The Evidence

One Man at the Table: Conduct and Accountability at the October 29 Meeting

An account built from the video, the City's records and the rules that govern each person involved.

The Kenyon City Council's October 29 special session was noticed as a meeting about salaries, a tax abatement, fire department appointments and the business park. Thirty-four minutes in, Council Member Kim Helgeson asked the mayor for the floor and read a prepared statement about Randy Eggert, the utility superintendent whose separation after 48 years the council approved on September 21 34:09. She said the public "and his family need to be made aware." She went through an improvement plan, time entries, overtime, leave, personal items in city buildings, a bucket truck, and episodes of insubordination. When she finished, Eggert asked to respond. He was told, "We're not doing any comments at this meeting" 39:54. Later the mayor told him he was "more than welcome" to speak at the next regular meeting 44:40.

A prepared case was made against one named person, at a meeting with no public comment, and that person was refused an answer. That is the center of this account. The sections below set out what each part of that evening may amount to, and what would establish it.

A possible Open Meeting Law violation

The notice for this meeting was signed by Scott Lehner and dated October 23, 2026. It listed four specific subjects and then "General Discussion: a. Past Projects; b. Future Projects; c. Pending Matters; d. General Issues; e. Communication; and f. Training Session" [47]. Nothing in it mentioned Randy Eggert, a personnel matter, or the reasons for a separation.

What the law requires

Section 13D.04, subd. 2, requires written notice of "the date, time, place, and purpose" of a special meeting, posted at least three days before [1]. The statute does not say in terms that discussion stops there, but the Commissioner of Administration has said so consistently since at least 2004:

• 04-004 (Minnetonka schools): a body's actions are "limited to those topics included in the notice," because otherwise it cannot give notice to people who ask to hear about particular subjects.
• 07-014 (Hampton Township): "Other legal issues may be discussed" did not give notice of a traffic issue, a zoning matter or the planning commission's duties.
• 10-013 (Middle Snake Tamarac): "(but not limited to)" failed.
• 10-020 (Montrose City Council): "Financial Review / Training / Any Other Business that May Arise" was "not sufficient." If the council "was planning to discuss other business at the meeting, it needed to specifically identify the topic(s)."
• 19-006 (Rockville): "the public body must limit the discussion to that purpose."
• 22-009 (Modern Montessori): "purpose" means the intended object of the meeting, and a notice of closed consideration did not cover an open vote to end employment.
• 23-003 (Crosslake City Council): the rule reaches discussion, with no vote needed. A broad topic may reach sub-issues, but issues outside it violate the law.

The League of Minnesota Cities gives its members the same instruction: "council members should only address the specific issue or issues that the notice lists" [2]. A Court of Appeals panel has written, in an unpublished decision, that "the prohibition to act beyond the notice is necessarily implied in the notice requirement (or the notice requirement is meaningless)" [48].

What "Pending Matters" meant

The City's best argument would be that "Pending Matters" or "General Issues" covered the statement. Later in the same item, a speaker who appears to be Riggs explained why the item was on the agenda: "that was on there because you've had some data practices requests and questions about some of your pending matters." He then named them: "One was obviously the business park... The other was obviously coming up with the grocery store and the abatement there. The third one was the Kenyon Crossings," adding "that's why Scott had put this on here" 44:58. All three are development projects. Eggert's separation was not among them. If the agenda's author meant those three matters, the statement may have been outside the notice on the City's own account. The City may answer that Helgeson spoke under General Discussion, which the mayor had just opened 33:54, and that Lehner himself used "pending matters" for the KMU superintendent posting 50:38. A posting to fill a job and the reasons for a settled departure may still be different subjects.

The City may argue the separation remained pending until its December 9 effective date. Its terms, though, were resolved on September 21 [12][26]. "General Issues" is the kind of catch-all that 07-014 and 10-020 reject, and it may give the public no more notice than "Any Other Business." A resident deciding whether to attend could not have learned from this notice that a departing superintendent's record would be read out.

Kenyon knows how to give this notice

The City has shown that it can name a personnel matter when it intends to discuss one. Its January 28, 2026 notice identified "preliminary consideration of allegations against an employee" and named him. Its June 30, 2025 notice named Mr. Wayne Ehrich, and its December 9, 2025 notice stated it would discuss internal affairs data on law enforcement misconduct. Its August 31, 2026 notice named "Mr. Randy Eggert," and cited the statutes for allegations and performance [49]. Its attorney's firm drafted those notices. Against that history, omitting him here may have been a choice. Whether anyone knew on October 23 that this statement was coming is unknown, and Helgeson and Lehner both sit on the committee involved. If it was planned after the notice went out, the council had three days' notice to give and could have called another meeting.

