27-CV-17-12691

Filed in Fourth Judicial District Court

8/31/2017 3:26 PM
Hennepin County, MN

STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT

COUNTY OF HENNEPIN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

Carol Jean Becker, Court File No. 27-CV-17-12691

Judge Mary R. Vasaly
Petitioner,

v. ORDER QUASHING WRIT AND

DENYING PETITION FOR
Betsy Hodges, Mayor of Minneapolis, PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDAMUS

Respondent.

The above-entitled matter came before Judge Mary R. Vasaly, pursuant to Petitioners
Motion for a Peremptory Writ of Mandamus and Respondents Motion to Quash the Alternative
Writ.
Petitioner, Carol Jean Becker, appeared pro se.
Assistant City Attorney Sarah C.S. McLaren, with the Citys Attorney Office under
Susan L. Segal, appeared on behalf of Respondent, Betsy Hodges.
Based upon the affidavits filed by the parties, the arguments of counsel, and all of the
records, files and proceedings herein, the Court makes the following:
ORDER
1. The Petition for a Peremptory Writ of Mandamus is denied.
2. Respondents motion to quash the August 21, 2017 Alternative Writ is granted.
3. There being no other relief requested, Petitioners Petition for Writ of Mandamus is
hereby dismissed.
4. The attached memorandum of law is incorporated herein.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY

BY THE COURT:

Date: August 31, 2017 ___________________________________

Mary R. Vasaly
Judge of District Court
 27-CV-17-12691
Filed in Fourth Judicial District Court
8/31/2017 3:26 PM
Hennepin County, MN

MEMORANDUM OF LAW
I. BACKGROUND
A. The Parties
Carol Becker owns real property and pays taxes in the City of Minneapolis. She earned a
doctorate degree in public administration and has thirty years work experience in public finance.
She has taught public finance at Hamline University for ten years, in its Public Administration
masters and doctoral programs. She has also taught public finance at both the Humphrey
Institute of Public Affairs and Capella University. She has been a member of the Government
Finance Officers Association for 12 years and has been a reviewer in their Distinguished Budget
Award program for two years. She worked seven years in the Minneapolis Budget Office,
including three years leading the budget for Mayor Sharon Sayles Belton. She has been a
member of the Board of Estimate and Taxation for almost 12 years.
Mayor Betsy Hodges is the current mayor of Minneapolis. She was elected in 2014.
Before her election, she served on the Minneapolis City Council for eight years as the council
member from Ward 13. On the Council, she chaired the Ways and Means/Budget Committee
and the Intergovernmental Relations Committee.
B. The Budget Process
The City of Minneapolis (City) is a home rule charter city under the Minnesota
Constitution. See City Charter (Charter) 1.2. The Citys annual budget process is governed
by the Charter and state law. Pursuant to the Charter, the Mayor delivers an annual address on
the state of the City establishing the Citys goals and priorities for the next fiscal year. See
Charter 9.3(a)(1). The City Council must review, and may amend, those goals and priorities
before the Mayor recommends a budget. Id.
By July 1, each board with taxing power and each board, commission, department, or
office that the City funds must notify the Mayor and Board of Estimate and Taxation (the Board
of Estimate) 1 of (A) its estimated revenue, expenses and budgetary needs for the next fiscal
year; and (B) any recommended capital improvements for the next five fiscal years. Charter
9.3(a)(2).

1
The Board of Estimate is composed of the Mayor, the City Council President, the City Council
member who chairs the Council committee whose charge includes the budget, a representative of
the Park and Recreation Board, and two members elected by the public. Charter 5.3.

2
 27-CV-17-12691
Filed in Fourth Judicial District Court
8/31/2017 3:26 PM
Hennepin County, MN

