P. 1
Judge Lindman Day Care Union Ruling Transcript

Judge Lindman Day Care Union Ruling Transcript

|Views: 12|Likes:
Published by Michael Brodkorb

More info:

Published by: Michael Brodkorb on Dec 09, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

12/09/2011

pdf

text

original

1

1

STATE COUNTY

OF MINNESOTA OF RAMSEY SECOND

DISTRICT JUDICIAL

COUET DISTRICT

2 3
4 5

Becky

Swanson,

Holle

Saville,

Linda

Christiansen, File

et al.

Court Plaintiff, vs. Mark Dayton, Minnesota Bureau

62~CV~11~9535

6
7

8 9
10 11 12

of Mediation,

and Josh Tilsen,
Defendants.

JUDGE'S

RULING

TRANSCRIPT

13
14 15 16 17 the the The above~entitled Dale matter came Judge St. on for hearing before Court, on at

Honorable Ramsey

B. Lindman, Courthouse,

of District Minnesota,

County

Paul,

December

5, 2011.

18 19 20
21 Thomas appeared Alan the Revnew A P PEA and RAN CES Attorneys at Law,

Douglas

Seaton,

on behalf Gilbert, Mark

of the Attorney Dayton.

Plaintiffs. at Law, appeared on behalf of

22
23

Defendant Gregg

24
25

Corwin, AFSCME.

Attorney

at Law,

appeared

on behalf

0

Intervenor

RAMSEY

COUNTY DISTRICT COURT ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA

2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 provisions Governor day-care of today's Governor issues regard

(The following THE COURT:

is the Judge's

Ruling

only.)

All right, well we have had many before the Court today with

that have been brought to this proposed parties action

on the part of the Governor. input which I appreciate. like to

And various

have provided

I can't say we have had all the input that we would have since it's been such a short time that this to this Court.

case was

assigned

And so I'm not here to say that I is to know. for purposes or not the

know everything

that there

But I do find one issue dispositive hearing. And that ssue is whether

has the power

to enact a law such as the one that order. of

is involved

here that is being done by executive to this Court is to become

It occurs providers it must

that if unionization

the law of the State of to the law-making be vetted body

Minnesota,

first be submitted

of the state. through

That is to say that it should process.

the law-making Articles

three,

four, and five of the Constitution delineate the powers granted to The

of the State of Minnesota the courts, legislature

to the legislature, is the law-making

and to the Governor.

body of the state. that the separation of powers

This Court believes of the Minnesota

Constitution

do not allow the should be

to enact by executive RAMSEY

order a law which

COUNTY DISTRICT COURT ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA

3

1
2

initiated

in the legislature. The Governor's role in this process is a large are

3 4
5 6

role,

that

is to recommend and assign

acts that he believes

important, either

into law or to veto acts that he to the state or are not. well, issues such as the

believes

are important role

The Governor's one that we are involved determined, democratic

7
8 9

with here,

should not be in the view order. of any It should

in my view, and I think citizen,

by fiat or executive process.

10 11 12
13

be by way of the legislative
I

have reviewed

the matter Inc

for the Dahlberg Ford Motor to do

factors. 137 N.W.2d, 314.

Brothers

versus

I think everybody

that has anything

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

with the law knows

that cite or should know the cite. factors is the nature the parties. of

The first of the Dahlberg and the background

of the relationship regulates

between many

The state currently child care.

aspects

As such, the background of the relationship

the nature

and

background benign

of the parties as a result

is fairly

and not likely to change injunction.

of the TRO or a favoring

temporary

So I don't

f nd that factor

either party. The second plaintiff factor, the harm to be suffered injunction by the

if the TRO or temporary of an electoral RAMSEY

is not granted.

The imposition

process

that has not been

COUNTY DISTRICT COURT ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA

4

1

designed

or ratified

by the legislature

and on

includes this

2 3
4

4300 people issue,

out of a possibili

of 11,000 to determine

that strikes me as being very harmful So I think the imposition is favored

to the parties of a TRO or factor. that a

that are involved. temporary injunction

5 6 7 8 9 10
11

by that particular

The third Dahlberg party will prevail

factor

is the likelihood

On the merits.

This one is particular of what I rule

difficult here,

in this case because the power

regardless

I do respect

of the Governor

and I'm not in any way, the order.

intending

to imply that he has misused that the process

his power

I just believe

should go through executive

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

slative process

and not be done view,

In this Court's well, what it's worth

for whatever

it's worth But in

is what we are doing today_ it is like

this Court's will prevail to a trial. plaintiffs.

view I think on the merits

that the plaintiffs it

of this issue if it ever makes seems to me to favor the

So that factor

The fourth public icy.

Dahlberg

factor,

consideration

of favors

The Court observed of powers and weighs

that public

policy

the separation

in favor of proceeding I believe to be

by the legislative

process.

So that factor also.

in favor of the plaintiffs Finally, the Court.

the fifth,

the administrative

burden

to

We have a 1 talked

about that and there

is none.

RAIvJSEYCOUNTY DISTRICT COURT ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA

5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13

So it doesn't

favor either party. analysis

But in the end, I have in the Dahlberg determined injunction that a temporary should be issued. I want to make it absolutely, I don't want to be misunderstood on the merits perfectly restraining order

and/or

clear and is

on this, that this Court The Court is

not ruling simply

of unionization.

stating

that if unionization the proper

is to occur

it must be and not

accomplished by executive

through order.

legislative

process

So that having been said, the Court temporary hearing restraining order, with a temporary on January 11, 2012.

is ordering injunction I'm not

a

to be conducted

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24

requiring

a bond to be filed as part of this. Any questions about the intended Your Honor, disposition?

MR. SEATON: there is any service

if I can ask if or will you in

issue we need to consider duly

deem the Governor

and the commissioners

informed

open court here today? THE COURT: in open court. written order Any other Yes, okay. are du informed here

Then we will get out a It will be just a

also with regard

to this.

brief order. MR. COmnN: in the Court about Your Honor, is there II? any Le eway

25

the schedule

on January

RAMSEY

COUNTY DISTRICT COURT ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA

6

1

THE COURT: obviously because

There is leeway.

I

cked it will be, I

2
3 4 5 6

by that time the legislature it?

think that's

there first day, isn't MR. CORWIN: THE COURT: MR. BOTTERN:

I'm not sure. I'm not sure either. Your Honor, Yes?

Tom Bottern, is January 24.

7
8 9

B-o-t-t-e-r-n.

First day of the session THE COURT: MR. CORWIN: Oh.

I only ask because

I will be out

10
11

of the country

on the 11th. THE COURT: MR. CORWIN: THE COURT: MR. CORWIN: THE COURT: Okay. Well, when will you be

12
13

I'll be back the 14. What day is -That is a Saturday_ Let's go to the 16th then, further? No, Your Honor. Anything further? We are set it

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23

on for that date.

Anything

MR. GILBERT: THE COURT: adjourned. Thank you. (Whereupon,

this concludes

the hearing.)

24 25 R~~1SEY COUNTY DISTRICT COURT ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA

7

1

C E R T 1 F I CAT

E

2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9

I, Mary C. Dupre, Court Reporter, that the foregoing full, pages 1 through transcript,

do hereby

certify comprise a

7, inclusive,

true and accurate

to the best of my Dale B. Lindman, County Courthouse,

ability, Judge

of the proceedings Court,

held before

of District

at the Ramsey

St. Paul, Minnesota.

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24

Dated Minnesota.

this 6th day of December,

2011, at St. Paul,

Mary

C. Dupre,

Court Reporter

25 RAMSEY COUNTY DISTRICT COURT ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->