Sept 21 may raise two further questions

Helgeson opened by saying Eggert "wanted the citizens to know when we held his performance evaluation as an open meeting back on September 21st" 34:09. The minutes do not describe that. Under "Evaluate the Performance of an Individual... Mr. Randy Eggert" they say "No discussion," and again under the follow-up. What they record is that "Administrator Lehner handed out a packet addressing Mr. Eggert's performance and evaluation," and that Gard could not fairly vote on it [12]. The public evaluation she relied on may not have taken place in any meaningful sense. Section 13D.05, subd. 3(a), also requires a body that closes a meeting to evaluate someone to "summarize its conclusions" at its next open meeting. Those minutes do not make clear whether the room closed, the October 13 minutes are not published, and the captions of that meeting show no such summary.

The packet presents a dilemma. Section 13D.01, subd. 6, requires a copy of printed materials distributed to members at an open meeting to be available for public inspection, unless they are classified as not public [50]. If the packet was public, residents in that room were entitled to see it. If it was not public, the question becomes how the same content could be read aloud five weeks later. The City may be able to answer one way or the other. It may struggle to answer both ways.

Who called the meeting?

Section 412.191, subd. 2, says special meetings "may be called by the mayor or by any two members of a five-member council by writing filed with the clerk" [50]. The notice is signed by the administrator. The notice alone does not show who called it, or whether a written call exists. The answer may be simple, and it should be in the file.

The City's own code

Section 200.17 says "proper decorum must be maintained by the mayor" [7]. A long personnel statement proceeded without interruption, and only afterward were others held to the topics. Eggert was refused a reply, and Lehner's remarks were followed by a move to adjourn 53:24. Section 200.19 says matters "inappropriate for consideration at a meeting may not be considered" without unanimous consent, and § 305.01 says the council "will confine its activities to determining matters of policy" [7]. A member trying an employment dispute from the dais may have run against both, and no consent was sought.

What could be done

Any resident who disagrees with how members performed their duties may ask the Commissioner for an opinion under § 13.072. There is no fee, the Commissioner must decline within five business days or issue an opinion within 50 days, and the request must be signed and timely [1]. An adverse opinion would not void anything said, but courts must defer to it, and a court "shall award" fees if a body later ignores it. Section 13D.06 allows any person to sue for a civil penalty of up to $300 for an intentional violation, personally against the member, with fees up to $13,000. Elseth requires intent to violate the chapter, and "advisory opinions are persuasive only" [48]. Here the statement that a lawyer approved the text may cut both ways: it may suggest good faith, or it may show that someone knew to ask.

Why it was said at all

The City had a settled matter, a signed agreement, and no legal need to revisit it. The record suggests a reason it did. The statement may have been written to answer a specific public case against the administrator, which had been building for two weeks.

The statement may answer the letter point by point

Debbie Eggert's letter ran two days before the meeting [27]. Set side by side, the statement tracks its claims closely, and Helgeson said the information was something "his family need to be made aware of" 34:09.

If the statement was a reply to a family's public letter, then the City used a special council meeting, with no comment period, to answer a private citizen's letter to the editor about her husband. "Communication" on an October 23 notice may mean the plan predated the letter, or may mean something else entirely. Who wrote the text, and when, would show which.

The three people on the committee

The City's Personnel Committee consists of Don Kirchmann, Kim Helgeson and Scott Lehner [49]. Eggert's family's complaint is about Lehner, and a family member has written that when Eggert raised concerns about Scott he was told to get along [23]. If so, the person he had a grievance against sat on the committee that handled his performance. The same three then took the public roles on October 29: Helgeson spoke, Kirchmann presided and ruled on who else could, and Lehner sat beside them. Kirchmann also moved the council's separation resolution, and seconded and voted for KMU's, which passed 2-1 with Houglum opposed [12]. KMU's liaison to that committee, Doug Henke, said he was not included, although he moved the KMU resolution. A process run by the people closest to a dispute may not look fair however careful they were.

Deanna Gard's account adds to this. In a post to the Concerned Citizens of Kenyon group, she writes that Lehner called her on October 22 and invited her to a "teams meeting" on October 23, that she was then told the city attorney would be coming and Helgeson would join by video, and that she was reprimanded for what she told the Kenyon Leader and told "the council needs to be united in what we say." She writes that she learned afterward the mayor and other members had not been told, that Helgeson "was not in a position to reprimand me," and that she resigned that day. The Oct 29 notice carries the same date. Any notes, calendar entries or Teams records would establish it, and whether a member can be disciplined at all outside a council vote would be a question for independent counsel.

Reasons kept out of writing, then read aloud

Resolution 2026-34 says only that ending his employment was "in the best interest of the City," and the separation agreement states no reasons and disclaims any finding [26]. Advisory Opinion 09-024 allows that, so the omission may be lawful. It also left the public with no explanation, and it left Eggert nothing in writing to answer. On October 26 a records request asked for the Sept 21 packet and the allegations, with a response requested by November 5 [51]. Three days later, with that request open, a council member read a list of allegations aloud. That may be a coincidence of timing. If the City withholds the document, it may be hard to explain why its contents could be disclosed at a time and in a form that favors its own account. If the data was public, it should have been produced. If not, it should not have been read. The packet, if produced, will show how closely the two match.

