October 31, 2011 - Did Respondent Ed Montbriand violate Minnesota Statutes § 211A.12 by accepting a campaign contribution in excess of $300 from an individual donor? If so, what is the appropriate penalty for that violation? Respondent Ed Montbriand does not dispute that he violated Minn. Stat. § 211A.12 when he accepted a campaign contribution from an individual in the amount of $800. The panel concludes that the Respondent must return $500 to the donor and pay a civil penalty in the amount of $500.
October 28, 2011 - The Department has the statutory authority to adopt the rules. The rules were adopted in compliance with the procedural requirements of Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 14, and Minnesota Rules, Chapter 1400. The adopted rules are APPROVED.
October 26, 2011 - In light of his credit history and tax liens, should the Applicant be denied a mortgage originator’s license because of demonstrated financial irresponsibility? The Administrative Law Judge concludes that the Department has a basis for denying the Applicant’s license, but that there are mitigating circumstances that support granting the license.
October 21, 2011 - The above-referenced rules, as approved by the Revisor on October 26, 2010, are approved as to legality. The Administrative Law Judge has determined there are no negative findings in these rules.
October 21, 2011 - Was the Respondent responsible for maltreatment of a child, pursuant to Minn. Stat. §§ 245A.02, subd. 18, and 626.556, subd. 2, and Minn. R. 9503.0045, subp. 1 (A)? If the Respondent was responsible for maltreatment, did the Department properly impose a fine of $1,000, pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 245A.07, subd. 3? The Administrative Law Judge concludes that the maltreatment occurred and the penalty should be affirmed.
October 21, 2011 - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. That there is not probable cause to believe that Respondents Highland
Sanitation Incorporated, David Stewart, and Susan Stewart violated Minnesota Statutes
§§ 211B.06 by including two false statements in a letter sent to customers of Highland
Sanitation, and those allegations shall be dismissed. 2. That there is probable cause to believe that Respondents Highland Sanitation Incorporated, David Stewart, and Susan Stewart violated Minnesota Statutes §§ 211B.15, subd. 2, by making an illegal corporate contribution to Mr. Cardinal. 3. That there is probable cause to believe that Respondent Bob Cardinal violated Minnesota Statutes §§ 211B.15, subd. 13, and Minnesota Statutes § 211B.13, subd. 2, by knowingly accepting Highland’s corporate contribution to his election campaign. 4. That the alleged violations of Minnesota Statutes §§ 211B.15, subds. 2 and
13, and 211B.13, subd. 2, are referred to the Chief Administrative Law Judge for assignment to a panel of three Administrative Law Judges pursuant to Minnesota Statute § 211B.35.
October 17, 2011 - Did Respondent engage in acts or practices that demonstrate incompetence, untrustworthiness or financial irresponsibility in the conduct of insurance business in violation of Minn. Stat. §§ 45.027, subd. 7(a) (4), and 72B.08, subd 1(7) and (10) (2010)? Did Respondent refuse to allow a reasonable inspection of records and has otherwise failed to comply with requests for information, documents, or other requests from the Department contrary to Minn. Stat. § 45.027, subds. 1a and 7(a) (2)-(3) (2010)?
October 17, 2011 - By failing to pay the civil penalty imposed in a Consent Order entered into on October 8, 2008, has the Respondent demonstrated untrustworthiness or financial irresponsibility, in violation of Minn. Stat. §§ 45.027, subd. 7 (a)(2) and (4), and 60K.43, subd. 1(2) and (8) ?
Did Respondent provide false, incorrect, and materially untrue information to the Commissioner of Commerce on his license application, in violation of Minn. Stat. §§ 45.027, subd. 7 (a)(3), and 60K.43, subd. 1(1)?
Did Respondent demonstrate untrustworthiness or financial irresponsibility by failing to satisfy civil judgments entered against him, in violation of Minn. Stat. §§ 45.027, subd. 7 (a)(4), and 60K.43, subd. 1(8)?
Did the Department prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent’s application for a non-resident insurance producer’s license should be denied?
The Administrative Law Judge concludes that the Department proved the first two violations by a preponderance of the evidence, the third alleged violation was withdrawn, and the Respondent’s application for a non-resident insurance producer license should be denied.
October 17, 2011 - Did the Department properly deny the application for foster care licensure based on the permanent disqualification of Michael Roberts? The Administrative Law Judge concludes the Department had no choice but to deny the application based on the permanent disqualification of Mr. Roberts.
October 14, 2011 - Should Michael Jordan be disqualified from direct contact with or access to persons served in a licensed program? Should the Respondent’s licenses to provide child care and foster care be revoked?
The Administrative Law Judge recommends that the Department rescind Michael Jordan’s disqualification; rescind the Order of Revocation of the Respondent’s childcare license and impose a lesser sanction; and allow the Respondent to surrender her foster care license.