charter Commission meeting shows that I conduct myself professionally, keeping comments to the topic of discussion, asking for clarity, properly making motions, following the decisions of the Commission, while not scandalizing other members or resorting to personal attacks. The added agenda items on May 21, 2019 caused contention because, as I argued to the Court in my Answer, the City Staff were directing the Chair to expand the chair authority and change Commission Bylaw specified duties and procedures without regard to the Commission previous decisions on agenda format and minutes recording. I had attempted for over 30 days to resolve this with the Chair and Mr. Zikmund with only deadlocked differing opinion, thus the Commission was needed to finally decide. The audio recording of the City Council meeting of June 18, 2019 (Answer Amendment, Attachment 3), depicts my professional conduct, willingness to discuss a difference of opinion, willingness to listen openly to other's opinions and not use strong language when confronted by the other party, and my ability to focus on the topic. During that June 18 meeting, Council Members scolded me, stating that I did not show courtesy to the chair by bringing a printed proposed agenda. In my opinion, this would have been quite presumptuous of me. The online video recording of the Charter Commission meeting of January 29, 2019, (last meeting I chaired) — depicts my professional manner in conducting meetings, willingness and desire to move from chair position, and promote newer members to leadership positions. This meeting was more typical of Commission meetings. Lastly, while elected officials may be removed from office for malfeasance or nonfeasance, clearly these are not the Plaintiff's accusation and therefore do not apply in this case as reason for removal. Conclusion Your Honor. This case is about a City trying to exercise its control over a separate autonomous body, in this case the Mounds View Charter Commission, by attempting to remove a member (me) from his appointment without just cause. The case brought against me was frankly shocking, slanderous, biased and completely without merit. In fact, I contend that I have done nothing wrong. The Plaintiff failed to present any valid or reasonable grounds, as per your instructions, to support their claim that the Commission is not able to effectively function with me on the Commission. Actually, the Commission functions just fine, and is fulfilling its statutory required function. They further attempted to muddy the waters, by bringing in many tangential issues, such as quorum, turnover and full complement of the Commission, which are arguably irrelevant to the original charge made against me. As stated in evidence, the City acknowledges that they would like to "change" the Commission, and simply sees me as a barrier. The Plaintiff failed to present evidence that linked my behavior or conduct to any purported Commission ineffectiveness or inactivity. Many accusations were tossed about throughout this case, Case File: 62-CV 19-4965 Page 10 of 11 but no documents or testimony presented showed I have done anything wrong in the completion of my duties, following the Commission rules. Instead, what I have done is: 1) help the Commission fulfill its statutory function and responsibilities, 2) follow the Bylaws of the Commission and asked the Commission to do likewise, 3) abided by the meeting "Rules" (Roberts Rules), 4) been willing to step forward to serve in leadership roles when asked, 5) encouraged others to join the Commission when openings existed, 6) encouraged members to engage in dialogue at meetings, 7) mentored new members, 8) spent considerable time outside of meetings doing writing and research, 9) treated others with respect, 10) voiced concerns with honesty and open dialogue, 11) served on the Commission for approximately 15 years. I have treated my Commission appointment with the seriousness I believes it warrants, as I do with all my volunteer endeavors. (Note: I would like to correct one small error I noticed when reading the actual Hearing transcript, purchased from the Lori Morrow, Court Transcriber. On Tr. Pg. 19, 18, when giving my opening statement, I nervously mis-spoke and accidentally said, "I serve on the board now at Sharing and Caring Hands". I apologize Your Honor; I simply volunteer with Sharing & Caring, but am not on their board. I do not want to mislead the Court in any way.) I consider it a great honor to serve the citizens of Mounds View and represent their rights by my appointment on the Charter Commission. As evidenced by the great support I have submitted to Your Honor by way of both testimony and reference letters, I submit that I am a great fit for serving on the Commission. Because of the nature of the Commission's authority, that it is an autonomous body representing the citizens, it is appropriate and acceptable to have members serving who might sometimes question the City. It is after all, why the Mounds View citizens petitioned to be a Home Rule Charter City in the first place, 40 years ago. I respectfully request that the Court deny the City's request, and allow me to continue serving on the Mounds View Charter Commission. In addition, I would ask Your Honor to clarify the issue of Commission authority to operate without full complement, so long as quorum is satisfied (if possible). Thank you Your Honor for allowing me to be heard in this matter. Please let me know if you have any questions or need any further information. Sincerely and with r ect, Brian undse 3048 Woodale DriV Mounds View MN 55112 763-786-5699 bvamundsen@yahoo.com Cc: Mayor Carol Mueller Case File: 62-CV 19-4965 Page 11 of 11