The Mayor, by August 15, must recommend a budget to the City Council and the Board
of Estimate. Charter 9.3(a)(3). No Charter provision allows the submission of a preliminary or
summary budget to be supplemented later. Instead, the Charter requires that the budget provided
by the Mayor on August 15 must:
include a message outlining the budgets significant features;
estimate the revenue, expenses, and budgetary needs for each board,
commission, department, and officer;
recommend any capital improvements for the next five fiscal years;
summarize all taxes applicable to property in the City and their effect; and
recommend any necessary or prudent legislation or other action affecting the
Citys finances.
Id.
After the Mayor recommends a budget to the City Council and Board of Estimate, the
Board of Estimate must set the maximum amounts and rates that the City Council (including the
General Fund, Permanent Improvement Fund, Police Personnel Expansion Fund), the Park and
Recreation Board and the Public Housing Fund may levy. 2 Charter 9.3(a)(4). According to
Ms. Becker, in doing its work, the Board of Estimate must carefully balance the coercive nature
of taxation against the need to provide services to City residents. The maximum levy must be set
by the Board of Estimate by September 30 each year. Minn. Stat. 275.065, subd. 1(a).
As part of its process of setting the maximum levy, the Board of Estimate reviews the
Mayors proposed budget to determine whether the property tax level the Mayor proposes is
appropriate. The proposed budget is most often a lengthy and comprehensive document, and the
review process takes time. In addition, before setting the maximum levy, the Board of Estimate
must hold a public hearing. Charter 9.3(a)(4). The public receives notice of the hearing so that
members of the public may provide input before the maximum levy is set.
The actual tax levy is determined by the City Council in December. Charter 9.3(a)(5).
Before determining the tax levy, the City Council must also hold a public hearing on the budget
for and taxes payable in the following year. The City Council then adopts a budget, which sets
the actual tax levy. City Charter 9.3(a)(5). This budget must (A) appropriate money for
operations; (B) provide for payment of the Citys general-obligation debt service; (C) levy any

2
The maximum tax levy determines the amounts that will be included in Truth in Taxation
statements. These statements show how much an individuals property taxes may go up the
following year.
3
 27-CV-17-12691
Filed in Fourth Judicial District Court
8/31/2017 3:26 PM
Hennepin County, MN

tax, up to the maximum set by the Board of Estimate, necessary for those purposes; and (D) tax
the property in the City in an amount, without regard to the maximum set by the Board of
Estimate, that will satisfy any judgment against the City. Id.
In the past, City mayors have provided a very detailed and complete budget by the
August 15 deadline containing much more information that the Charter requires. Mayor
Hodgess 2017 budget was more than an inch thick. The only exceptions brought to the Courts
attention were the budgets in 2007 and 2011. On August 15, 2007, Mayor R.T. Rybak provided
a less detailed budget due to the August 1, 2007, I-35W bridge collapse and the likelihood of a
special session of the Minnesota Legislature. Instead of a detailed budget, he provided a budget
message and a five-page summary with a Financial Information Appendix, showing the current
service level (CSL) budget that expressly did not reflect the Mayors decisions on how to
balance the budget or address initiatives.
In 2011, Mayor Rybak again provided a less detailed budget before the August 15
deadline, due to the May 2011 North Minneapolis tornado and the state government shutdown.
On August 11, 2011, he provided a six-page budget summary letter along with two pages of
addition financial information, including the recommended maximum tax levies and the CSL
budget. 3 He provided a full 2012 budget on September 12.
C. The Budget Process for the 2018 Budget
Mayor Hodges delivered this years state of the City address, establishing its goals and
priorities, on May 23, 2017. To the Courts knowledge, the City Council reviewed those goals
and priorities. Furthermore, to the Courts knowledge, the boards, commissions, departments,
and offices provided their revenue, expenses and budgetary needs as well as recommended
capital improvements to the Mayor and Board of Estimate by the Charter deadline of July 1,
2017.
The Board of Estimate set its public hearing for input on the maximum levy for
September 13, 2017. The Board also scheduled a meeting for September 27, to vote on the
maximum levy.
Although Mayor Hodges in years past, has always provided a detailed budget to the
Council and Board of Estimate by August 15, this year, she provided a more limited budget on

