St. Louis Park — The City Council on Sept. 15 considered an outside investigator’s report examining allegations that a council member violated the city charter. After receiving the investigator’s presentation and brief council discussion, the council voted to dismiss the complaint.

City attorney Soren explained the process: the complaint, filed July 8, alleged violations of the city charter related to interference with administration and improper use of city resources. The city retained outside counsel Pam Whitmore to investigate the claims and provide an independent factual report to the council.

Whitmore told the council she focused on the emails and interactions cited in the complaint and that her role was to “bind facts” rather than to recommend a specific sanction. She interviewed the council member who was the subject of the complaint, relevant staff and other parties, and reviewed full email threads that had been submitted as evidence. Whitmore said staff told her they did not interpret the council member’s communications as orders or directions that bypassed the manager, and that staff described the communications as appropriate constituent inquiries. “All of the staff that I interviewed … said that council member Dumalag is appropriately curious for representing her ward and that the manner of the way she phrased things was just inquiries,” Whitmore summarized.

After Whitmore presented her findings that she could not substantiate the charter‑violation allegations in the submitted evidence, a council member moved that the council find the complaint without merit and dismiss it. The motion carried.

Council discussion included several members noting the thoroughness of the 200‑plus page report and the importance of council norms that channel communications through the city manager and appropriate staff contacts. The council member who was the subject of the complaint declared a conflict of interest and did not participate in the deliberation or vote.

Council action: the council voted to dismiss the complaint as unsubstantiated. The vote recorded a majority in favor of dismissal with one member abstaining.

— The independent investigation concluded that the email exchanges and other cited communications did not support the charter‑violation allegations presented in the complaint.