The city council has the authority to remove an unethical colleague with cause. ( The processes is in the city charter, Chapter 4, section 4). There is a notice of charges, a chance to respond, notification, and a trial mechanism with the power to compel the attendance of witnesses. I can understand that it would be easier to wait for Biernat to resign or the legal case to be more resolved. I also think that newspaper reports by themselves are not sufficient cause for removal.
It seems to me that the council does have a responsibility and reasonable cause to ask him directly about his conduct in matters related to the current legal charges. Is the council being prudent by not mucking up the legal case? Are they concerned about the cost? Are they concerned that they would be sued? I guess my question to other list members: Should the council be using the designated city charter provisions for removal of elected officers? Why? or Why not? And is there any more information on how the alleged confession got accidentally released? Thanks, Scott Vreeland, Seward _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
