[0:00] At 2.36 p.m., I will now take roll call. Councillor Hasick? Here. Councillor Lubinow? Here. Councillor

[0:09] Maynard? Here. Councillor Miller? Here. Councillor Quikky? Here. All right. I will write the

[0:14] other names of those in attendance.

[0:24] All right. This agenda item for this closed portion of the

[0:27] special city council meeting is to discuss legal strategy related to the Carlson Walder's group,

[0:32] litigation. The legal basis to close this meeting of the Fairmont City Council

[0:38] in pursuit of the Minnesota Statute 13D.05 subdivision 3D under the

[0:46] attorney client privilege exception to the Minnesota Open Meeting Law. The city

[0:51] needs for confidentiality always a purpose served by the open meeting law in the case

[0:56] based in the following. Absolute confidentiality is necessary so the City Council and

[1:01] Legal Council can have a candid and open discussion to determine the available legal options

[1:07] to handle pending and threatening litigation matters, strategy, and possible areas of

[1:12] resolution.

[1:13] The purpose of this closed meeting is not to make a decision behind closed doors, but instead

[1:17] determine legal options for handling litigation.

[1:20] The only business to be discussed is the pending litigation.

[1:26] The open session would be defermental because it may take place in the presence of individuals

[1:31] involved in the litigation. A closed session would benefit the public because the

[1:36] ultimate outcome of litigation may impact the finances of the city. I will now

[1:41] entertain emotion to close the meeting. Is there a motion to close the meeting

[1:46] pursuit to Minnesota statute 13D.05 subdivision 3B to conduct a closed session

[1:54] pursuit to the attorney client privileges to engage in confidentiality, attorney

[1:58] any client communications and litigation strategy related to the Carlson Water Walters

[2:05] group LLC also known CWG. Is there a motion?

[2:09] There's a motion by Maynard, second by Hasick. All those in favor?

[2:16] Aye.

[2:17] All those opposed? That motion passed.

[2:20] This council is now in close session. The time is 239 p. This is from our city attorney

[2:28] and to read this accordingly and we'll follow it as it's presented to me here.

[2:33] So preliminary consideration of allegations against individual subject to City Council's authority under Minnesota Statue Section 13D 0.05 subdivision to be.

[2:46] The agenda item is preliminary consideration of allegations against individual subject to City Council authority under Minnesota Statue Section 13D 0.05.

[2:57] sub-division to be the individual as City Councilmember Brittney Quakey.

[3:01] Councilor Quakey, do you wish to have this meeting open to the public?

[3:05] Yes.

[3:17] Pursuit to Minnesota Statue Section 13D.05 sub-division to Councilmember Quakey request

[3:24] a disproportion of the meeting to be open.

[3:27] As specified, we are considering a complaint against Councilmember Quakey in this session.

[3:33] Councilmember, I recommend that we do the following.

[3:36] Council members, excuse me, give City Administrator O'Neill time to give us background this matter.

[3:43] Also, City Council members discuss complaint against Council Member Brittany Kauikki and

[3:48] determine whether to hold a hearing on the complaint for the City Code of Conduct Procedure.

[3:54] If desired but not required, City Council discuss complaint against Council Member Kauikki with

[4:00] quickie presence where it should say. If we are going to take any formal action on this matter, including

[4:07] determining whether to hold a hearing on the complaint, we would do that in open session after the closed session is concluded through

[4:14] motion and a vote.

[4:19] City Council members, do you have any comments on the proposed process?

[4:24] With that, Mr. O'Neill, please provide us that ground on this matter.

[4:28] All right, so we've had the opportunity to meet with everyone in this room and also provide you with the background on the complaints in the folder that we reviewed.

[4:42] And with that, there was a personnel complaint, which in compliance with their personal policy led to an investigation,

[4:56] which led to the complaint that you reviewed.

[5:02] So that is, you know, the goal here is to determine whether you want to pursue a hearing.

[5:10] And at that point, if you do want to do a hearing, vote on that and then determine a date

[5:16] or attempt to schedule when that would occur.

[5:20] So that's all I have to provide at this point.

