Check this out, I couldn't figure out how the lawyers would have screwed up the number of signatures required to file an appeal. Well, according to the information they had and tried to confirm, they didn't.
I'm still trying to get the details on this, but here's my understanding of how this went.
1. Get the list of names off Legistar.
2. Confirm with the clerk's office that you have the right list, they were told that was the "only" list.
3. Collect signatures.
Seems reasonable right? Well, apparently, there is a magical second list that the plan department has that they used instead. The clerk's office didn't send out the notices, the plan department did. The plan department list isn't currently publicly available on Legistar. And has a different number of names on it. Why? Dunno.
This was the only list I found in Legistar but it is from December so I'm not sure it is the correct one that the neighbors or city is using. The list should be dated March. If you look in the conditional use file, I don't see a new list that would have been the latest list used.
The file for the appeal is here. And it appears that they only have page 5 of the 6 page fax, and I'm now wondering if that is part of the problem. The full document is here.
Also, I see there are two "received" stamps and they had to wait for an original of a signature. Don't know if that had anything to do with it.
Finally, all these details matter. But, if the list the plan department used is different than what is available in Legistar and the clerk's office confirmed the wrong list and that is why the appeal is not valid - this whole thing kind of stinks. I'll try to figure it out and let you know. For now, just know, there may be more to this story. And, please know it has nothing to do with the merits or the the issues, but its more of a paperwork snafu. I wish we were talking about the merits of the appeal instead.
Brenda,
ReplyDeleteThe "full document is here" link does not have anything at google docs.
(Also, is there a way to show your links with underlining -- the way the color works now, after you click on something the link turns blackish gray and looks like regular type, so it is hard to find links again after they have been clicked on. BTW, the look of the new site is nice. Thanks.)
I forgot to share the document, it should work now. I can change the "visited link" color.
ReplyDeleteThe incompetence at city hall is fun to watch but it's sad and pathetic.
ReplyDeleteThree issues come to mind:
ReplyDelete1. The ordinance (MGO 28.12(11)(i)) does not provide that the city attorney's office gets to weigh-in on the validity of the appeal or, more basically, that the city attorney's office has any role in the appeal process whatsoever.
Instead, the ordinance provides that the city clerk's office "shall" (which is mandatory) file the appeal with the common council and the common council decides the appeal. So, at most, Noonen's "memo" appears to be advisory opinion and not enough to kill the appeal as of right (as Brad Murphy decided to do).
This is akin to appealing, say, to the 7th Circuit and the clerk of court at the 7th Circuit (rather than the 7th Circuit itself) decided whether the appeal meets the jurisdictional prerequisites for an appeal. It cannot make that decision. It is the appellate body (i.e., the 7th Circuit or Common Council in this case) that decides whether an appeal has substantively met the jurisdictional requirements to be a proper appeal.
2. In that vein, as part of the Common Council's role in determining the appeal, I would assume the opponents could make a very good estoppel argument (if city clerk's office actually confirmed that they should use the wrong mailing list and the correct list was not posted in legistar). The correct mailing list is in the City's possession, not the appellants'.
3. It is interesting that Noonen's "memo" failed to discuss the legal implications of this mailing list problem.
I'm keep trying to remember the name of my constitutional law professor who always talked about the "900 pound gorilla rule". I've been thinking about him because the city attorney's office has become our 900 pound gorilla.
ReplyDelete"I wish we were talking about the merits of the appeal instead...
ReplyDeleteWell, that video you posted was not encouraging. It sure looked like the rubber stamp approach.
Either way... Mayor Dave's in deep-doo. If he prevails with Edgewater, he loses the election because he's annoyed too many former supporters over it.
If he loses Edgewater, he loses the election because his lameness is certified.