Today around noon Sakry of ABC Newspapers reported felony charges have been filed against David Elvig related to his custom woodworking and furnishings firm's collapse subsequent to the housing and commercial real estate market downturns.

This link. Charges have been filed. The law presumes innocence unless and until a trial is held resulting in a conviction.

Sakry reported facts, but it remains uncertain whether a special election will result. Unlike misdemeanor convictions, a felony conviction would impact voting rights and right to hold elective public office. The question was not a part of her reporting.

______________UPDATE______________
Levy of Strib today, Sept. 14, covers the situation for Strib, this link, this excerpt:

"Am I guilty of anything? Of course not," Elvig said Wednesday when asked whether he planned to remain on the Ramsey council. "I've never been accused of anything like this before."

Levy's subheadline: "He denies accusations that he embezzled money from his employees' benefit plans for business expenses." The use of words in a brief report, particularly "embezzle" suggest clarity is possible over a bad and wrongful act vs. a lawful and proper one, whereas often details do not allow clearcut distinctions.

For a feeling of how arguments can be presented to a court, suggesting things are not always clearcut and may hinge on a particular detail or two outside of coverage within a brief news report, readers can look at two "embezzlement" cases and make what sense out of them they can; In re Phillips, 882 F. 2d 302 (8th Cir. 1989: and US v. Nattier, 127 F. 3d 655 (8th Cir. 1997).

This is not to suggest that any factual posture of either case might be close to facts alleged against Elvig in charging papers. I have not gone to the courthouse to look at charging papers, but that would be the first step to take by anyone interested in gaining a better understanding of the charges against Elvig beyond reading the Sakry and Levy reporting. Anyone taking such a step also should understand that charging papers state what one side in an adversarial situation claims to be fact, which might be different from what a jury hearing testimony, reviewing documents, and judging demeanor of witnesses might decide to be governing facts in a case. That understanding is a part of the concept of innocence until proven guilty - actually innocence until adjudged guilty being a better way to say it.

In closing, the quoted paragraph from Levy's report focused on the question of whether Elvig planned to remain on the council, and his quoted answer surely, but indirectly, said "Yes." Clearly so, from the Elvig response, for as long as litigation is pending. In the event of a trial or a plea bargain, the nature of the outcome would be a deciding factor.