[5:24] All right.

[5:25] Thank you city council members. We will now discuss the complaint against councilmember quickie as a city council member and

[5:33] Reach conclusion on whether to hold a hearing on the complaint for the city's code of conduct

[5:37] If city council concludes that a hearing may be warranted then it should determine the general procedure and such a hearing as well

[5:46] So

[5:51] this here would be the next part with council quickie to determine

[5:55] to go to discussion then, and then, yes.

[5:59] So,

[6:04] if there's an option for the council to discuss it,

[6:09] and to provide the opportunity for a quickie

[6:11] to speak if she wishes to.

[6:13] So, first are the council's discussion,

[6:15] and then the council are quickie to be

[6:17] in the council so directs or authorizes.

[6:28] So, right now that the council,

[6:29] any council deliberation?

[6:32] Yep, deliberation.

[6:33] So, are we able to discuss any of the contents of this document now?

[6:38] It's an open session.

[6:40] I guess I would recommend that it would be discussed in very general terms and not specific

[6:45] terms for data privacy reasons, but you all had a chance to look at it, you know, outside

[6:53] of the public setting.

[6:55] So, if you can recall from that information with you think of this, what you've seen

[7:03] warrants going further with a hearing at which time it could be discussed in more detail.

[7:10] We're just looking at the hearing at this point.

[7:15] And there might be other avenues for data practices and to try to figure out the way to properly

[7:22] we provide additional information in exchange in an open setting.

[7:28] But for this purpose here, you know, keeping it tighter to the best I think is preferred

[7:33] by the city attorney as far as, you know, open discussion.

[7:39] But it is an open view.

[7:41] Do we know why the city attorney isn't here around the phone?

[7:45] There was a scheduling problem, but she might be able to be by phone.

[7:50] and she was traveling,

[7:57] but she put her on, I can try.

[8:11] You don't want to speak to you at a time?

[8:13] No, I mean, I just seem like we have some pretty important stuff on the agenda.

[8:21] We don't have legal cousins.

[8:24] Now we have an open meeting and we can't really discuss it openly.

[8:32] I don't, I don't know. I guess I don't know. It seems like first of them are right on Facebook. I don't like things that some of the

[8:42] thousand members have put on Facebook. I try not to post stuff on Facebook.

[8:51] I don't know that anything good.

[8:53] We're going to come up with it when you turn aside somebody on Facebook.

[8:58] I don't know. We can't stop people from doing that.

[9:00] That's why you

[9:04] said you were, you let your,

[9:06] yeah, the only thing I would say is perhaps

[9:07] I would not be colorated, and so, I think there should be,

[9:13] if you, if

[9:17] you should let this go, it's like I'm a president.

[9:21] Anything, you have your opinion and you want to just wait

[9:25] until you,

[9:38] many times, and you say there are some auditions here

[9:42] that you believe in, okay?

[9:45] Councilmanion?

[9:46] I am,

[9:51] I'm a command about it. On the one hand, I think that the allegations that are

[10:01] made are sufficiently serious and are of the nature of the council's relations with

[10:09] staff in such a way that we cannot let it slide.

[10:18] But I'm also concerned that in the four years and four years

[10:28] plus almost five now that I've been interested in and involved

[10:33] in the affairs of the State Government and Fairmont,

[10:36] We've had constant turmoil, constant back and forth, and constant,

[10:54] let's say less

[11:00] than complimentary discussions.

[11:04] And I am deeply concerned about the effect that all of this has on the city's ability

[11:14] to hire and retain staff. And in particular, here we are, we're about to go out looking for a new

[11:24] city administrator. Our reputation for the last time that we went looking for a city administrator

[11:32] was so terrible that we wound up having to go through two rounds of searching. And it's, for other reasons,

[11:42] It's only gotten worse now, and pursuing this will only make it even that much worse.

[11:55] So I'm torn.

