December 19, 2012 - The Department’s notice in Exhibit A to the Notice and Order for Hearing was too vague as to the reasons for the immediate suspension and it failed to list the laws or rules that Ms. Theis allegedly violated. The notice provided by the Department, therefore, was legally insufficient. The Department failed to give Ms. Theis the notice required by Minnesota law and rule. A Judge may only conduct hearings for which proper notice has been given. The appropriate result is to grant the motion and rescind the Order for Temporary Immediate Suspension.
December 19, 2012 - The issue is whether the Department of Human Services’ order of temporary immediate suspension of Licensee’s family day care license should continue.
The Administrative Law Judge concludes that the temporary suspension should not be continued.
December 18, 2012 - Did the District violate the Petitioner’s rights under the Veterans Preference Act, Minn. Stat. § 197.46 (VPA) in connection with his application for employment as a Transportation Manager for the District.
The Administrative Law Judge concludes that the District did not materially violate the Petitioner’s veteran’s preference rights in connection with his application for the position of Transportation Manager in May 2012. The ALJ, therefore, recommends that the Commissioner order the District to provide Petitioner the reason[s] he was not selected in writing, and dismiss the remainder of Petitioner’s Petition.
December 18, 2012 - Whether Reichmann is required to obtain a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System/State Disposal System (NPDES/SDS) permit to operate its winter cattle feeding sites, or to reduce cattle numbers to a level consistent with a pasture operation?
December 17, 2012 - Did the Respondent violate Minn. Stat. § 211B.04 by failing to prominently include a disclaimer on campaign signs substantially in the form required?
2. If so, what penalty is appropriate?
The panel concludes that the Complainant has established by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated Minn. Stat. § 211B.04 by failing to have the required disclaimed visible on two campaign signs. The Complainant failed to establish that the disclaimer was not substantially in the form required. The Panel concludes that a civil penalty of $25 is appropriate.
December 17, 2012 - After reviewing the Complaint and the attached documents, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge finds that the Complaint sets forth a prima facie violation of Minn. Stat. § 211A.02.
December 14, 2012 - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: The Board has statutory authority to adopt the rules. By failing to amend and republish the Notice of Intent to Adopt Rules to include a later date for submission of comments, the Notice was technically deficient. Such procedural error was, however, corrected by the Board, and did not deprive any person or entity of an opportunity to participate meaningfully in the rulemaking process. Accordingly, the procedural defect was harmless and does not impact the approval of the rules. By failing to notify all persons and entities who requested a hearing of their right to provide additional comment within five (5) working days in the Notice of Withdrawal, the Board did not comply with Minn. Stat. § 14.25, subd. 2. Such defect can be corrected if the Board, within the 30-day resubmission period, notifies all persons and entities who requested a hearing of their right to provide additional comment relating to the withdrawal within five (5) working days. The rules contain several substantive defects which render the rules adoption NOT in compliance with Minnesota Statutes Chapter 14 and Minnesota Rules Part 1400. Those defects are described in the Memorandum.
December 12, 2012 - The record in this matter shall consist of the documents referenced in the attached Stipulation of the Parties. By December 19, 2012, the Complainant shall file its opening brief in this matter.
By January 21, 2013, the Respondents shall file their responsive briefs. By February 4, 2013, the Complainant shall file its reply brief(s). By February 14, 2013, all parties shall file their Proposed Findings of Fact.
December 12, 2012 - That Goodyke Brothers, as a matter of law, is entitled to a valid claim against Green Meadow Bean’s buyer’s bond in the amount of $50,000.00; and
That, as a matter of law, Claimant Northern Sunshine Farms does not have a valid claim against the storage bond of Green Meadow Bean.