On November 6, 2012, a proposal put on the ballot by the Lino Lakes City Council to change the City Charter by restricting taxpayer and voter rights was defeated by a narrow margin. 


To facilitate their plan to amend the Charter, certain "information" was disseminated to the public in a number of different ways.  However, information circulated using public funds must, under the law, be neutral and fair to both sides of a ballot question, and cannot advocate for one side or the other. 

Due to changes in Minnesota law several years ago, the responsibility for prosecuting election law violations is now primarily left to private individuals and members of the public, even if those violations are committed by the government.  Believing the City's information in 2012's election to be one-sided, misleading, and in several instances false, on October 6, 2013, resident Mike Trehus filed charges against the City under the Fair Campaign Practices Act for using public funds to influence the outcome of the election.  Acting initially as his own attorney, Trehus was opposed by two attorneys for the city in a legal battle where, if the Court decides in his favor (and in the favor of the voting public who would ultimately benefit), no money or compensation would change hands.  (The Court may fine the City, but cannot award damages to a complainant.)

"I find the so-called public information coming out of City Hall to be totally unacceptable," said Trehus.  "What we have here is a City using tax money taken from its citizens to misinform those citizens in order to take away the rights and protections of those very same citizens.  It happened in 2008 <see bottom> and it happened again in 2012.  To me this is soft core election rigging, reminiscent of the type of elections held by regimes in less-fortunate parts of the world.  If changing the Charter were actually in the public's best interests, there would be no need for anything other than honest and fair discussion about the Charter and any proposed amendment.  To misinform the voters is to either believe the public incapable of recognizing what's best for our city, or to attempt to trick the public into voting for something that, were the truth fully revealed, would never pass.  Both trains of thought are reprehensible, and such action violates the founding principles of our country."

The complaint filed by Trehus alleges multiple violations under three different subsections of Minnesota Law; false information, prohibited use of official authority, and financial reporting (which comes first in the complaint).  Said Trehus, "Bringing charges on grounds of financial reporting recalls Al Capone.  They couldn't convict him for bank robbery or murder, but they got him for not paying taxes.  A recent Minnesota Supreme Court ruling made it nearly impossible to prove falsehood on election literature, but it did open the door to requiring political subdivisions using public funds to influence an election--which is illegal--to file financial reports in the same way that a normal campaign committee would. 

"Like Capone's case it's a weird twist, requiring financial disclosure for illicit activity, but it works because a city wouldn't want to declare itself as a campaign committee.  To do so would be an admission that that their information is biased, and an indication that they are breaking the law elsewhere."

  • Click here to view Trehus' complaint    (This is best viewed if the document is opened twice, i.e. in 2 windows, so that the supporting documents, which follow the complaint text, can be viewed readily while reading the text.)

After a complaint of a campaign law violation is served to the Court, the Court must promptly make a preliminary ruling as to whether the facts are sufficient to warrant a hearing, similar to the function of a grand jury.  This is called prima facie determination.  The judge assigned to the case ruled against the complaint relative to two of the subsections of law, but ruled that the complaint regarding the financial reporting violation should proceed to a hearing.
In a prehearing telephone conference with the Judge and the city attorney on November 4, 2013, Trehus requested that the Court revisit the dismissed charges, in order that those charges might be reinstated in the proceedings.  Before he could even present a rationale for such a review, Judge Lipman allowed for the revisitation, asking Trehus to put "the cases" in writing in a "Motion for Reconsideration."  Trehus filed this motion with the Court on November 20, 2013.
Judge Lipman, who made the original prima facie determination and subsequently allowed for it to be reconsidered via the Motion for Reconsideration, was replaced on the case on or before November 27, 2013.  On December 6 the city attorneys filed their response to Trehus' Motion.
Following example set by the city attorneys, Trehus asked the incoming judge (Mihalchick) via e-mail on December 6 for a timeframe in which to respond to errors in the city's plea.  The judge denied Trehus this opportunity.  Moreover, in his December 11 order on the matter, Judge Mihalchick ruled that Trehus' Motion for Reconsideration, previously allowed by Judge Lipman, was "procedurally improper" and denied the entire request for reconsideration. 
Said Trehus: "It's as if Judge Lipman's decision to allow the motion never happened.  Rules for court proceedings on campaign law matters are confusing and very minimal, but there are still grounds for why my motion should have been allowed.  I didn't present them to Judge Lipman because he didn't require them, but now with the new judge I've been barred from even presenting these grounds for a motion that was already allowed by the Court.  Also, the ruling states that I didn't show 'a clear error of law' but I did, because I showed that a court could find falsehood in the city's statements (contrary to the preliminary ruling).  At the prima facie stage it's not required to prove guilt; only to show that a verdict of guilt is possible.