[12:09] I'm

[12:12] just saying harassment at any level should never be colored and city staff is only doing

[12:20] their job and art conversations with them should be in professional light and not in a

[12:26] tone where they go harassed and on Facebook they're getting chewed out by a combo member because

[12:32] it comes with members like what they said and the local might have become so in a way it's

[12:37] protection and I think that city staff or in the city,

[12:39] a minister doing what they come here

[12:41] would find that to be a little bit more favorable than,

[12:44] no, and they could get kind of hurt or bullied.

[12:48] I acknowledge that.

[12:50] At the same time, oh, you know, inevitable.

[12:54] No matter what we do, we make the effort to do that,

[12:56] it's more toxic.

[12:58] I don't think there's any way around it,

[12:59] because it's not so much.

[13:01] If you wanted to stop, then it was easier.

[13:03] Councilor Ruben, anything?

[13:04] My Mr. Moor is conduit.

[13:10] You know, I know all of the subjects involved in this complaint

[13:13] and I think it's kind of like a car accident

[13:19] where you have some responsibility just being on the road,

[13:25] public officials know, and in most situations

[13:28] that I've seen get paid more than in private sector

[13:32] to deal with some of this.

[13:34] Like I said, I don't like Facebook,

[13:37] I don't like putting the emotional failures on Facebook,

[13:41] you know, up and up, up, up, up, up, up, up.

[13:44] Up, up, up, up, up, up, up and up.

[13:45] Up, up, up, up, up, up.

[13:46] But,

[13:49] up, up, up, up, up, up, up, up.

[13:49] But, up, up, up, up, up, up, up.

[13:49] I don't know, I just think,

[13:51] I look down this agenda.

[13:54] We can't get along.

[13:55] It's the honest.

[13:56] The citizens of Pharma have put five of us here

[14:01] and expect us to do what's best for the city of Pharma.

[14:06] And it doesn't seem like we can do that.

[14:08] So I don't know where to go.

[14:11] You know, I see the thing that if you try to please everybody,

[14:15] it's never going to happen.

[14:17] But I think we stop a lot of things from happening

[14:21] that was town because we can't get along, you know, in the past the main thing has been

[14:26] the community center. We got to get some things figured out so we can, so we can mean

[14:32] that some common ground and go forward, you know, bring an allegations against council members by staff.

[14:41] Yeah, it's serious but I mean, I could walk by, she's country and he could bring an allegation that

[14:46] that I set something brought it to it.

[14:49] So where is it going to stop?

[14:52] What's going to happen?

[14:54] I've had some candid conversations and staffs sometimes,

[14:58] one of those after-cultures.

[15:01] We talked about it later. You know, I was brought under the bridge, so I, I don't know. I don't know where it's at.

[15:19] It's not, it's a hearing, but just a, just a, just a clarify. Yeah, I know. I do that, too. So is it just one side, one party, or is it both parties? No, when council, four council members are done kind of discussing.

[15:35] in House of Quicky, it has her time to speak also a few, is going to do so, or if you want to.

[15:43] And what's the end result of this?

[15:46] We're just here to say, do we take this to the next level for her here?

[15:49] Right, but I'm not saying what, if we took her to a hearing, what could the action be?

[15:55] So, at the hearing then, you determine whether or not the complaint justifies a sanction under the

[16:02] code of conduct policy, which is a, there's three things, removal from a board is one,

[16:11] censure is another one.

[16:13] There are criminal proceedings too, if it's that bad, that can result.

[16:19] So I think those are the ones, if you look in the code of conduct, it's on the very last

[16:23] paragraph of what the sanctions are.

[16:26] And

[16:30] it's different for a council member than a staff person because you are voted, you are voted in by constituents, and you can't be kicked off the council, but there's some things that can be done to kind of, you know, provide some level of discipline.

[17:06] I

[17:10] mean, I could, I could say I thought that way it pretty much has to come from the go-to.

[17:16] I feel that way for itself.

[17:17] I did not vote for this policy because I knew what the justice of the policy was.

[17:48] If the council were to adopt a resolution of censure, then the person, you know, it would be on record that that person's actions were disapproved by the council.

[18:11] Yeah, I think I mean, and yeah, so I would like it noted that the investigation in the

[18:21] cost $15,000 or more, and I would also like it noted that in the 26 pages, almost 80,

[18:30] 90% of it was emails from me.

