Get email alerts on the Removal Process topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Attorney: removing an elected board member would require a formal due-process hearing
Summary
Board counsel reminded members that removal of an elected director requires a separate, noticed hearing under Minnesota statute 123B.09 subdivision 9 and that the board must prepare evidence and afford the member an opportunity to respond.
When discussion turned to the most severe remedy, removal of an elected director, board counsel Jim Martin cited Minnesota statute 123B.09 (subdivision 9), explaining that removal is a rare and legally exacting process that requires: specific notice of reasons, a separate hearing with an opportunity to be heard, evidence presented into the record, and a concurrent 4-member vote in favor of removal at a properly noticed meeting.
Martin said he has served as a hearing officer in removal cases and emphasized that removal would require witnesses and administrative-hearing procedures; he cautioned the board that if it opts to pursue removal it must be prepared to hold a subsequent, well-noticed hearing and comply with statutory requirements rather than attempting removal in the same session.
AI generated
The text on this page is AI generated. Summaries, highlights, analysis, and video transcripts are all produced from the original source material.
AI can make mistakes, so if you spot one, and we will fix it for everyone.
Note: the source content is unaltered by us. Any content source we link to, be it a video, an audio recording, or a document, is presented exactly as its publisher released it. That publisher is usually a government body, sometimes an individual official or another organisation.