The order of events may be the most telling part. The City acted first and gave no reasons. It explained only when residents began asking whether the administrator's account was true, and the explanation concerned the employee and not the account. That may be why the statement looked to many in the room like a change of subject. Family members said afterward that it took the focus off the administrator [23]. Whether that was the purpose, the effect is on the record, and the people who wrote and approved the statement can say what they intended.

The work itself

The public record shows no failure by Randy Eggert to keep the utility running. Across the KMU minutes the City produced for 2025 and 2026, the complaints concern reporting lines, property and paperwork. Commissioner Henke's June 2025 list said "KMU reports not filled out on time. No specific examples could be given." On November 18, 2025, with Riggs, Helgeson and the mayor present, the mayor said the personnel committee had met with Eggert on "performance issues." The minutes list three: personal property on city property, an employee injury not reported to the administrator, and whether he would comply with the five agreements [44]. Helgeson's statement, read at length, named no outage, no safety failure, and no service the utility failed to deliver, and Resolution 2026-34 gives no performance reason [26].

The November entry also supports the past-practice point. On the injury report, Eggert filled out the required form and said "this was the way injuries were previously handled," and the outcome recorded was that "a procedure needs to be made for all employees to follow." The City itself may have concluded that no procedure existed. The question left open that day was who he reported to, and the minutes end with him and Lehner told to "sit down and talk this through."

The same minutes show a small utility being run. CMPAS's profile says he rose from lineman to electric superintendent in 2000, and served as a CMPAS board director [37]. In January 2025 new relays "came in under budget." That year emission controllers were installed, generator automation advanced at about a quarter of a contractor's estimated cost, and the annual oil test on the substation was done. Two apprentices completed their first year, and service went in for new businesses. All of it was done by a crew of about four, with someone on call every night and weekend.

He also appears to have seen the City's current problem coming. In September 2025 he proposed buying a rebuilt 1,000 kVA transformer "as a spare," and that fall the commission authorized the purchase and a rebuild, on quotes he obtained. Those are distribution units, smaller than the substation transformers Compass discussed, but when a Compass presenter told the council on October 29 that a spare would be "partially a different discussion" 16:19, the man who had been working on spares was not allowed to speak. On June 16, 2026 he told the commission the substation transformer was old and that "ideally there would be a new substation by the industrial park," and the commission authorized him to advertise for an engineer. On August 14 he authorized the long-range plan scope. The customer's transformer was ordered and delivered. Compass's own words were that the present effort is "work that KMU staff had already started" [4].

The conflict the record does describe is about supervision and timekeeping. The May 2025 agreement placed KMU staff under the administrator, and by June the minutes record a dispute over who his boss was and a time clock. That may mean his difficulty was with a new administration and a new system, and not with the work. His own evaluations, the Sept 21 packet, and outage and service records would complete that picture.

The time-record argument

The time-record accusation may not be a valid accusation at all. Eggert worked for the city for 48 years, and the public record shows no complaint about how he recorded his time until 2025. Ethan Eggert told the September 21 meeting that he "had a good record for 46 years," and asked what changed in the last two [12]. If his method of recording time was the same throughout, then the City reviewed it, approved it and paid it for more than four decades. An employer that accepts a practice for that long may have set the very standard it now claims he broke. Arbitrators testing discipline under union contracts ask whether an employee was forewarned of the consequences of his conduct [34], and although Eggert was at-will and that test does not bind the City, it describes a basic expectation of fairness. A rule first enforced in a man's fifth decade on the job, against a method his employers had always accepted, may be less a finding of misconduct than a change of management. The word "adjusting" would then describe his ordinary method and not any wrongdoing.

The allegation with the most weight may also be the one most tied to how the City kept time. Helgeson said he cost citizens thousands of dollars by "adjusting his time entry for those days to appear that he was in at seven" 35:36. The system itself may have been changing beneath him. In 2023 the council reviewed software that "would take the place of timecards" [28]. By June 2025 KMU's staff were on a time clock, and that May the council had approved the agreement placing KMU employees under the administrator's supervision. A process followed for decades may have been replaced midway through a 48-year career, and an employee who kept to the old one could then be found at fault under the new one.

The June 17, 2025 minutes are the only record of the dispute found so far. They record Commissioner Doug Henke saying that Eggert "told the City Administrator that he is not his boss and he's not using the time clock to punch in and out," and that "KMU's work schedule for the day doesn't start until Eggert shows up." That is Henke's account of what was said, in a list that also records another item for which "no specific examples could be given." No recording of KMU meetings has been found, and none of the 24 council videos from 2025 and 2026 discusses the time clock before October 29. It may be that Eggert refused a new system outright, or it may be that a veteran superintendent disputed who supervised him, and the record may support both. The list came from a commissioner and not from Lehner or Helgeson, though Lehner, Helgeson and the mayor were all in the room.