[18:32] there were no exhibits provided and there was almost no data in there at all

[18:39] showing anything that I did that was slander or harassment and it took four

[18:46] months for it to be completed so

[18:51] I in my opinion in the opinion of my attorney

[18:54] there is no harassment or bullying now as to the substance I'm voting yes or no

[19:00] as to how to vote on the resolution for censure hearing on me, I know it's the following.

[19:06] First, the complaint that issue against me arises out of an investigation initiated by a city's

[19:12] former administrator. That administrator is no longer an employee and this council is aware

[19:17] of why that is the case. The administrator is subordinate to the council. I repeatedly asked

[19:23] the city administrator to explain what empowered him to investigate and the elected representative

[19:29] and he gave no coherent answer.

[19:32] You all have an email.

[19:34] The City Administrator used city resources

[19:36] to conduct an investigation that this council did not

[19:39] authorize and which the administrator initiated, over $15,000.

[19:46] This council cannot condone or support this behavior.

[19:50] And for this reason alone, I ask you

[19:52] to vote no on a hearing for centers.

[19:54] Second, the report of investigation is 26 pages long, exclusive of exhibits.

[20:03] That report was shown to me only today.

[20:06] I was not given a report in spite of my repeated request.

[20:11] Unless copies were provided to other council members in advance, this council is being asked

[20:16] to act on 26 pages of complicated, factual, and legal issues with no meaningful opportunity

[20:23] to digest the information. Again, that is an independent reason to, again, both know. Third,

[20:31] as to the substance of the allegations against me, again, I am at a disadvantage in that

[20:38] the only document delivered to me in advance of today was a single page summary dated December 12,

[20:44] 2024. However, I note the following. Finding one says any sustained findings of council member

[20:52] incivility and or harassment or to city employee conduct prohibited by council rules of procedure and

[20:59] quota conduct is subject to independent review by the council. One, some refining one does not say

[21:07] what portions of the rules of procedure or quota conduct you find or govern incivility or harassment

[21:14] toward a city employee. Two, in fact, the words harassment or civility do not appear in those

[21:22] documents. B, finding two, says that I criticize and personally and professionally

[21:29] align city staff.

[21:33] It goes on to say that the city's policy against harassment and

[21:37] prevention protects city staff from such behavior.

[21:41] One, city's policy against

[21:43] workplace harassment and violence only govern city employees. Council members are

[21:48] not employees. No one can violate a policy that does not govern them. Again, what

[21:55] What we have here is a city employee turning government upside down.

[22:00] Two, summary finding two goes on again to invoke the rules of procedure and code of conduct.

[22:06] As with summary finding one, summary finding two makes no attempt to identify which portion

[22:12] of the rules a procedure or code of conduct are at issue.

[22:16] And as with summary finding one, there are no such provisions that prohibit or even define

[22:21] criticism or alignment.

[22:24] See, finding three is the most egregious.

[22:27] In short, it alleges that I used Facebook to communicate to the citizens of Fairmont that

[22:33] I was the subject of an investigation and to point out flaws with that investigation.

[22:40] It further alleges that I was told by a city employee to keep the matter confidential.

[22:45] Yes, that allegation is 100% true.

[22:48] The former administrator, who is neither a licensed attorney, nor in a position of authority

[22:54] over the council, did initially tell me that the investigation was to be kept confidential,

[23:00] which you all saw.

[23:01] In response, I asked him why.

[23:04] I made specific references to specific sections of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act.

[23:12] In response, his response was vague, at best, and made no explanation as to why an individual

[23:19] So elected representative would be subject to the act or why any specific information I

[23:25] learned would be designated as private by said act.

[23:29] Most importantly, I eventually got him to admit that the existence of the act's investigation

[23:35] was not confidential.

[23:37] He did so in his email on October 1, 2024 at 3.38 pm, which I believe is in an exhibit to

[23:46] the report which is not included. Finally, we have the fact that I did not participate

[23:53] in this investigation, so I could not possibly have learned and could not have disclosed

[23:58] any confidential information. To a trained reader, the flaws in this investigation and the

[24:04] report are glaringly evident. One, the investigation was done by an experienced attorney. Two, the

[24:11] investigation took months to complete.