3
Ms. Becker objected to Mayor Rybaks failure to release a more detailed budget on August 15
and threatened a mandamus action.
4
 27-CV-17-12691
Filed in Fourth Judicial District Court
8/31/2017 3:26 PM
Hennepin County, MN

that date. On that day, she provided the City Council and the Board of Estimate with a budget
message (the Budget Letter) rather than the full budget address and complete budget book.
She explained that she was providing more limited information because her time had been
consumed with two public safety incidents in July and Augustthe officer-involved fatal
shooting of Justine Damond and the fatal explosion at Minnehaha Academy. In addition, the
Chief of the Minneapolis Police Department had resigned from her position on July 21, and the
City Council was set to consider the appointment of a new Police Chief on August 18. Mayor
Hodges wanted to ensure that the new Police Chief had the opportunity to provide input on the
budget for the Police Department. The Mayor promised to release her detailed budget book on
September 12, 2017, which is the day before the Board of Estimates public hearing is scheduled.
The Ways and Means Committee of the City Council is scheduled to hold at least seven
public meetings regarding the 2018 budget. These meetings are scheduled to occur before the
adoption of the budget and tax levy in December. In addition, the City Council has scheduled
two meetingson November 29 and December 6which provide the opportunity for public
comment on the Mayors detailed budget book before the City Council adopts a budget and tax
levy.
In the Budget Letter, Mayor Hodges asserts that despite its brevity, the budget message
contained all the information required by the Charter. The Mayor argues that the information in
the Budget Letter is sufficient for members of the Board of Estimate to determine the maximum
tax levy. Ms. Becker disagrees, arguing that the information provided by the Mayor in her
Budget Letter does not meet the Charter requirements for a budget. She notes that the
information provided falls far below the criteria used by The Government Finance Officers
Association (GFOA) for budget awards.
Ms. Becker has identified the following claimed deficiencies in the Mayors budget:
The budget omits revenues/expenditures for 17 boards and commissions; 4
The budget omits expenditures for 24 City departments;
The budget omits separate budgets for the Mayor, City Council, Minneapolis Park Board
members and the Board of Estimate; 5

4
Ms. Becker notes that the property tax levy for the Municipal Building Commission is shown
but it is also funded from other sources, thereby showing only a portion of its budget.
5
Ms. Becker notes that the budget includes a list of revenue categories and some departmental
expenditures, it does not show any revenues for any board, commission, department, or officer.
5
 27-CV-17-12691
Filed in Fourth Judicial District Court
8/31/2017 3:26 PM
Hennepin County, MN

The budget contains no capital improvements, as defined by Minn. Stat. 475.521.

Because she believes that the August 15, 2017, Budget Letter does not constitute the
budget required by the Charter, Ms. Becker filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus. The Court
issued an alternative writ setting a hearing for August 25, 2017, ordering Mayor Hodges to show
cause why a peremptory writ should not issue. Mayor Hodges filed an Answer and a Motion to
Quash the Writ on a number of grounds, including that the Budget Letter satisfies all of the
Charter requirements and that Ms. Becker lacks standing to obtain a Writ. Both parties filed
affidavits and exhibits the day before the hearing. At the hearing, both parties declined the
opportunity to provide witness testimony but offered argument in support of their positions based
on the evidence in the record.
II. LEGAL ANALYSIS
A. Applicable Legal Standard
In this case, the Court issued an alternative writ of mandamus. Minn. Stat. 586.03.
Now, Ms. Becker seeks the issuance of a peremptory writ of mandamus. Minn. Stat. 586.01
permits the Court to issue a writ to a person to compel the performance of an act which the law
specially enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station. The writ may issue based
on information of a party beneficially interested, but it shall not issue in any case where there
is a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Minn. Stat. 586.02.
To obtain issuance of a writ of mandamus, a petitioner must show three elements: (1)
the failure of an official to perform a duty clearly imposed by law; (2) a public wrong
specifically injurious to petitioner; and (3) no other adequate remedy. Kramer v. Otter Tail
Board of Commrs, 647 N.W.2d 23, 26 (Minn. Ct. App. 2002) (citing Demolition Landfill
Services, L.L.C. v. City of Duluth, 609 N.W.2d 278, 280 (Minn. Ct. App. 2000)). Mandamus is
an extraordinary legal remedy awarded, not as a matter of right, but in the exercise of sound
judicial discretion and upon equitable principles. State ex rel. Hennepin Co. Welfare Bd. v.
Fitzsimmons, 239 Minn. 407, 422, 58 N.W.2d 882, 891 (1953); State v. City Council of Brainerd,
121 Minn. 182, 141 N.W. 97 (1913). Mandamus will issue only when there are conditions of
necessity or exceptional circumstances, where there would otherwise be a failure of justice, and
then only in the exercise of a sound judicial discretion, and not as a matter of course. State v.
U.S. Exp. Co., 95 Minn. 442, 104 N.W. 556 (1905).

