Once more, the rule of law (updated)

Background

On February 5th, 2007, the Maplewood Police Civil Service Commission (PCSC) ordered the City to reinstate then Deputy Police Chief John Banick, whose job was eliminated by the Copeland Council. The commission member making that motion was not reappointed to the commission, and on March 12, 2007 councilperson Erik Hjelle declared that Commissioner Palkovich, having seconded the reinstatement order motion, was next.

In September of 2007 the Copeland Council attempted to remove Dr. Palkovich from the PCSC, charging that her work with the Maplewood Voters Coalition [Note: I am a member of that organization. Stephan], in its preparation of a voters guide for the primary election underway at that time, amounted to harassment of the union steward of one of the police unions, LELS#153. Dr. Palkovich had called the union steward to determine who they had endorsed so the information could be included on the voters guide. In a subsequent interview the officer stated "...I was not harassed. I was not a complainant."

Evidence that documents, which city attorney H. Alan Kantrud had declared private, had been released to a citizen, and the public airing of city HR attorney Charles Bethel's less than accurate 'investigation', led Dr. Palkovich to file a lawsuit against the City and attorney Bethel in early January 2008.

[A complete timeline and links to the available documentation can be found at the Maplewood Voters Coalition documentary of this ongoing affair.]

The Lawsuit

Writing in Saturday's Pioneer Press: Maplewood police commission member sues city: Official claims private data released, defamatory statements made Elizabeth Mohr reports on the initial court filings

A Maplewood police civil service commissioner is suing the city, saying her privacy was violated and her reputation tarnished by city staff.

The claim is the latest in a string of feuds between Maplewood officials to land in court.

The commissioner, Marlene Palkovich, said that e-mails and memorandums containing information about her were released in violation of the Minnesota Data Practices Act and that defamatory statements about her were made in public.

The complaint names Maplewood and the law firm of Charles Bethel, the city's labor relations attorney, as defendants.

In a written response to Palkovich's claims, Maplewood "denies that it engaged in wrongdoing ... or violated any statutory rights or obligations of any person." [emphasis added]

An attorney for the city, Julie Fleming-Wolfe, did not immediately return a call for comment.

Since Ms. Mohr's article appeared on the weekend, Maplewood Voices will have to wait until next week to obtain the actual court filings in order to confirm the assertion that the City has declared a formal position on the matter.

We did, however, ask councilperson Juenemann by phone and councilperson Nephew by email these questions:

• Has there ever been a public or closed session of the city council at which a city position on Dr. Palkovich's complaint was discussed or decided?
• How can someone be saying: "In a written response to Palkovich's claims, Maplewood "denies that it engaged in wrongdoing ... or violated any statutory rights or obligations of any person." Who is speaking for the city?

Ms. Juenemann confirmed that, as far as she knows, there has never been a council vote on a position, nor has she ever discussed the matter with attorneys Kantrud, Bethel, or Fleming-Wolfe in any way that would constitute participating in the creation of a city position.

Mr. Nephew replied:

I knew that the League of Minnesota Cities appointed Ms. Fleming-Wolfe to defend Maplewood in the Palkovich case. As you can tell from the public meeting notices, the city council not yet had a meeting with Ms. Fleming-Wolfe to discuss the case, at least not since my swearing in on January 7th.

Beyond that, I don't think I can comment at this time.

[Update 2/5 9:30AM] Mr. Rossbach responds to the same email question:

There has not been any meeting of the Maplewood council in which the Palkovich case has been discussed or a position on the case created. I am not aware of who would have or did make the position statement which was quoted in the paper.

Taking Ms. Mohr's article at face value, someone other than the city council has decided what the city's position is, and formally communicated that position to the court. Who made that decision? Under what authority?