1-6355-16591-CV
STATE OF MINNESOTA
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
|
Michael E. Harris, et al., Complainants, vs. Gary P. Ruehmann, Respondent. |
NOTICE OF DETERMINATION OF PRIMA FACIE VIOLATION AND NOTICE OF AND ORDER FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING |
To: Gary P. Ruehmann, 38079 Dead Lake Road, Richville, MN 56576; and
Michael E. Harris, 35387 Northern Lights Trail, Richville, MN 56576.
On April 28, 2005, Michael E. Harris and 20 others filed a Complaint with the Office of Administrative Hearings alleging that Gary P. Ruehmann violated Minn. Stat. §§ 211B.04 and 211B.06 by preparing false campaign material without a disclaimer. After reviewing the Complaint and attached documents, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge has determined that the allegations in the Complaint set forth a prima facie violation of sections 211B.04 and 211B.06. This determination is described in more detail in the attached Memorandum.
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that this matter will be scheduled for a prehearing conference and evidentiary hearing to be held at the Office of Administrative Hearings, 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700, Minneapolis, MN 55401, before three Administrative Law Judges. The evidentiary hearing must be held within 90 days of the date the Complaint was filed, pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 211B.35. You will be notified of the date and time of the prehearing conference and evidentiary hearing, and the three judges assigned to it, within approximately one week of the date of this Order. The evidentiary hearing will be conducted pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 211B.35. Information about the evidentiary hearing procedures and copies of state statutes may be obtained online at www.oah.state.mn.us and www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us.
At the evidentiary hearing all parties have the right to be represented by legal counsel, by themselves, or by a person of their choice if not otherwise prohibited as the unauthorized practice of law. In addition, the parties have the right to submit evidence, affidavits, documentation and argument for consideration by the Administrative Law Judges. Parties should bring with them all evidence bearing on the case with copies for the Administrative Law Judges and opposing party.
After the evidentiary hearing, the Administrative Law Judges may dismiss the Complaint, issue a reprimand, or impose a civil penalty of up to $5,000. The panel may also refer the Complaint to the appropriate county attorney for criminal prosecution. A party aggrieved by the decision of the panel is entitled to judicial review of the decision as provided in Minn. Stat. §§ 14.63 to 14.69.
Any party who needs an accommodation for a disability in order to participate in this hearing process may request one. Examples of reasonable accommodations include wheelchair accessibility, an interpreter, or Braille or large-print materials. If any party requires an interpreter, the Administrative Law Judge must be promptly notified. To arrange an accommodation, contact the Office of Administrative Hearings at 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700, Minneapolis, MN 55401, or call 612/341-7610 (voice) or 612/341-7346 (TTY).
Dated: April 29, 2005
/s/ George A. Beck
_______________________________
GEORGE A. BECK
Administrative Law Judge
MEMORANDUM
For purposes of these determinations, the facts alleged in the Complaint are assumed to be true because they are not patently false or inherently incredible.
The Complaint alleges that the Respondent mailed a postcard to voters less than seven days prior to a March 8, 2005 election which had a ballot question asking voters to decide whether Dead Lake Township would have two additional supervisors. The postcard urged voters to vote no on the ballot question. The postcard does not appear to contain a disclaimer as is required by Minn. Stat. § 211B.04 for all campaign material. That statute contains an exception for an independent expenditure under $500, but only if it is distributed at least seven days before an election. The Complainants allege that the postcard was mailed three days before the election. If these facts are true, a violation may have occurred.
Minn. Stat. § 211B.06 prohibits the dissemination of false campaign material to defeat a ballot question. The Complainants allege that the return address on the postcard does not exist. If true, the question is raised as to whether a nonexistent address on campaign material falls within the statute’s prohibition. The Complainants have made a sufficient showing in that regard to justify referring the determination to a three judge panel.
The Complainants have established a prima facie violation of both statutes based upon the facts alleged.
G.A.B.