Mound Westonka Blog


Mound Minnesota on Lake Minnetonka             
                                                             Blog.MoundWestonka.com

Mayor-elect writes about Councilman-elect

Print the article

This entry was posted on 11/26/2006 1:48 AM and is filed under uncategorized.

Mark Hanus weighs in on the Councilman-elect Greg Skinner situation on page 6 of the Laker. He writes, "If an incompatibility were determined after Mr. Skinner was sworn in, he would automatically lose his primary job, and the city could have prior actions nullified, leaving it open to countless lawsuits."

I don't find this very clear. An incompatibility determined by who? I do not understand where all the said countless lawsuits would be coming from?
 

What did you think of this article?




Trackbacks
Trackback specific URL for this entry
  • No trackbacks exist for this post.
Comments
    Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

    • 11/26/2006 12:37 PM Mark Hanus wrote:
      In answer to your comments I offer the following:

      Who determines incompatibility of office? There are many places and sources where this is spelled out. The Minnesota Constitution, the Supreme Court, other court cases, State Statutes, and prior Attorney General opinions are among them. There are many city jobs that have been determined to be legally incompatible with the public interest over the years. The Superintendent of Public Works as defined by the City of Mound has not yet been determined. The only true final determination comes from a court of law, but most cities rely on the Attorney General's opinion as these are rarely overturned. Its the most common place to seek an inexpensive determination of the legality of the two positions.

      Potential lawsuits can come from many places. With regard to this issue, the two I am most concerned about are: 1. An irate citizen that does not like a vote that was cast against him and wants to challenge the validity of the vote, and 2. Any contract holder whose contract is declared invalid because the process was flawed by an illegal official voting on the contract.

      This Attorney General opinion is a precautionary step so the city can operate with less concern of liability exposure. Thats really all this is about. Many people have not researched this issue and only know the emotional side of it. Some may even think it a contrived ploy. I can assure you that it is neither an emotional nor contrived issue. It is a matter of the law and once we get a determination of the law, we will put it to bed and start moving ahead. This action will protect Greg Skinner as much as it protects the city. When one truly investigates the legal issues in play, it becomes clear that this is a common sense approach to the situation.

      Mark Hanus
      Reply to this
    • 11/26/2006 3:33 PM Jeff Andersen wrote:
      That's the new smoke screen that they are throwing out there. You see when the "Conflict of Interest" didn't pan out for Team Mound they introduced a new tactic ...... incompatibility of office. The only way they can achieve their goal of getting a 3-2 Council majority is to try to prove incompatibility.
      When they can't achieve their agenda by a normal election the only other way would be to circumvent the election process. That way the Mayor elect would have two votes if a tie occured in the appointment process. The unwarranted suspicions he speaks of are THERE ... and there are dozens and dozens who think this way, not just the few he speaks of.

      Jeff Andersen
      Reply to this
    • 11/26/2006 7:49 PM Ray Salazar wrote:
      I agree with your comment David. I do question the statement incompatibility as well as the issue regarding the lawsuits. What lawsuits are imminent or might occur if any and for what reason? If a citizen is unhappy or feels he has been wrongly treated, I cannot imagine he may choose to or not to file a lawsuit based upon the fact or issue if Mr. Skinner is also a city employee. If something or a problem occurs/exists and it cannot or will not be rectified it often results in a lawsuit. On 11-16-06, I commented on this inquisition and my concern remains, as this issue if there is one should have been addressed prior to the election. Mr. Osmek commented that the inquisition prior to the election may have adversely effected the election for Mr. Skinner as he won by a "Scant 15 votes." Well, that may be, but if Mr. Skinner was given the approval by the AG. office prior to the election he may have won by an even greater number of votes. Whether you voted for Mr. Skinner or not he won fair and square.
      Reply to this
    Leave a comment

    Submitted comments are subject to moderation before being displayed.

     Enter the above security code (required)

     Name (required)

     Email (will not be published) (required)

     Website

    Your comment is 0 characters limited to 3000 characters.



      
    Copyright . http://BLOG.MOUNDWESTONKA.COM. All rights reserved.