Federal law supports the point that a time clock was a choice. The Fair Labor Standards Act regulations say "Time clocks are not required" [29]. For employees on fixed schedules, they allow an employer to record the normal schedule and note exceptions [30]. If Eggert's practice was to enter his scheduled start and he worked his hours, including call-outs and evenings a utility superintendent routinely works, entering seven may have been the recognized method and not a falsification. Whether he was hourly or salaried, who approved his time for years, and how "thousands" was calculated would all bear on this. If supervisors approved those entries for decades, the City may have accepted the practice it now condemns.

The job itself may explain much of this. A KMU staffing text in the December 9, 2025 packet says "At least one employee is on call after regular work hours and weekends, with limits on response time," on a utility of about four outside employees, and by October 2026 one employee was "handling ALL on-call responsibilities" [8][32]. A superintendent on such a system does not work a clean seven-to-three-thirty day. The Supreme Court has recognized this kind of work for decades. Armour v. Wantock and Skidmore v. Swift (1944) hold that waiting on call can be work, depending on the facts, and 29 C.F.R. § 785.17 treats restrictive on-call time as hours worked [33]. Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery (1946) holds that when an employer's records are inadequate, an employee may prove his hours by reasonable inference [33]. If his unrecorded calls were counted, he may have worked more than his records show. Research also finds that on-call work carries real fatigue and recovery costs [33]. Helgeson said he refused an offer to change his set hours 36:12, and what that offer was may show whether the City tried to fit the schedule to the job.

Inaccurate time records are also common. A survey of 830 hourly workers found 43 percent had adjusted reported hours, and vendor surveys of small businesses report that most correct timesheets regularly before payroll [31]. Those are commercial surveys, and studies of self-reported hours find strong agreement with records overall, though imperfect, and weakest day to day [31]. Across some twelve thousand working days, errors may be expected in anyone's records. Eggert's records would show whether his were scattered, or ran one way.

Other employees' records may matter most. If others on the same system, or under the same supervisor, entered time the same way and were not disciplined, the enforcement may have been selective, and Helgeson's "known process by all employees" 35:07 would apply to everyone. Commissioner Houglum said on Sept 21 that the conflict "started two years ago at the first KMU meeting that Lehner attended" [12], Helgeson spoke of his refusal "since day one" 37:12, and Eggert told KMU he felt "bullied and micromanaged" [8]. Those accounts may describe a personal conflict that the time cards became a way to resolve. The time records of every KMU and public works employee, and the discipline each received, would establish it.

Possible slander and libel

Spoken defamation is slander, and written or published defamation is libel. Helgeson's statement may be both. It was spoken in a public meeting, it was read from a prepared text, and the City then posted it on video for anyone to watch. Some of what she said may qualify as defamation per se, the category covering accusations of a crime or of unfitness in a person's trade, where reputational harm may be presumed. The strongest candidate is the claim that he adjusted his time entries so he would appear to have arrived on time, costing citizens thousands of dollars. That describes falsifying public records.

Other statements may also be actionable. She said the transformer "was not ordered to statute" because three estimates were required, while § 471.345 asks for two quotations when possible, and the City's purchasing policy, whose adoption is unconfirmed, also says two [6][7]. She said "we" had just found out about the order. That may be true of her, since she is not listed in January, but KMU's January minutes recorded the plan to buy it with the administrator and the current mayor present [25]. Her statements about the bucket truck, personal property and insubordination may be actionable to the extent the records contradict them.

The case would be Eggert's to bring, and he has until October 29, 2028 under § 541.07. His release reaches only claims existing when he signed, so Oct 29 falls outside it [26]. The four decades of accepted practice may be the center of that case. To say a man adjusted his entries "to appear" on time conveys deception. If that entry was how the City had always accepted his time, the statement may leave a false impression of dishonesty, even if the individual entries can be found.

Her privilege may depend on the same question. Minnesota requires that a privileged statement be made on a proper occasion, from a proper motive, and on reasonable or probable cause, and the person claiming it carries the burden [35]. Whether she had valid reason to believe the practice was improper, including whether anyone looked at how time had been kept for forty years, may decide that element. A settled matter on a catch-all agenda may also fail the proper-occasion test. Her knowledge would be tested too: a failure to investigate alone may not establish actual malice, but purposefully avoiding the truth can [36]. Her prepared text and the attorney's reported review make what each of them examined central. Lehner's Oct 13 remarks may support a separate claim to the extent they conveyed that Eggert caused the failure.

The disclosure may also raise a data practices question. Section 13.43 keeps most personnel data private, and whether this data was public depends on his status as a "public official" and on the release in his agreement [11]. Eggert's position description would decide it. His surgery was mentioned, and that sits apart from any complaint data.

