With that headline the post could go anywhere. But all politics is local. To the town I live in. For now.
Municipalities in Minnesota generally are governed by mayor - council structures, and in the best instances, are supposedly non-partisan with no Tweedle Dee party doing mischief at the expense of the Tweedle Dum party - a two party understood institution that too often, and in a current instance, gets honored in the breach. (At least the town ballot for town council seats does not specify candidate party ties.)
It is firm Minnesota law, within the State that the State IS preeminent, with all powers of its political subunits being by virtue of a grant or delegation of some specific limited powers, by the State.
REPUBLICANS RISING
Ramsey where I live has a governing charter and a city code, that code headlining city jurisdiction, e.g., how the city should be governing itself sanely and wisely over matters indicative by headings of the parts of the city's governing code:
Chapter 6 - ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES
Chapter 10 - ANIMALS
Chapter 14 - EMERGENCY SERVICES
Chapter 18 - ENVIRONMENT
Chapter 22 - FIRE PREVENTION AND PROTECTION
Chapter 26 - LICENSES, PERMITS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS REGULATIONS
Chapter 30 - NUISANCES
Chapter 34 - OFFENSES AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Chapter 38 - PARKS AND RECREATION
Chapter 46 - SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
Chapter 50 - STREETS, SIDEWALKS AND OTHER PUBLIC PLACES
Chapter 54 - TRAFFIC AND VEHICLES
Chapter 58 - UTILITIES
Subpart B - LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
Chapter 105 - BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS
Chapter 106 - ZONING CODE
Chapter 108 - SIGNS
Chapter 109 - MOBILE HOMES AND ...
That's a sampling. You get the idea. Delegated powers to police roads, zoning, liquor licences, parks, fight fires, and police miscreants - that kind of stuff. So, within that context, check the headline, impertinence can arise out of swell-headedness, of a kind that insults town residents by indicating a choice to go beyond limited power to piss on parts of one party's majority-based former juridiction over State law and matters - outside of what the town paychecks are for - to policy and criticism when that party in State control did business. The impertinent insurgency -Things we Republicans have cooked up in an election year as make-believe "issues" while the national Republicans have mired the entire nation in a sick economy, gas pump grief, an unpopular leader, and a war the people are shown by polling to intensely dislike.
The insult to the town's people - elected folks foregoing duties in a way showing they value more a possible future in the legislature than a present duty to wisely run the town in ultra-hard times.
So, what partisanship in concrete detail? Three resolutions online here, here and here, so you can read and judge their actual gravitas to things a town should be doing to run efficiently. In sequence, gin up hate of a new flag; say the Democrat governor back then did his job poorly; and question, can we use that governor as our spiteful toilet?
Who are these clowns? Where and how did they cook up these ideas? Was the Minnesota Open Meeting Law (against secret nonpublic informal majority get-togethers and scheming to pull the wool over opposition eyes) violated by a council majority? Did they sit down with a Mr. Niska, a Republican legislative poohbah, to do the cooking? Then think as if we do a work session (open but no minutes taken) followed by a formal session, we sanitize the stuff? We citizens don't know.
Bigger question: WHY?
What is this whole three resolution bullshit for, other than partisan politics in an election year?
You tell me. It insults. It galls. It cheapens the offices these clowns hold.