My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
02-24-2025 CC Agenda Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2025
>
02-24-2025 CC Agenda Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/21/2025 4:12:50 PM
Creation date
2/21/2025 4:09:32 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
x Minutes and Agendas
Minutes or Agenda
Agenda
Meeting Date
2/24/2025
Board
City Council
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
102
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
27-CV-25-2808 <br />Filed in District Court <br />State of Minnesota <br />2/15/2025 12:08 PM <br />77. Mayor Bob Tunheim, for one, admits this. See supra ¶44 & n.3 (Mayor <br />Tunheim acknowledging the 2024 City Council's intent to appoint Ms. Berrett for the <br />remainder of Mr. Johnson's unexpired term). He and his fellow council members just <br />don't like this. Id. ("So we wouldn't necessarily have to do this, but I want to, I want <br />to fix what I think the prior council did in overreaching by saying that Miss Berrett <br />was named until the end of that next term, and I don't read the statute as <br />allowing that."). <br />78. Upon information and belief, neither Mr. Tunheim, nor any other citizen of <br />Orono, brought a civil action to challenge the appointment of Ms. Berrett as an <br />"overreach." <br />79. Neither would any such lawsuit have merit, because Minnesota has long held <br />that an appointment for the full remainder of a term of office following a vacancy is <br />not "overreaching"; rather, it is reasonable and lawful. State ex rel. Evans v. Borgen, <br />248 N.W. 744, 745 (Minn. 1933) ("It is true that an elective office should not be filled <br />by appointment for a longer period than reasonably necessary. But an appointment <br />for the unexpired term cannot be held unreasonable. In fact the contrary has long <br />since been declared to be the law in this state."). <br />80. The Supreme Court in State ex rel. Loring v. Benedict, 15 Minn. 198, 204 <br />(1870), made this abundantly clear: "the legislature is not restrained from making <br />such provision for filling vacancies by appointment until a next general election, or <br />for the balance of an unexpired term, as may be deemed advisable." <br />17 <br />W <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.