Minutes - Council - 05/26/2026 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

action on the censure resolution and agreed with previous speakers that responsibility for the fraud issue extended beyond the governor alone. Ms. Dara Grimmer, 15931 Xenon Street Northwest, Ramsey, again questioned what the proposed censure would accomplish. She stated that she wanted a clear explanation of the resolution's purpose and expected outcome, and expressed doubt that the Ramsey City Council was the appropriate body to address the issue. Mr. Todd Embury, 9041 159th Lane Northwest, argued that the agenda items appeared politically motivated. He stated that if the Council was genuinely concerned about fraud and government misconduct, it should apply the same standards consistently across all levels of government. He referenced actions by President Donald Trump and argued that if the Council wished to condemn misconduct by elected officials, it should do so regardless of political affiliation. He suggested that focusing exclusively on Governor Walz created the appearance of partisanship and political point- scoring rather than principled oversight. Mr. Matt Woestehoff, 16078 Uranium Street Northwest, reflected on his own experience as a former subject of a proposed censure action before the City. He acknowledged that he had made decisions in the past that he later viewed differently, but noted that he had acted within established rules. He argued that Governor Walz had acted within the authority of his office and stated that elections provide the proper mechanism for accountability. He questioned the value of the proposed censure and suggested that voters, rather than local governments, should determine whether the governor should remain in office. Mayor Heineman then presented the resolution. He explained that local governments have the legal authority to express opinions on matters of public concern and cited Minnesota statutes that authorize City Councils to conduct municipal affairs. He argued that large-scale fraud involving state funds affects local governments because state resources support services and programs that benefit communities. He also referenced examples from across the country in which City Councils, school boards, and other local government bodies had censured elected officials or adopted resolutions expressing disapproval of actions taken by state or federal leaders. He maintained that the proposal was legally appropriate, historically supported, and within the Council's authority. Councilmember Buscher asked City Attorney Johnson to explain the meaning of a censure. City Attorney Johnson responded that a censure is a public declaration expressing disapproval of an individual's conduct and serves primarily as a symbolic action without legal consequences. Councilmember Buscher then asked whether the resolution would provide any direct benefit to Ramsey residents, recover any lost funds, or affect City operations, services, or funding. City Attorney Johnson explained that a censure does not create legal obligations, require corrective action by the subject of the censure, or result in financial recovery. She characterized the action as a symbolic expression of the Council's position. City Council /May 26, 2026 Page 12 of 19