6
 27-CV-17-12691
Filed in Fourth Judicial District Court
8/31/2017 3:26 PM
Hennepin County, MN

The Mayor challenged the alternative writ of mandamus issued in this case by a motion
to quash. A motion to quash a writ of mandamus is treated as if made at the close of the
plaintiffs case and as the equivalent of a motion to dismiss. State v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry.
Co., 160 N.W. 773, 774 (Minn. 1916). A judgment quashing an alternative writ and denying a
peremptory writ is proper when the petitioner does not have a right to the position which [s]he
claimed. Where the relator does not have the right which [s]he claims should be enforced by
mandamus, it is axiomatic that a [peremptory] writ should not issue. Reed v. Trovatten, 209
Minn. 348, 35253, 296 N.W. 535, 537 (1941). The Court may rule as a matter of law based
upon the petition and answer. Leslie v. City of Chisago City, No. C4-01-338, 2001 WL 950111
at *3 (Minn. Ct. App. Aug. 21, 2001); Popp v. County of Winona, 430 N.W.2d 19, 23 (Minn. Ct.
App. 1988) (a district courts decision to rule as a matter of law after a hearing on a show cause
order is clearly permissible under the statute).
B. Ms. Becker Failed to Establish all of the Necessary Elements Supporting
A Peremptory Writ and Lacks Standing.
Before a writ of mandamus may issue, the petitioner must meet the standing requirements
of Minn. Stat. 586.01-02. Chanhassen Chiropractic Center, P.A. v. City of Chanhassen, 663
N.W.2d 559, 562 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003). In a mandamus case, standing is composed of three
elements: (1) the failure of an official to perform a duty clearly imposed by law; (2) a public
wrong specifically injurious to petitioner; and (3) no other adequate remedy. State v. Hauser,
219 Minn. 297, 302, 17 N.W.2d 504, 507 (1945) (quoting State v. City Council of Brainerd, 121
Minn. 182, 187, 141 N.W. 97, 99 (1913)). Generally, standing focuses on whether the plaintiff
is the proper party to bring a particular lawsuit. Olson v. State, 742 N.W.2d 681, 684 (Minn. Ct.
App. 2007). 6

6
The Court notes that contrary to the Mayors argument, Ms. Becker may meet the second
element of standing, i.e., a public wrong that was specifically injurious to her. Although
Minnesota decisions recite that requirement (see, e.g., Coyle v. City of Delano, 526 N.W.2d 205,
207 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995)), it is not entirely clear that it applies in all cases. The statute requires
the petitioner to be beneficially interested in the matter. In a number of cases, the Minnesota
Supreme Court has held that taxpayers may demonstrate a beneficial interest in matters not
involving the enforcement of a private right: Where the object is to enforce a public duty not
due to the government as such, any private citizen may move to enforce it. State v. Brainerd,
121 Minn. 182, 141 N.W. 97 (1913); State v. Weld, 39 Minn. 426, 40 N. W. 561 (1888); State v.
County Bd. of Renville County, 171 Minn. 177, 213 N.W. 545 (1927). On the other hand, it is
also not entirely clear that the injury Ms. Becker alleges is more than hypothetical; no evidence
establishes beyond speculation that Ms. Becker or any other citizen will have insufficient time to
7
 27-CV-17-12691
Filed in Fourth Judicial District Court
8/31/2017 3:26 PM
Hennepin County, MN