The statement also may have served to shift the blame. On October 13, Lehner told the council that a contract "sent out on July 2nd" had "no response and no signatures," and "We have missed deadlines" [3]. Two weeks later the explanation moved: Helgeson said the delay "is not the reason" he left 34:35, and replaced it with a list of other faults. A departing employee may have been the implied explanation at each stage.

The administrator's apology

Compass spent 27 minutes explaining that it met with Kenyon staff in early June, that the commission approved planning that month, and that the current effort was "simply a continuation/transition of work that KMU staff had already started" [4]. The July 2 contract appears to be a form sent to all members, and on September 9 only three had returned it [5]. Lehner then said: "my apologies if I came to the council possibly with information that maybe I didn't fully understand 100%" 52:24. He said he had received a lot of information in a short time, and that he was being attacked personally 52:57. The meeting then moved toward adjournment.

That sentence concedes something, whatever its hedges. The city administrator conceded, on the record and after hearing Compass, that he may have brought the council information he did not fully understand, on a subject that may have been heard as explaining a departed employee's failures. His explanation is difficult to square with what had already reached him: the load figure forwarded on December 17, 2025, the January and July KMU meetings at which he was present, and an October 8 invitation about the "substation and new customer" [24][25]. Whether his October 13 statements were mistaken, careless or worse depends on what he read and recalled, and the record does not show that. Either way, the admission names no statement and corrects nothing.

The harm may be substantial. Those statements gave the town an explanation for a problem, and left a man on leave to answer it only as a citizen at a KMU meeting, and a newspaper repeated it. The $1 million figure has carried three meanings with no itemized estimate, and residents have not been told what a $5 to $6 million substation would do to their electric bills. Compass itself raised the question: "Do we need to borrow money? Do we need to raise rates?" 19:53. His conduct may also fall below the standard the council is entitled to expect of its chief administrator, which the council can address in his performance review.

The Compass question

Only one party explained the City's largest pending decision, and that party may stand to gain from how it is decided. CMPAS is a member-owned joint agency, and Kenyon pays it. Its Master Distribution Services Agreement bills work at "then-current Time & Materials ('T&M') rates, plus applicable administrative service charges" [38], and its board was "watching distribution service numbers" in September [39]. ECI's Kenyon study is filed under a CMPAS project number, with its fee of up to $50,536 and its work coordinated through CMPAS [40]. On October 20, KMU added Lehner as an alternate on the CMPAS board [8]. The man whose October 13 account Compass was invited to explain may now sit on the body that governs Compass.

The presentation was prepared. It was on the agenda, the file on screen was named "kenyon 3.pptx," and Anderson said they went through one slide "about 12 times" 22:05. Lehner then asked him to explain how they arrived at "roughly $750 to $1 million," adding "You do it better than I do" 28:31. Anderson repeated that CMPAS only advises and that the council decides 20:18. That may be true, and it leaves a council with no independent opinion. No outside engineer reviewed the plan, and nobody was asked to argue for a different one.

The study meant to supply that comparison may have been passed over. ECI's August scope lists "several options to be considered," from phase balancing and reconductoring to "addition of new substations," and says "Cost would be developed for each of the options along with economic evaluation between the options." Its steps include an N-1 analysis, "loss of a substation transformer," which is the spare question exactly. Its first listed meeting is a presentation to the council of the results "at the completion of the study" [40]. On October 20, KMU's minutes already had the engineer and Compass "developing a design plan and preparing a request for quote," and on October 29 Anderson said they were "getting ready to propose a design" 17:29. No study, comparison or economic evaluation was presented. A public body may be moving to one answer before receiving the document it paid to compare the answers.

The market data

The market may be the strongest reason to want that comparison, and the primary data shows why. Anderson told the council transformer prices had "doubled or tripled" 10:10. The federal Producer Price Index for transformers and power regulators reached an all-time high in September 2026, 89 percent above January 2019 and 7.6 percent above a year earlier [41]. That is near doubling, not tripling, across the broad category. The index for large power units alone ended in 2023, so no public figure isolates the equipment Kenyon needs.

Our calculations. Price index: WPU1174, Jan 2019 and annual 2024 average, Sept 2026 preliminary. Capex: Microsoft, Alphabet, Amazon, Meta and Oracle, Q3 2024 and Q3 2026, from SEC filings. Sales and prices: EIA-861M, 12 months ending Aug 2019, Aug 2024 and Aug 2026. MISO: four-season average, 2025-26 and 2026-27 [41][42].

Data center spending is the visible driver. The five largest builders reported $230 billion of capital spending in the third quarter of 2026, up from $106 billion a year earlier, and that number is still accelerating. These records may mark the top of the market, and the City would be buying at it. Minnesota's own picture differs from the national one: prices here are at a record while sales remain below their 2014 level, so the state may be paying more for a surge in demand that is happening mostly elsewhere.

