|
|
12-6361-17183-CV |
STATE
OF
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
|
Margaret Ann Behrens, Complainant, vs. Will Rossbach & Committee, Respondents. |
ORDER
FINDING NO
PRIMA FACIE VIOLATION AND DISMISSING COMPLAINT |
On March 22, 2006, Margaret Ann Behrens filed a Complaint with the Office of Administrative Hearings alleging Will Rossbach and his campaign committee violated Minn. Stat. §§ 211B.04 and 211B.06 by preparing and disseminating false campaign material and campaign material that lacked the required disclaimer.
The Chief
Administrative Law Judge assigned this matter to the undersigned Administrative
Law Judge on March 22, 2006, pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 211B.33. A copy of the Complaint was sent by
After reviewing the Complaint and the attached documents, and for the reasons set out in the attached Memorandum, the Administrative Law Judge finds that the Complaint fails to set forth prima facie violations of Minn. Stat. §§ 211B.04 or 211B.06.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED:
That the Complaint filed by Margaret Ann Behrens against Will Rossbach & Committee is DISMISSED.
Dated: March 24, 2006
|
/s/ Steve M. Mihalchick by KDS |
|
STEVE M. MIHALCHICK |
|
Administrative Law Judge |
NOTICE
Under Minn. Stat. § 211B.36, subd. 5 this Order is the final decision in this matter and a party aggrieved by this decision may seek judicial review as provided in Minn. Stat. § § 14.63 to 14.6.
MEMORANDUM
The Respondent is
currently a member of the Maplewood City Council. He was first elected to the City Council in
2003. Prior to that, he served
approximately 15 years on the Maplewood Planning Commission. In November of 2005, the Respondent ran
unsuccessfully for Mayor of Maplewood. The Complaint alleges that the Respondent
and/or his campaign committee violated Minn. Stat. §§ 211B.04 and 211B.06 by
preparing and disseminating false campaign material and campaign material that
failed to have the proper disclaimer.
The allegations refer to Respondent’s unsuccessful campaign for Mayor in
November of 2005, and to a special election for City Council in February of
2006, in which the Respondent endorsed City Council candidate Dale Trippler.
Exhibit
A – Campaign brochure
Sometime prior to the November 2005 election,
the Respondent prepared and distributed a campaign brochure on an 8 ½ x 11
piece of paper folded into thirds. A
scanned copy of the front panel of Respondent’s brochure appears below:
The Complaint
alleges that the phrase “Will Rossbach Mayor of
The Administrative Law Judge concludes that the Complainant has failed to state a prima facie violation of Minn. Stat. § 211B.06 with respect to this allegation. The statement that must be proved false is not necessarily the literal phrase published but rather what a reasonable reader would have understood the author to have said.[2] When viewing the statement in the context of the entire brochure, a reasonable reader would not have understood that Respondent was holding himself out to be the current Mayor of Maplewood. The brochure is campaign material. It is clear that Respondent is running for mayor. Respondent’s website URL, “willformayor.com” is written on the front and back panels and the phrase “Vote Will Rossbach” appears on an interior panel. In addition, on the second panel, under the heading “Will’s Qualifications,” Respondent states that he has “served on the Maplewood Planning Commission for the last 15 years and the City Council for 2 years.” The text of the brochure makes clear that Respondent is a candidate for mayor and not the incumbent.
In Miske v. Benedict,[3] the
Minnesota Supreme Court considered a similar complaint involving a candidate
running for constable at large for the city of
“It is extremely difficult to deduce from the words on this card that defendant was holding himself out as an incumbent. The cards were circulated at election time. Certainly few, if any persons would take the card to be a professional calling card as distinguished from a campaign card.”[4]
Likewise, with
Respondent’s campaign brochure, the ordinary reader would not conclude that
Respondent was claiming to be the current Mayor of Maplewood. Rather, the text of the brochure and the fact
that it is being circulated at election time make clear that Respondent is
running for the position of mayor. In
addition, the fact that “a citizen of
Exhibit B – Campaign post card
Sometime prior to the September 13, 2005
primary election, the Respondent prepared and distributed a campaign post
card. The front side of the card contains
the following phrases: “Get Some Will Power.
Will Rossbach for MAYOR.” A
scanned copy of the backside of the postcard appears below:
The backside of the postcard discusses
Respondent’s accomplishments during his “16 years of serving
The Complaint alleges that by placing the
phrase “Maplewood Mayor” in the background of the post card, the Respondent
gave the false appearance of being the current and incumbent Mayor of
Maplewood. Specifically, the Complaint
states that the Respondent led people to believe he is the current Mayor
“through the subliminal blue water mark.”
In addition, the Complainant alleges that the phrase “Through my 16
years of serving
The Administrative Law Judge concludes that
the Complainant has failed to state a prima facie violation of Minn. Stat. §
211B.06 with respect to these allegations.
First, the phrase “Maplewood Mayor” is not a false statement of fact
with respect to Respondent’s political character or acts. The phrase standing alone in the background
of the postcard does not state or imply that the Respondent is the current
Maplewood Mayor. Moreover, the postcard
clearly states on the front side that Respondent is running “for Mayor.” A reasonable reader would not read the phrase
“Maplewood Mayor” in the background of the postcard as stating that the
Respondent was the incumbent mayor. As
for the second allegation, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that the
statement “I have done this by adding and changing ordinances and codes” is not
a false statement of fact because Respondent has added and changed ordinances
and codes as a City Council member.
While the failure to state clearly that Respondent has only had the
authority to add or change ordinances for two years may be confusing or even
misleading, it does not render the statement false. These allegations are dismissed.
Exhibit C – Letter endorsing Dale
Trippler
The Complaint alleges that Respondent failed
to include the proper disclaimer on a letter sent in his name endorsing Dale
Trippler for City Council in the February 28, 2006 special election. The Complaint also alleges that the following
statements in the letter regarding newly elected Mayor Diana Longrie is false:
My concern is with the inexperience of the newly elected officials. Diane and Eric have very little time spent in
city processes and meetings. I believe
that it would be a mistake to elect another candidate that has spent no time in
being involved with City of
According to the Complainant, Mayor Longrie has been very involved in the
community of
With respect to the disclaimer, the
Administrative Law Judge concludes that the Complaint fails to state a prima
facie violation of Minn. Stat. § 211B.04.
Pursuant to that statute, a person who participates in the preparation
of campaign material must include the name and address of “the person or
committee causing the material to be prepared or disseminated in a disclaimer
substantially in the form provided” in section 211B.04(b). The letter is signed by the Respondent,
includes the name and address of Dale Trippler, and the name of Mr. Trippler’s
committee, “Friends of Trippler.” The
purpose of the disclaimer statute is to identify to voters who or what
committee prepared, disseminated and paid for the campaign material at issue. Although the letter fails to include the precise
phrase “prepared and paid for by,” the Administrative Law Judge concludes that
the identifying information in the letter is substantially in the form required
by Minn. Stat. § 211B.04 and this allegation is dismissed.[5]
The Administrative Law Judge also concludes that the Complaint fails to state a prima facie violation of Minn. Stat. § 211B.06 with respect to the statements concerning Mayor Longrie’s lack of experience. The statements reflect Respondent’s opinion and are not factual statements that may be proven true or false. Minn. Stat. § 211B.06 is directed against false statements of fact and not opinions. This allegation is dismissed.
S.M.M.