Thus, to obtain a Writ of Mandamus, Ms. Becker must first establish that Mayor Hodges
failed to perform an official duty imposed by law. The official duty at issue must be positive,
not discretionary, and the right must be so clear as not to admit of any reasonable controversy.
State v. City Council of Brainerd, 121 Minn. 182, 187, 141 N.W. 97, 99 (1913); see also State v.
Hauser, 219 Minn. 297, 17 N.W.2d 504 (1945).
The duty imposed by the Charter in this case is clear: [b]y August 15, the Mayor must
recommend to the City Council and to the Board of Estimate [] a budget. Charter 9.3 (a)(3).
It is also clear that by August 15, 2017, the Mayor provided to the City Council and Board of
Estimate a Budget Letter that contained certain financial and other information. The Mayor
contends that her Budget Letter constitutes a budget as defined by the Charter. Ms. Becker
argues that the Budget Letter was not a budget.
Thus, to determine whether the Mayor did or did not perform her official duty, the Court
need only answer one question (as Ms. Becker aptly argued): What is a budget? The answer to
that question is clear because the Charter defines the elements contained in the recommended
budget. According to the Charter, a budget contains:
A message outlining the budgets significant features;
An estimate of the revenue, expenses, and budgetary needs for each
board, commission, department, and officer;
A recommendation for any capital improvements for the next five fiscal
years;
A summary of all taxes applicable to property in the City and their effect;
and
A recommendation of necessary or prudent legislation or other action
affecting the Citys finances.
Charter 9.3. Because the required budget is so defined, it does not matter whether the budget
Mayor Hodges provided is a detailed budget, an award-winning budget or a budget
comparable to any previous years budget. If it meets the five Charter requirements, it is a
budget for the purpose of determining whether Mayor Hodges failed to perform a duty
imposed by law.
1. Requirement No. 1. Does the Budget Letter include a message outlining the
budgets significant features?

provide meaningful input on whatever budget information the Mayor has provided or may later
provide on September 12, 2017.
8
 27-CV-17-12691
Filed in Fourth Judicial District Court
8/31/2017 3:26 PM
Hennepin County, MN

The parties appear to agree that the Mayors submission included an adequate message.
2. Requirement No. 2. Does the Budget Letter include an estimate of the
revenue, expenses, and budgetary needs for each board, commission,
department, and officer?
Ms. Becker claims that the Mayors Budget Letter does not include the required estimates
of revenue, expenses and budgetary needs, because it does not provide the information
separately for each board, commission, department and officer. She points to the full budgets
provided in past years and argues that the Budget Letter does not provide the detail previously
provided.
The Mayor argues that she met the second requirement by providing an estimate of
revenue (Budget Letter at p. 5), expenses and budgetary needs (id. at p. 4) by category. The
figures in the Budget Letter appear to show the combined expenses and revenues for various
boards, commissions, departments and officers. For example, commissions are included as part
of the figures for the departments.
Although the Budget Letter does not provide the level of detail contained in full budget
books, the language of the Charter could reasonably be interpreted to require only summary
figures that include estimates of the revenue, expenses, and budgetary needs for boards,
commissions, departments, and offices, as part of a combined figure. 7 Thus, Ms. Beckers
contention that the Charter requires designation of revenues and expenses for each board,
commission, department and officer separately is not so clear as not to admit of any reasonable
controversy. State v. City Council of Brainerd, 121 Minn. 182, 187, 141 N.W. 97, 99 (1913).
Based on the parties submissions, the Court cannot conclude the Budget Letter fails to satisfy
Requirement No. 2.
3. Requirement No. 3: Does the Budget Letter identify capital improvements for
the next five years (page 7)?
The Mayor argues that the Budget Letter satisfies the capital improvements
requirement by listing, on page 7 of the Budget Letter, a Five-Year Capital Investment
Allocation. In a table on that page, the Mayor shows proposed capital investment allocations
for the Municipal Building Commission, Park Board, Public Works Department, Public Grounds
& Facilities and Miscellaneous Projects.

7
According to the Mayor, even the more detailed budget books also combine expenses and
revenues for certain commissions and departments.
9
 27-CV-17-12691
Filed in Fourth Judicial District Court
8/31/2017 3:26 PM
Hennepin County, MN