"I'm disappointed in the convoluted standards the Courts go by, and I'm disappointed by the confusion created when the original judge was replaced, but I'm happy that I can present to the Court evidence and testimony that the City of Lino Lakes hasn't been very honest with its citizens and voters. Hopefully the hearing will ultimately lead toward a change for the better, where in the future the City will not misuse public funds, and voters can hear both sides of a ballot issue rather than only the information preferred by City Hall."

The parties were required by the Judge Mihalchick to submit all evidence and a list of witnesses to the court and to opposing parties no later than January 21, 2014, one week prior to the hearing.  With one business day remaining before the hearing, Lino Lakes attorneys filed a desperate, last-minute attempt to limit the scope of the hearing and to bar nearly all of the evidence against the city.  Oddly, nearly all of this evidence had been discussed in the November pre-hearing conference and was anticipated by the city's attorneys and the Court.  Lino Lakes proffered an unsupported claim that Judge Lipman had made some kind of ruling supporting their contentions. 
After conducting all of the preliminary and pre-trial proceedings without legal representation, Trehus was joined in the effort via support from the Minnesota Voters Alliance and from attorney Erick Kaardal of Mohrman and Kaardal, P.A.  A motion by MN Voters to intervene and become co-complainants in the case was filed.  However, the City attorneys would not let even this detail take place without making an objection.
The Evidentiary Hearing was held before a tribunal of Judges at the Minnesota Office of Administrative Hearings on January 28, 2014.  The city's attempt to bar evidence and re-define the scope of the hearing was overruled.  Kaardal, now representing Trehus (if not the general public), argued the complaints against Lino Lakes for more than eight hours.  Once the official transcript was prepared (6 weeks after the trial), the next step was for the attorneys to file post-hearing briefs, due April 3, 2014.


Following submission of the initial post-hearing briefs, optional reply briefs were due on April 10, 2014.   





On April 24, 2014, the OAH issued its final decision on this case, deciding against the City of Lino Lakes, and determining that actions by the City on its  website and through the flyer were promotional.  Lino Lakes was issued a reprimand for failing to comply with Chapter 211A and was ordered to file the required campaign financial statements, but no fine was imposed.



"It's a small but significant victory for the public, and a step forward for the interests of truth in government," said Trehus.  "While spin and rhetoric continue to flow from city hall over yet another Charter amendment in 2014, this court ruling should serve as a deterrent against those future violations of the public trust that involve tax dollars.  I'm confident that should the City attempt to repeat these types of actions in the future, justice will move much more swiftly and vigorously."


Trehus was an appointed (volunteer) member on the Lino Lakes Charter Commission from 1996 through 2013, but insists "These legal proceedings have nothing to do with the Charter Commission. This is about truth in government, and I'm acting independent of the Commission, taking action that could be taken by anyone."
Trehus can be reached at mtrehus@msn.com.


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
HOW MANY TIMES CAN THIS HAPPEN TO US?

Unfortunately, the events from 2012 in Lino Lakes aren't exactly new.  


















. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


Quick link:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .








Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Blog Archive