The rumor seems to be that there is some torches-&-pitchfork retaliatory intent among the PACT school wingnuts, because Matt Look exercised his rights to pursue the best interests of his children and their education opportunities in Ramsey, and in so doing he and John Dehen tried to advance the educational rights and opportunities of all in Ramsey to have proper access to PACT school enrollment since the place is - after all - in our town. While Judge Tammi Fredrickson held against them, the legal consequences of their efforts in behalf of the Ramsey citizenry to have preferential status for ALL of Ramsey's children at PACT school and not just the mere handful of RAMSEY children who do get preferential treatment because by chance they happen to be siblings of present PACT school enrollees; those consequences are still consequentially undetermined to any measure of finality, and instead remain wholly uncertain at appellate levels of litigation. In short - There has been no final judgment with exhaustion of appeal.
****
There's still the Court of Appeals review posslble/likely, given that it is a new and novel question of law, (how to read "town" in a statute to determine the intent of the legislature, which always is the purpose of judicial scrutiny of a statute), and there is even possible discretionary Minnesota Supreme Court review as other possible "ways and means" of having the unfortunate and wooden reading of things imposed on the case by Judge Fredrickson reversed (i.e., handed back down the judicial hierarchy as overturned, after a decision by a higher court to mirror realities and statutory intent better than this one particular Pawlenty appointed District Court judge cared to consider).
In effect, using Yogi Berra's Wagnerian-based aphorism, Brunhilde has yet to sing the closing-scene number in Gottedamerung ["It ain't over 'til the fat lady sings," is how Yogi said it].
Moreover, I cannot see how any sufficient recall petition can be fashioned grounded on what Matt, as a matter of citizen right did, nor based on what John, as Matt's lawyer, did. It's not there. They will, if the rumor is true, waste their resources and the resources of LMCIT, the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust, which ought to, (unless they've put really cute exclusionary language into the City of Ramsey's coverage policy), be required to provide the attacked councilmember(s) a defense. The LMCIT surely may have snaked the city that way, but that's for Bill Goodrich to pull the policy from the filing cabinet and read and determine - and I expect he'll have John Dehen's help. But only if the rumor becomes a reality.
I think if the rumor is true the wingnuts at PACT are wasting their time and resources foolishly, but it would not be the first time. They did exactly that in opposing the sounder more sensible position Matt and John took in litigating the rights and opportunities that Matt's children are, by the intent of the statute, entitled to have. That's my opinion of the law, but legal opinions, like all opinions are only that - opinions - and not representations of anything factual.
It's a story of more foolishness from those folks who, in the best of worlds, would have put their snobbish Bethel-sponsored thing in some other locale.
Bless them, if they would simply relocate.
Surely, since they claim to treasure "diversity," any expansion should be to a second campus, elsewhere, since that step would foster the greatest degree of the very diversity they claim to value.
****
Finally, is this just John Cairns of Briggs & Morgan simply pouring fuel on the fire to shake loose some more fee money from the PACT zealots?
If so, shouldn't Ramsey consider pulling the plug on Briggs & Morgan's being at the public fisc, as consulting counsel in Ramsey, if there's obstructionist conduct against Ramsey interests out of that firm? It stands to reason, the enemy of your friends is your enemy, and Dehen and Look have been good, responsible council members - friends in that sense - and Cairns of Briggs & Morgan has sided with their enemies. Go figure.
___________UPDATE__________
If there are feelings of nasty, vindictivness as rumored, those behind any actual recall effort should consider how strongly SLAPP efforts are disfavored. In Minnesota, "public participation" of the kind Look engaged in is protected, see, e.g., Minn. Stat. Sect. 554.01, subd. 6; and Sect. 554.03, providing a statutory immunity from SLAPP efforts that is not restricted to judicial actions, and could be read as protecting an elected offical against a SLAPP kind of recall effort. Because that novel question of law is present, LMCIT should be obligated to fund a protective defense since it would affect the protective status of every elected official in the State, and the LMC has policy concerns that reach beyond any particular insurance contract the LMC's IT writes for a municipality. There is a direct policy question of first instance, and I can see Look and/or Dehen getting a first class paid defense from the Greene Espel firm, if maliciously attacked in a recall effort.
I would expect Cairns, in good faith and per an ethical duty to give sound advice on the law, should counsel the more zealous of the PACT school folks to simply not go that route. Cairns might not read the anti-SLAPP situation as I do; and if there were no range of opinion on the law there'd never be litigation or a need for judges to decide how to resolve such situations of differning opinion, when litigated.
It is interesting. My bet, as a practical matter, is that no recall effort will ever happen, but if it does, it will fail big time.