Ms. Becker contends that the Budget Letter does not meet the Charter requirement
because it contains no capital improvements. Her contention appears to be that the capital
improvements must be identified with more specificity, by project, not by department. She notes
that Minn. Stat. 475.521, subd. 1(b), which governs Capital Improvement Bonds, defines a
capital improvement as acquisition or betterment of public lands, buildings or other
improvements for the purpose of a city hall, town hall, library, public safety facility, and public
works facility. The statute sets forth requirements for a municipality that seeks to issue capital
improvement bonds to finance capital improvements under a capital improvement plan. Such
a capital improvement plan must cover a five-year period and set forth the estimated schedule,
timing, and details of specific capital improvements by year, together with the estimated cost, the
need for the improvement, and sources of revenue to pay for the improvement. Minn. Stat.
475.521, subd. 3.
Importantly, nothing in the relevant Charter provision requires the Mayor to consider or
meet the statutory requirements for adopting a capital improvement plan when she
recommends capital improvements for the purpose of recommending a budget under the
Charter. While the bonding statute requires specificity regarding the capital improvements
included in a capital improvement plan, the Charter does not. For these reasons, the Court does
not find the capital improvement bonding statute controlling for determining the level of detail
for capital improvements required by the Charter.
Ms. Becker also points to the Capital Budget Decisions Summary from the Mayors
2017 detailed budget book that identifies the agency requesting a capital improvement,
recommendations by various bodies for those projects and the ultimate City Council adoption of
an allocated amount for each project. In addition, she cites the detailed Capital Budget Summary
contained in the 2017 budget book. But once again, the fact that more detail has been provided
in other documents or at other times does not warrant a conclusion that the Charter clearly
requires the Mayor to include this detailed information in her recommended budget.
Based on the above information, the Court cannot conclude that the Mayor violated a
clear duty by failing to provide the kind of specificity regarding recommended capital
improvements that Ms. Becker demands.

10
 27-CV-17-12691
Filed in Fourth Judicial District Court
8/31/2017 3:26 PM
Hennepin County, MN

4. Requirement No. 4: Does the Budget Letter provide a summary of property

taxes and their effect?
In order to satisfy the Charter, the Budget Letter must summarize all taxes applicable to
property in the City and their effect. Charter 9.3(a)(3)(D). Mayor Hodges argues that she
provided the required summary at page 2 of the Budget Letter, wherein she recommends a
property tax levy by department, divided among the General Fund, Park Board, the Board of
Estimate and other units of government. Additional detail is provided at page 8 of the Budget
Letter, which supplies a summary of property taxes and their effect. On the same page, the
Budget Letter also provides samples of how the 5.5% proposed levy increase will impact
property tax bills for various types of properties and market values.
Ms. Becker does not criticize the information provided in the Budget Letter or address
specifically how the Mayor allegedly failed to provide a summary of property taxes and their
effect. Instead, she stresses the importance of knowing the Mayors maximum property tax levy
increase. But, as the Mayor points out, the Budget Letter provides the recommended maximum
levy as well as a summary of property taxes and their effect. While the Budget Letter does not
provide information that is final or detailed, it cannot be said to be an entire failure to provide
the information required by the Charter.
5. Requirement No. 5: Does the Budget Letter include a recommendation of
necessary or prudent legislation or other action affecting the Citys
finances?
The Budget Letter addresses recommended legislation on page 7. Although it is not
detailed, the Charter does not unambiguously require any particular level of detail. Ms. Becker
does not dispute that the Mayors Budget Letter meets these particular Charter requirements.
In sum, the Court must conclude that the Mayor satisfied her official duty to provide a
recommended budget by August 15, as that term is defined in the Charter. If the Mayor had
refused to provide any budget information whatsoever, the Court could properly issue mandamus
to compel her performance, as the failure to act would give the Court a basis to compel
performance of a clear duty. State v. County Bd. of Renville County, 171 Minn. 177, 213 N.W.
545 (1927) (observing that Court may issue mandamus where there is a complete failure to
perform a public duty). But in this case, there was not a complete failure to perform.
Nonetheless, the Court agrees with Ms. Becker that a recommended budget that does
more than meet the bare minimum requirements of the Charter would be a much more useful

11
 27-CV-17-12691
Filed in Fourth Judicial District Court
8/31/2017 3:26 PM
Hennepin County, MN

