City Council Meeting Date: June 4, 2024
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Ben Martig, City Administrator
City Attorney’s Office
Title
Consider Authorizing and Directing Execution of Check for Statutory Costs and Disbursements.
Body
Action Requested:
Motion to authorize and direct Mayor Rhonda Pownell and City Clerk Lynette Peterson to endorse a check made payable to Mayor Pownell and City Clerk Peterson by David Ludescher for statutory costs and disbursements in the amount of $575.00 pursuant to an order of the Rice County District Court, dated April 2, 2024, in District Court File Number 66-CV-23-2091, in order that the funds may be deposited in the City of Northfield general fund.
Summary Report:
Earlier this year, February 11, 2024, the Rice County District Court ordered the dismissal of a lawsuit brought by David Ludescher, which named Mayor Rhonda Pownell and City Clerk Lynette Peterson as defendants, individually and in their respective official capacities for the City of Northfield. The lawsuit sought to challenge a routine revision to the City Charter. The approved amendment was necessary to bring City Charter, Section 4.5, into compliance with state law. The amendment to the City Charter was recommended based on the advice of both an independent attorney hired by the Northfield Charter Commission to review the matter, as well as by the City Attorney.
Specifically, the lawsuit challenged the Northfield City Council’s adoption of Ordinance 1048, which amended Northfield City Charter, Section 4.5, which ordinance was originally approved by the City Council on November 15, 2022. The lawsuit challenged the procedure by which the City Council adopted the ordinance containing Charter amendment.
The City Council took up Ordinance 1048 upon the recommendation of the Northfield Charter Commission pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 410.12, subd. 7. Northfield City Charter Sec. 4.7 requires two readings of an ordinance prior to final passage. The ordinance was placed on the consent agenda as a routine item previously acted on for second reading on November 15, 2022.
In his lawsuit, Mr. Ludescher alleged that he was unable to confirm that Mayor Pownell voiced her vote upon his review of an audio/video recording of the meeting and specifically claimed that Mayor Pownell erred procedurally because, based on his viewing of the audio/video recording, she did not voice her vote on the consent agenda. He concluded that Mayor Pownell did not voice her vote at all yet acknowledged that there were no negative votes on the consent agenda when the Mayor announced that it passed. Mr. Ludescher further claimed that it is “impossible to tell” how the councilors voted in the audio recording upon which he relies and that he cannot say for certain what the votes were from merely listening to the audio/video recording of the meeting months after the vote occurred.
As the City Attorney’s office explained in responsive filings, the Mayor of the City of Northfield “shall be the presiding officer of the council” and “shall act as chief spokesperson for the council.” Northfield City Charter Sec. 3.8. Pursuant to Northfield City Code Sec. 2-58(b), the Mayor, as presiding officer
shall preserve order, enforce the rules of procedure prescribed in this division, and determine without debate, subject to the final decision of the council on appeal, all questions of procedure and order. Except as otherwise provided by statute or by this division, the proceedings of the council shall be conducted in accordance with Robert's Rules of Order, most recent edition.
As such, under the Northfield City Charter and City Code, the Mayor determines all questions of procedure and order of the City Council, subject to any Council Member’s ability to appeal a ruling of the chair to the full City Council.
With respect to determining the vote of the City Council, Northfield City Code Sec. 2-63 states that “[t]he votes of the members on any question pending before the council may be by voice vote, standing vote, or in any other manner of voting which signifies the intention of the members.” Any member present who does not vote shall be marked as “Present - Not Voting.” Northfield City Code Sec. 2-63 “If the vote is not unanimous, there shall be a roll call and the names of those voting for and against the question shall be recorded in the minutes.” Again, in this case the Mayor as presiding officer of the meeting determined the consent agenda motion to pass and there was neither a subsequent question from any other member of the City Council to that determination nor a request for a roll call.
Following the City’s filing of a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, Rice County District Judge Karie Anderson ordered the lawsuit dismissed with prejudice on February 11, 2024, finding in part that:
1. “Irrespective of whether Plaintiff’s challenge is to the substance of the Ordinance or the manner in which the vote was taken, Minnesota law makes clear that, absent express statutory authority, a plaintiff must articulate specific damages or an injury that he or she has suffered as a result of the action in question in order to have standing to bring suit in a matter of public interest. [Citation Omitted]. Plaintiff has failed to identify specific damages or injury suffered. Furthermore, nothing Plaintiff has cited from (Minnesota Statutes) Chapter 555 provides him with the express statutory authority necessary to bypass the requirement for an articulation of specific injury or damages to establish standing.”
“Dismissal under Rule 12.012(a) is proper if a party has failed to establish standing to seek relief from the Court. “When a party does not have standing, a court does not have jurisdiction to hear the matter.” [Citation omitted]. Accordingly, this Court finds no jurisdiction to hear the instant matter and, as such, dismissal of the matter is appropriate.”
The court’s dismissal of the Charter amendment lawsuit was “with prejudice,” which means the court decided the case on the merits after treating the allegations made by Mr. Ludescher as if they were true and that the case may not be refiled.
The City Attorney’s office was prepared to fully defend the City’s actions and believes the City Clerk, Mayor and City Council all acted appropriately in accordance with their official responsibilities to make this routine revision to the City Charter. However, whether a plaintiff has standing to seek relief from the Court is a threshold issue in any case, and it was in the financial interest of the City and taxpayers of Northfield that this case be dismissed expediently on grounds of standing.
In accordance with the Court’s order dismissing the lawsuit, certain statutory costs and disbursements must be paid to the prevailing party by David Ludescher pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 549.02, and Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 54.04. The Court’s Order awarding costs and disbursements in District Court File Number 66-CV-23-2091 can be found attached hereto along with the Court’s order dismissing the lawsuit. The District Court accordingly has ordered David Ludescher to pay statutory costs, disbursements, and fees in the amount of $575.00 to the named City officials, as required by law and necessitated by the Court’s order dismissing the lawsuit with prejudice.
As the City Council for the City of Northfield recognized the City’s statutory duty to defend its City officials from this lawsuit related to the performance of their official duties, Mayor Rhonda Pownell and City Clerk Lynette Peterson have requested City Council authorization to endorse the check received from Mr. Ludescher in order that the amount paid may be paid directly to the City of Northfield and deposited in the City’s general fund. The City Attorney’s office had requested Mr. Ludescher make direct payment to the City of Northfield to avoid the necessity of this action. However, Mr. Ludescher insisted on making the payment to the individual parties named as defendants in the lawsuit. Therefore, we are recommending the City Council take the action requested above to facilitate the reimbursement of the City for defense costs incurred on behalf of these officials, who were acting responsibly in their official capacities as Mayor and City Clerk rather than as individuals.
This action will finalize this legal matter by having the court-ordered fees paid directly to the City, which is the appropriate entity to receive this payment for costs the City incurred in defending this lawsuit.
Alternative Options:
Remove from the consent agenda for separate discussion prior to voting.
Financial Impacts:
$575.00 received in statutory costs from court order.
Tentative Timelines:
N/A