[24:14] Three, the report is 26 pages long.

[24:17] And yet, finding three says only that my conduct may constitute

[24:21] a violation if I disclose non-public, private,

[24:25] or confidential information.

[24:28] That is carefully crafted.

[24:29] That is a carefully crafted non-statement.

[24:34] That statement is no different than if the findings had said

[24:37] that I may have committed murder.

[24:38] If, in fact, I killed someone, you might appreciate that statement, you wonder.

[24:44] Both of those statements are true but completely devoid of content.

[24:48] The investigator had two months and 26 pages.

[24:52] My statement at issue wasn't writing, and yet the investigator could not identify a single

[24:58] word of my statement that was non-public, private, or confidential.

[25:02] The Minnesota Government Data Practices Act includes clear definitions of each of those

[25:07] terms.

[25:08] Yet this trained and experienced investigator could not tell you what data I disclosed

[25:13] or what provision of the statute made that data non-public, private, or confidential.

[25:19] In short, finding three is no finding at all.

[25:23] But the most egregious thing about finding three is that it suggests that an elected representative

[25:28] of the citizens of Fairmont could be censored

[25:31] by telling the citizens what their city government is doing.

[25:35] Specifically, that I could tell the citizens

[25:37] that their city was wasting time and their money

[25:40] on an activity, and then the employee who undertook

[25:44] that activity could initiate an investigation against me.

[25:48] And that I could be censored by the substance

[25:49] of that investigation itself, could remain confidential.

[25:54] For the councils even contemplate a vote of censure

[25:56] under those facts would be an attack on Democrats' democracy itself.

[26:01] Finally, as to why you should not vote to hold a hearing for censure as to me,

[26:07] I know as with this hearing, if there is a hearing for censure as to me,

[26:11] it will be a public hearing.

[26:13] The citizens of Fairmont will fully know and understand how city employees,

[26:17] employees who are supposed to be subordinate to the citizens via their elected representatives,

[26:22] We're allowed to use citizen resources to attack a representative who ran and was elected

[26:28] under government accountability.

[26:30] Thank you.

[26:31] Thank you, Councilor.

[26:34] Thank you, Dr. Jeff.

[26:35] We just move on to the next question.

[26:36] Again, continue.

[26:37] Please, Councilor Members.

[26:39] We must now deliberate on the conclusion of our discussions and whether a hearing on

[26:43] the point may be warranted.

[26:44] If so, then it should determine the general process of which hearing as well, which City

[26:50] the minister only likely has a recommendation on. So let's proceed.

[26:56] There's the motions we

[26:58] can do. Yeah. It is we go through them. Right. There's the options. You can present those

[27:04] options that were laid in front of me. Option one, you do nothing. Option two, conduct a

[27:12] hearing, uncomplaint against council. Remember, quicky, under city code of conduct. And a is

[27:18] the City Council hold a hearing under City Code of Conduct on the complaint against Council Member

[27:23] Clikki. Be the City Administrator on the Hill, consult a legal council to draft and provide an

[27:28] appropriate communication to Council Member Clikki and City Council on the process for the hearing

[27:35] and see the City continue this agenda item to a subsequent date.

[27:42] And that's all from legal.

[27:54] If we were to vote to hold a hearing on this, which of those options would be under two and then the City Council A,

[28:09] the City Council hold a hearing under the City Code of Conduct on the complaint against Councilmember Quick.

[28:14] So the option to letter eight is that one.

[28:26] Jeff, you got something here?

[28:27] I'm a short timer here, and I don't really know how this common plays into it all.

[28:32] But I just want you to know that whatever the circumstances are that have resulted in

[28:38] this kind of conflict between staff and counsel that I think I have the wherewithal on a plan

[28:44] in place to try to build bridges back up and try to move forward in a positive way.