The price history gives the council something to measure. Since 2000 the transformer index has seen two real declines: 10 percent after the 2008 crash, recovered by 2011, and 11.5 percent from 2012 to 2015, recovered by 2019 [41]. On a $1.2 million transformer, a decline of that size would be about $140,000, and a year of the current increase about $90,000. This cycle is far larger, so a correction may be larger too, and if the data center spending stops, it may be sharp. Whether waiting would save money, and how much failure risk the City would carry meanwhile, is exactly what an economic evaluation exists to answer. The council was shown none.

Other options exist and may deserve pricing. Rebuilt and remanufactured transformers are sold at quoted savings of 10 to 40 percent, with much shorter delivery, and substation transformers can be rented [42]. Those are sellers' figures, but KMU has itself rebuilt a 1,000 kVA unit for $8,750. The American Public Power Association runs a member exchange for urgent equipment [42], and CMPAS's own 11 members might share a spare. Compass itself said one transformer could wait 29:52, and Xcel's line rebuild is not expected until about 2031 11:05, which may allow phasing. KMU's rules limit what the utility spends on a new service, with the excess paid by the customer [43], and Anderson's own October 5 list included "contribution in aid of construction if possible." A Compass presenter said a spare would be "partially a different discussion" 16:19. No one priced any of these in public.

The completed ECI study, an independent engineering review, and every invoice CMPAS and ECI have sent Kenyon would establish how far this goes. A $5 to $6 million decision for a town of 1,900 may deserve at least a second opinion from someone with nothing to bill.

The attorney

Scott Riggs may be the most consequential person in this account who was never elected. At each stage of the City-KMU conflict the record places him in the room, often writing the documents, and it shows no second lawyer giving either body a different view. The questions below concern whose interests that advice served. He may have sound answers to all of them, and most of his advice is privileged and unseen. The privilege belongs to the City, so a council could choose to release it.

Did one lawyer advise both sides of the merger?

Minnesota law gives a utilities commission its own powers. Section 412.361 says the commission may "employ all necessary help," "fix their compensation," "fix rates," and "enter into necessary contracts" [46]. KMU's minutes show Riggs advising the commission on these subjects while serving as the council's attorney [44]. On April 15, 2025, Commissioner Malloy said the council had already decided to combine the accounts, "so it really did not matter what the commission decided," and Riggs told the commission that "by law the checkbooks needed to be combined." Nothing in the record shows the commission ever had its own lawyer. Riggs called KMU "an arm of the city" in January 2025. If that is right, he had one client. If the commission holds independent statutory powers, he may have had two with opposing interests, and Rule 1.7 would require him to address that conflict, including informed consent confirmed in writing [16]. That question was the heart of the whole dispute, and he answered it by calling KMU an arm of the city, while serving as the council's attorney. The commission may never have been told it could ask anyone else.

Was there ever a law that required this?

No statute reviewed for this report says a utilities commission's checkbook must be combined with the city's. The minutes record Riggs telling the commission that "by law the checkbooks needed to be combined," and they cite no law. The closest statute may point the other way. Section 412.371 is titled "Separate city fund for each utility." It says "A separate fund or a separate account shall be established in the city treasury for each utility," that all receipts and disbursements run through it, that the commission "shall... audit claims" on it, and that orders are paid on the countersignature of the commission's president [46]. That puts the money in the city treasury, which may be what he meant. It also expressly contemplates a separate account. Section 412.141 likewise recognizes payment on orders of "officers of independent boards or commissions," and § 412.361, subd. 5, treats transfers of utility money to the general fund as something the commission agrees to [46].

The City's own paperwork may be the best evidence. Resolution 2025-13, stamped with his firm's numbering, cites no statute at all. It says "KMU wishes to close its bank account and merge its funds with the City's funds" [45]. A requirement of law and a wish are different things. Three weeks earlier a commissioner had said it "really did not matter what the commission decided." If the law required this, the resolution would be expected to say so, and if it did not, the commission may have been told it had no choice when it did. The resolution also retired KMU's own federal and state tax identification numbers, which suggests KMU had been treated as a separate entity. It says nothing about keeping the separate fund, the commission's audit, or the president's countersignature.

The only reasons given on video were practical. On January 14, 2025 the finance director said the auditors "every year have come back and said you need to combine these bank accounts," for efficiency, and that fund accounting would protect each fund. That may be a sound reason, and it is a different thing from "by law." In May 2025 Lehner also described it as efficiency.

A single bank account holding separately tracked funds may be lawful, and may even be good practice, so the statute may not forbid what was done. The question is narrower: the commission appears to have been told the law required it. No Attorney General opinion or court decision on the point was found. His actual reasoning may exist in a memo. Riggs said he would "work on resolutions," and the next firm invoice in the register billed $2,136 to "City-KMU Issues" [15].

Was he defending his own work?