document. The recommended budget provided on August 15 serves as a foundation for further
budget discussions and negotiations. By providing a recommended budget, the Mayor has the
privilege and duty of leading the City by setting financial priorities that support her considered
objectives. The Board of Estimate, City Council and taxpayers should be given the full
advantage of her leadership as well as a meaningful opportunity for input. Providing the
minimum information required on August 15, and then later supplementing it, is not a process
that allows city officials and the public a full opportunity to contribute their expertise and raise
their concerns about the recommended budget. Such a procedure compresses the time available
to those, like Ms. Becker, who need to study pertinent information before they take the next
important step in the process. It also disadvantages those in the public who could add value to
the process by contributing to a full discussion of all aspects of the budget, including the details.
The result is to diminish the quality of the ultimate producta comprehensive City budget
which is, of course, vitally important to the City. As Ms. Becker says, a budget is the most
critical policy statement that any governmental organization makes. The more detailed and
thoughtful the budget recommended on August 15, the more likely it is that the budgeting
process will produce a budget that works well for the City.
Because the Mayor recommended a budget by August 15 that meets the Charter
requirements, Ms. Becker is not entitled to the extraordinary relief of mandamus. As explained
above, mandamus will not issue unless it is shown that the public official failed to perform a
legal duty that is positive, not discretionary, and so clear as not to admit of any reasonable
controversy. State v. Brainerd, 141 N.W. 97, 99 (1913); see also State ex rel. Coduti v. Hauser,
219 Minn. 297, 17 N.W.2d 504 (1945). In the absence of a failure to perform entirely, the Court
is without power to evaluate the quality of the Mayors performance, i.e., whether the Mayor
created an award-winning budget or a budget that is barely adequate. Indeed, if the Court were
to accept Ms. Beckers invitation to become involved in evaluating the Mayors performance, it
would likely be called upon in future years to evaluate budgets that fall anywhere on the
quality continuum.
If a Writ of Mandamus were issued to require the Mayor to produce a better budget, it
would then be faced with the task of evaluating the quality of the Mayors second attempt to
provide a comprehensive budget. In effect, Ms. Becker would have this Court set a standard
for the required budget that would then govern all future budget submissions. This level of

12
 27-CV-17-12691
Filed in Fourth Judicial District Court
8/31/2017 3:26 PM
Hennepin County, MN

interference with City government is not something the Court is empowered to do. Only the
City, through the Charter, can define the standard for minimum performance. As the Mayor
points out, a writ of mandamus does not control the particular manner in which a duty is to be
performed and does not dictate how discretion is to be exercised. Mendota Golf, LLP v. City of
Mendota Heights, 708 N.W.2d 162, 171 (Minn. 2006) (citing State v. Davis, 592 N.W.2d 457,
459 (Minn. 1999)); see also State ex rel. Gopher Sales Co. v. City of Austin, 75 N.W.2d 780, 783
(Minn. 1956) (affirming grant of summary judgment for defendant and quashing alternative writ
of mandamus).
The Court is no position to control the Mayors discretionary duties, just as it is no
position to make policy decisions reserved to the other branches of government. The principle
that forbids courts from interfering with discretionary duties of public bodies thus parallels the
concept of justiciability. What is generally meant when it is said that a question is political,
and not judicial, is that it is a matter which is to be exercised by the people in their primary
political capacity, or that it has been specifically delegated to some other department or
particular officer of the government, with discretionary power to act. In re McConaughy, 106
Minn. 392, 415, 119 N.W. 408, 417 (1909). A matter is nonjusticiable if its subject matter is
inappropriate for judicial consideration; this is primarily a function of the separation of powers.
Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 198 (1962). The Supreme Court explained:
Prominent on the surface of any case held to involve a political question is found
(1) a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate
political department; (2) a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards
for resolving it; (3) the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy
determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion; (4) the impossibility of a
court's undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect
due coordinate branches of government; (5) an unusual need for unquestioning
adherence to a political decision already made; or (6) the potentiality of
embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one
question.
Cruz-Guzman v. State, 892 N.W.2d 533, 53839 (Minn. Ct. App. 2017) (quoting Baker, 369
U.S. at 217), review granted (Apr. 26, 2017).
Mayor Hodges recommended a budget, as that term is defined by the Charter, on
August 15, 2017. Therefore, she has not clearly violated a public duty. Because it lies within the
Mayors discretion to determine how much information to provide in her budget beyond the

13
 27-CV-17-12691
Filed in Fourth Judicial District Court
8/31/2017 3:26 PM
Hennepin County, MN

information required by the Charter, the Court is without authority to intervene to require that
she provide more detailed information.
III. CONCLUSION
Because Ms. Becker has not demonstrated that the Mayors August 15, 2017 Budget
Letter fails to satisfy the Charter requirement that she recommend a budget by August 15, so
clearly as not to admit of any reasonable controversy, she lacks standing and has otherwise
failed to satisfy the elements supporting issuance of a peremptory writ of mandamus. The
Mayors motion to quash the Courts August 21, 2017, alternative writ of mandamus is granted,
and Ms. Beckers Petition is hereby dismissed.

MRV

14