[28:50] And I, it is probably in the place in time to discuss it all, but it involves more accountability

[28:56] for city staff in a positive way, positive accountability, better connection with council

[29:02] and staff initiative so that they merge and collaborate.

[29:06] And respect for all positions on the council and all needs for information for the staff

[29:15] to meet you where you're at individually.

[29:18] And I don't know if that was the well spring of all these issues, but that would be something I would be committed to try to

[29:26] Building more of a team with the staff.

[29:28] So to the extent that that even relates to what we're talking about, I don't know, but I wanted to mention that.

[29:35] The city of Kodakana B where you would consult legal counsel to draft, they would say that would be option B under number two.

[29:42] Yeah.

[29:46] And just, if we go to a boat house, it will be also heavy, but just let her know that

[29:52] she has her own boat.

[29:54] And it calms me down.

[29:55] I received myself from boarding estimates in Virginia.

[30:00] I

[30:06] will read

[30:19] it, and I will do it. So, if councilor Maynard has indicated a motion to conduct a hearing on complaint against councilmember clicky, under City Code of Conduct A, the City Council will hold a hearing under the City Code of Conduct on the complaint against councilmember click. That is, that is 2A.

[30:50] And maybe it would be the end of it, would that letter be the, no, then you'd have to

[30:59] conduct the hearing itself.

[31:01] There is, there is.

[31:01] Okay.

[31:02] At the end.

[31:02] I already be just so you can hear it.

[31:04] The City of Minister on the O consult with legal counsel to draft and provide an appropriate

[31:08] communication to councilmember Quikky and City Council on the process for the hearing.

[31:15] That is.

[31:16] Oh, okay.

[31:17] So, so that didn't really have any?

[31:19] Oh, you're right.

[31:20] It wasn't what you were.

[31:20] That's okay.

[31:21] That was just a.

[31:23] All right.

[31:23] So, so two A, B and C all go together in the process of conducting here.

[31:30] That's correct.

[31:30] All right.

[31:31] Well, let's see is that the city continue this agenda item to a subsequent date.

[31:36] To hold the here.

[31:37] Right.

[31:37] So, yes.

[31:39] All right.

[31:39] So, in that case, I will instead move that we adopt option two as a holder.

[31:50] So we have a motion from Councillor Maynard,

[31:56] second by Councillor Miller, and I will read

[31:59] again so there is a motion by Councillor Maynard, a second by Miller, to conduct a hearing

[32:05] on the complaint against Councillor Member, quicky, under City Code of Conduct, do you wish

[32:11] I read A, B and C then, just again, I don't think you need.

[32:14] So that would be under City Code of Conduct, A, B, and C.

[32:19] With that, I will have a motion in a second.

[32:25] I will do a roll call on this.

[32:28] And Councillor Rubinot?

[32:29] No.

[32:31] Councillor Miller?

[32:32] Yes.

[32:34] Councillor Hasick?

[32:42] Councillor Maynard?

[32:43] Yes.

[32:45] And Councillor Quickie?

[32:48] right to that

[32:53] motion passed, but

[33:00] no, we don't go out of that, that's good.

[33:02] We need a potential date, but that, okay, okay, okay,

[33:13] okay, okay, right, right, so we

[33:20] and work at 20, but that's in COS.

[33:23] It's absolutely.

[33:28] Okay, moving on to what they call script two.

[33:32] The agenda item is preliminary consideration

[33:35] of allegations against individual subjects

[33:37] to city council authority and the Minnesota Statue of Section

[33:41] 13D.05 subdivision 2B.

[33:45] The individual is council member Wayne Hasick.

[33:48] Council member Hasick, you wish to have this

[33:50] meeting open to the public.

[33:56] Okay, so then this portion of the meeting will be

[34:01] closed, pursued to Minnesota Statute Section 13B05, Subdivision 2B, because the

[34:08] City Council will be considering allegations against the individual subjects to

[34:11] its authority. I will now entertain a motion to close this portion of the meeting.

[34:16] to move. Second motion by Maynard. Second by Miller. All those in favor. Aye. All

[34:25] those opposed. That motion passed. And I will settle. We'll have to leave. So

[34:46] the time

[34:47] is 4.44 p.m. The City Council stays absent. If it's an open meeting. He can come back. Yeah.