Riggs is credited with drafting the agreements at the center of this. On February 11, 2025 the council's minutes record him saying "Riggs thought these agreements were signed, but signed copies cannot be found" [45]. Lehner said the same. On January 14, 2025 he said he drafted them "at the behest of both entities," attended the meetings, and that they were adopted and signed "but nobody can find them." That may be true, but it rests on memory, so agreements no one could produce became the standard to which Eggert was held. KMU signed new versions on April 23, 2025. Helgeson told the public on October 29 that the agreements were "approved many years ago" 37:12, in a statement she said he had reviewed. On November 18, 2025, Riggs "clarified the intent of these agreements" for a superintendent being asked whether he would comply. Rule 1.7's comment warns: "if the probity of a lawyer's own conduct in a transaction is in serious question, it may be difficult or impossible for the lawyer to give a client detached advice" [16]. The council may not have had detached advice on the validity of a lawyer's own drafting.

Who actually had authority over Eggert?

Section 412.361, subd. 2, gives the commission the power to hire and direct its employees. Resolution 2026-34, a document stamped with his firm's numbering, states that "the City has the exclusive authority to end the employment of persons working for the City" [26]. A statute gives one body power, and a resolution his firm prepared gives "exclusive" authority to another, resting on agreements the council approved in 2025. Whether an agreement can move that power without the vote § 412.391 describes has never been decided, and the resolution's confident wording does not reflect that. The same issue runs through the transformer accusation. The statement said an order must go to the KMU commission "and then the council for final approval." Section 412.361 gives contracting and purchasing powers to the commission, subject to bidding rules [46]. If he reviewed that sentence, he may have let an inaccurate account of the law go out.

Whose lawyer was he when dealing with Eggert?

The record shows Riggs at each step of Eggert's departure. Eggert told the council in January 2025 that Riggs had advised him to keep the personnel files locked and hold the keys. Riggs was in the room on November 18, 2025. His firm's stamp is on the separation resolution and agreement. He was present on September 21, when Eggert said he felt pressured, and on October 29. A man who had taken his advice for years may have reasonably been unsure whose lawyer he was. Rule 4.3 says a lawyer dealing with an unrepresented person must correct any misunderstanding of the lawyer's role and may give no legal advice beyond advising him to get counsel [16]. His agreement did advise him he could seek counsel. What Riggs told Eggert before that point, and whether he ever said he was not Eggert's lawyer, would establish whether this rule was met.

What did he approve on October 29?

Helgeson said her words were "approved by our city attorney," and he sat at the table without objection. On September 21 he had said "legally personal information couldn't be disclosed" [12]. His view may have changed once the release took effect, because of the public-official rule, but no record shows that reasoning. If he approved the full text, he approved the statement that the transformer "was not ordered to statute" with "at least three estimates," when § 471.345 says two quotations when possible [6]. If he reviewed it, he also approved or missed a personnel statement at a special meeting whose notice may not have allowed it, despite the Commissioner's opinions on the subject [1]. Rule 2.1 requires "independent professional judgment" and "candid advice," and warns that "purely technical legal advice... can sometimes be inadequate" [13]. A lawyer asked only whether something is legal still owes a client his view of the damage it may do. Rule 1.13(b) directs a lawyer to act in the organization's best interest when a constituent's violation of law is likely to cause it substantial injury [14]. The City may now face an adverse opinion, a defamation claim and lost public trust.

What is his relationship with the administrator?

Riggs was central to how the City got its administrator. In 2024 he contacted candidates for the interim post, helped interview one, and "drew up a possible contract" [45]. His office reviewed the contract for the firm that ran the search. On Sept 21, 2026, when Commissioner Henke said a leak in city hall was hindering Lehner, Riggs "agreed and he had advised Lehner to have meetings remotely" [12]. That advice may be routine. It also raises a plain question: when the administrator's own conduct is at issue, as with his October 13 statements, who advises the council about him? The lawyer who works with him daily may not be well placed to do so. Riggs missed October 13. No record shows he told the council afterward that the account needed correcting.

What does the firm earn from this?

The City paid Kennedy & Graven $112,461.31 in 14 checks from November 2024 to July 2026 [15]. The firm is city attorney, EDA counsel, and bond counsel, and it wrote the City Code. It billed $6,000 for the 2025A bonds, and it charges developers' matters at the top rate, now $300 an hour. Disputes are billable: $8,378 for personnel matters, $20,844 for a police data release and a claim, $3,325 for City-KMU issues, and a further $10,836 labeled only "LEGAL" in June 2026. A city attorney who recommends separations, investigations and restructurings is also the one paid to carry them out. That is true of any outside counsel, and it is why independent review matters. On December 10, 2024 the council voted to send out requests for proposals for professional firms, and Interim Administrator Boyles called it "standard practice" [45]. The record shows an auditing RFP a year later. No RFP for legal services has been found, and his rate increases have continued, in 2026 on consent. His rates match his other cities, so the concern is not overcharging. It is that no one has compared his work with anyone else's, and that he has never had to compete for the job of advising the people who decide whether to keep him.

What about the work product itself?

