Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Recall Petition topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City administrator: three recall petitions returned as insufficient; city attorney outlines legal standards
Summary
City staff told the council that three recall petitions turned in April 7 were returned as insufficient because they did not meet statutory form requirements and failed to allege malfeasance or nonfeasance as required under state law.
The International Falls City Council on Monday received an update from City Administrator Bergstrom on three recall petitions submitted April 7 and returned as insufficient on April 14.
Bergstrom told the council the petitions—one each for the center, west and east ward councilors—were returned because they failed to allege malfeasance or nonfeasance as required by Minnesota law and because they did not meet statutory form requirements. Specifically, Bergstrom said the petitions lacked the birth year for each signer and did not supply the consecutive numbering required by Minnesota rules cited by staff. Under the city’s charter and state practice, the administrator has 10 working days to review petitions and return insufficient petitions; submitters then have 10 working days to amend.
Residents asked the council for guidance and for clarity about petition rules. Several speakers said the charter’s petition copy did not make the Secretary of State’s additional requirements obvious. Administrator Bergstrom and the city attorney said citizens may contact city staff or the secretary of state for guidance before circulating petitions.
City Attorney (Nelson) briefed the council on the legal standard for recalling local elected officials. She cited recent Minnesota Supreme Court guidance and case law saying petitioners must show conduct affecting the performance of official duties and that the conduct be of a substantial nature affecting public rights and interests. The attorney said the court requires several elements to be proven—conduct during an official’s term and conduct tied to official duties rather than private character—and that these elements have a high legal bar. "The first is the conduct must be such as affects the performance of official duties rather than conduct which affects the official's personal character as a private individual," the city attorney said, summarizing the case law.
Bergstrom told the council the petitions are currently back with the submitter under the amendment window. He and the attorney advised petitioners to consult staff or the Secretary of State to ensure form and substantive requirements are met.
Ending — The petitions were returned as insufficient for stated procedural and substantive reasons; petitioners may amend and resubmit under the charter’s timeline. The council discussed possible charter clarifications and directed staff to assist citizens with procedural questions.