[34:55] So, members, we'll now go into open meeting and so if you want to go get Mr. Cassidy again,

[35:07] so I guess before he comes back

[35:11] I can say following the closed meeting for primary consideration of allegations against a city council member

[35:17] The city council meeting is now open and the time is 5.0.2 pm and

[35:28] again Wayne would be able to vote on this

[35:52] So we are to the point of motion and a vote, so you are allowed to be here for this.

[35:59] So members, I will now entertain a motion as following, or I should say here's the options

[36:05] and we've been through them once with the first meeting we had, number one, we do nothing.

[36:11] And two, you know what them are, those are the conductive hearing on complaint against

[36:16] council member has it under the three different city code A, B, and C. We are also brought to attention

[36:23] that we could split them up so that there was one against harassment or verbal abuse or however you

[36:31] want it would word it or we can put it towards Williamson structure would you? Yeah see some

[36:40] this is an associated exercise of power beyond one council member it's hard to

[36:47] describe it but I think we don't we're talking about it's all narrated we

[36:50] can come up with a better description in the minutes so what that

[36:53] members is there is somebody that has a motion on one or both or together or how

[36:58] would you like to have a motion so there would be we would separate them between

[37:08] the use the word harassment or and then the possible allegations for election

[37:17] undue influence on the city of New Australia.

[37:21] The CC consists, I did not order that.

[37:26] Basically I guess what I'd like to say is I

[37:33] have a conversation where they might

[37:39] I thought something needed to be done, I'd also had those conversations with a cafe where

[37:47] the shoe is here, something needed to be done, and when he came in, I started to shake

[37:53] his finger and one of my employees went up and out with Matt, he says, I'm working on it.

[38:03] We should know that yeah that's outside the boundary so I have a motion by council

[38:08] quickie I believe a second by council Miller to split up the two allegations against

[38:13] uh counselor has a into two separate motions so with that um I will just do a

[38:30] to split up into, okay, and council members, okay, that motion passed, okay, all right

[38:43] so now I will entertain motion on,

[38:51] I'll do the first one, I'll work the harassment part,

[38:55] okay, so I will entertain a motion as following on code of conduct against councilor

[39:03] Hasick on the harassment when we split up the motions. So now you have the option of be nothing on that part or conduct a hearing a complaint against councilmember hasick under the three A B and C city folks beyond

[39:23] the

[39:28] Emotion and Councilor Maynard to to option one do nothing do I have a second

[39:40] Yes. Second. Second by Councillor Hasick. Okay, so we have a motion against harassment,

[39:51] against Councillor Hasick, and to do nothing, we had a motion by a manor, second by Hasick.

[39:59] I'll do roll call. Councillor Quikki is paying for this. Councillor Lubano.

[40:08] Councillor Hasick.

[40:09] do you have any? Yes. Do you do not go any further with the

[40:17] harassment? Drop it. Drop it. No is dropping it? No is to not drop it. Yes yes drop it.

[40:25] Drop it. Do you have a councilmanor? Yes.

[40:35] I will move with a yes vote and that no excuse me so that's a no vote.

[40:43] Mayor Bart's, that's a no vote, and that motion failed.

[40:51] Motion

[40:56] by Miller, second by Lumenau, correct?

[40:59] Oh, sorry, motion by Lumenau, second by Lumenau.

[41:03] I have the motion by Councillor Lumenau, second by Miller, to entertain a motion following

[41:09] on item

[41:13] two, code of conduct hearing, against Councillor Member Hasick, on harassment

[41:21] I'm going to go through there. Councilor McKee is out. Councilor Rubenau? Yes. Councilor Miller?

[41:30] Councilor Hasick? No. Councilor Maynard? No. Mayor Bartz? Yes. That motion passed.

[41:38] So we will have a hearing against for the harassment part for councilor Hasick.

[41:46] So now we need a motion

[41:50] for the undue influence on the election results are around or on the elections and

[42:03] that

[42:03] would be the same thing. One we do nothing.