His firm's abatement resolution appears to exceed the statutory parcel cap on its own terms, misstates the citywide cap, and finds an increase in the tax base that the City's own adviser says will not occur. His "before next Tuesday" deadline for the pay ordinance may rest on subd. 3's phrase "before the next succeeding municipal election," though an ordinance adopted after Nov 3 would appear to qualify as well. The minutes have him saying Mary Bailey "should resign effective immediately" to put her seat on the ballot, while her resolution says December 31 and the seat goes before voters on Tuesday. Any one of these may be a minor error. Together they may suggest the City is not getting close review.

Questions he should answer

1. Who is your client when the council and the utilities commission disagree?
2. Did you ever disclose that conflict to the commission, or obtain written consent?
3. Did the commission ever have independent counsel on the merger? Was it told it could?
4. Have you ever advised, in writing, whether the 2025 agreements are consistent with §§ 412.361 and 412.391?
5. What law required the checkbooks to be combined? Cite it. Why does Resolution 2025-13 say KMU "wishes" to do it?
6. Did the merged accounts keep the separate fund, commission audit and countersignature § 412.371 requires?
7. Why were agreements with no signed copy treated as binding on Eggert, and who decided that?
8. What exactly did you review before October 29? Did you see the final text and the Salem remark?
9. Did you advise against reading it, and did you consider the notice for that meeting?
10. What is the legal basis for "not ordered to statute" and "at least three estimates"?
11. Did you ever tell Eggert you were not his lawyer? When?
12. Have you told the council that any part of the October 13 account needed correcting?
13. What has your firm billed for the Eggert matter, and the KMU restructuring, in total?
14. Were legal services included in the RFPs approved on December 10, 2024? If not, why not?
15. Will you ask the council to obtain independent counsel on City-KMU issues?

The council's silence

The council left the largest questions untouched: the October 13 account, the $1 million, the bill impact, the handling of Sept 21 with its packet handed out at the meeting, the concerns about the administrator that had filled the room 51:54, and whether "the merger" Helgeson mentioned required the vote § 412.391 describes. That word may be the most consequential one spoken all night. In 2025 it usually referred to bank accounts, and Lehner said then that KMU "will stay separate," but if the utility's jurisdiction was moved by agreement, it may have been moved without the voters.

Helgeson's text placed the conflict on "one man's refusal to accept changes" 37:45 and ended with "we had valid reasons" 39:16. The city attorney's closing contribution was a suggestion to repost the decorum rules 55:15. This may fairly be called a gross failure of duty. Council members swear an oath to discharge their office faithfully [17], and this meeting may have fallen far short of it. The heaviest responsibility rests with those who ran it. On Sept 21, Deanna Gard objected that she had no time to review the packet, Jerry Houglum voted no, Doug Henke said he had been left out, and Lee Sjolander thanked Eggert for his service [12].

The one who spoke to the room

Mary Bailey did what the others did not. She declined to argue over who was right and described what was in front of her: "all these people here, they're angry" 41:33. She said "there's clearly communication that is bad," and warned that "too much change too fast and too abrasive" would not work here 43:08. She then proposed a neutral third party, and the offer is real. The League's Collaboration Services give Insurance Trust members "free guidance from a qualified neutral and experienced facilitator," including mediation [20]. On October 13 Lehner had told the council that he and Riggs looked at League mediation, that "the personnel committee chimed in," and that "we're going to table that" because it "boiled down to one person" 50:00. He did not say who. So Bailey may have been reopening an option the administrator, the attorney and the Personnel Committee had already set aside. She had also asked on Sept 21 whether the agreement was signed under duress [12], even as she took part in that vote, and that history may be what made her candor possible. She was the one official who treated the room's anger as information and offered a way through it.

What residents said

The frustration is on the video as well as online. Someone answers, "That's why we're all here" 51:54. A member acknowledges near the end that "we're here because everyone's angry" 54:20. In the Concerned Citizens of Kenyon group that night, one resident described a packed room and her disappointment at the lack of professionalism and respect. Kevin Maring, a candidate on Tuesday's ballot, wrote that "there is no reason to kick a person when there down," and Deanna Gard, who says she resigned from the council on Oct 23, replied, "Well said Kevin." [23]

About ten people commented, and every substantive comment was critical. Facebook was the only outlet left to them that night. A family member wrote that employees fear retaliation for raising concerns. If so, that may be a pattern warranting independent review, and Minnesota's whistleblower statute, § 181.932, may apply.

What accountability would require

The City may have lost a great deal of trust that night, and Tuesday's election will be the first test of it. All five seats are on the ballot and at least three change [19], which leaves the question to the people who replace them. The steps are not complicated. Lehner would correct the October 13 statements specifically, in the record. Eggert would be given the same time at a regular meeting. Riggs or the council would state what he reviewed. The council would take up Bailey's mediation, adopt a code of conduct that binds members under § 412.191, as other Minnesota cities have [22], seek separate counsel on KMU disputes, and have someone independent hear the employee concerns. Each of these is within the council's power. Together they would amount to taking responsibility in public for what it did in public.