[42:10] So I have a motion by Councillor

[42:12] Quikki. Do I have a second? Second by Councillor Lubin out. And this was to conduct a hearing

[42:21] on the state again they're

[42:24] complaining to them to influence by

[42:25] councilmember on the city

[42:26] administrator okay and I will do

[42:30] roll call and I'll just go to my

[42:32] lab councilor quickie council

[42:34] Lubinow yes councilor Miller

[42:38] councilor Hasick you and council

[42:41] mayor no and that passed okay

[42:45] for

[42:48] those two items we split or

[42:50] done they're done some if you have

[42:52] time not really

[43:03] Okay, so the next one is the agenda. I am of the preliminary consideration of allegations against individual subject to City Council of the 40 under Minnesota Statue Section 13 D05 subdivision to be the individual as City Councilman or J Maynard Councilman or Maynard. You wish to have this meeting open to the public. No.

[43:24] So this portion of the meeting will be closed, pursued as Minnesota Statue Section 13-G-05,

[43:32] Subdivision 2-B, because of City Council, considering allegations against the individual

[43:37] subject to its authority.

[43:38] I will entertain a motion to close this portion of the meeting.

[43:43] Motion by Correct E. Second by Miller, all those in favor.

[43:49] All those opposed?

[43:51] that motion passed. The time is 5, 10 p.m. We

[44:02] will now go into open meeting so now we can bring him back in.

[44:07] He's got the routine. We'll get through it.

[44:30] Following a close meeting for preliminary considerations of allegations against the city council member, the city council meeting is now open at a time of 5, 16 p.m.

[44:41] And members, I will now entertain a motion to determine if we're going to leave them together or split them up.

[44:50] Okay.

[44:50] I have a motion from Councillor Cowicky to split up the two.

[44:58] And I had to send a link and I had to send a link and I had to send a link.

[45:00] Council go ahead a second. All those in favor of splitting up the two allegations, councilor.

[45:09] Okay, so we know there's the two options of do nothing and the conduct of hearing option two. So we'll start with the bullying or the verbal abuse or the outbreak. So I am looking for a motion.

[45:28] So I'm looking for a motion on item either one or two from council on the bullying part against councilman

[45:43] harassment.

[45:44] For harassment.

[45:45] Oh, first.

[45:46] Yeah, behavior.

[45:48] So we'll start with that.

[45:50] So members of any kind of motion as following for the harassment with councilor Maynard,

[45:56] if you're option one or option two.

[46:02] I have a motion from Councilor Lubinow and a second from Councilor Miller.

[46:09] I will do roll call and answer this, here is motion to move forward with a hearing for

[46:15] the harassment against Councilor

[46:22] Miller, Councilor Miller, and Mr. Mayor says, yes, because

[46:38] I need a motion under the influence of a City Administrator on the election.

[46:45] I have a motion from Councillor Quikki second from Lubinow and

[46:54] this would be the do a hearing

[46:57] on the complaint against member Maynard under the city code.

[47:01] Councilor Quikki?

[47:02] Yes.

[47:03] Councilor Lubinau?

[47:04] Yes.

[47:05] Councilor Miller?

[47:06] Yes.

[47:08] Councilor Hasek?

[47:10] Councilor Maynard?

[47:12] A motion passed that the city would hold a hearing under the city code of conduct on both

[47:20] complaints against Councilor Maynard?

[47:25] Yes, then.

[47:34] I will now entertain a motion to adjourn the special meeting of the City Council with the time being 5.19 p.m.

[47:43] Second.

[47:44] Motion by Miller.

[47:45] Second by Kuwiki.

[47:46] All those in favor?

[47:47] Aye.

[47:48] All those against?

[47:50] I don't hear you.

[47:52] Meeting adjourned.

[47:56] Question.

[47:57] The hearing will be...

[47:59] Hold on, hold on, do we leave this here, Jim?

[48:02] I leave everything here, yeah, nothing leaves the room,

[48:04] otherwise I'd chase you down.

[48:06] Yep.

Untitled meeting

Transcript