Investigating Ellendale’s Code Crackdown

Uneven Enforcement, Ethics Questions, and Legal Red Flags continue in a Small Town Meeting

By Keith Haskell
July 14, 2025

At the July 10, 2025, Ellendale, Minnesota City Council meeting, what appeared to be routine business erupted into a startling display of inconsistency—and possible hypocrisy—when anonymous code‐violation complaints targeting one local businessman suddenly took center stage. Citizens who have followed council meetings for years say this time was different: the city hid the details, a sitting council member’s own property was among the alleged violators, and that same council member then voted on enforcement actions against others, all without recusal.

“We’ve Never Seen It Like This”
Longtime attendee Paula Jensen (name changed) says she’s been to nearly every Ellendale council meeting over the past several years. “Today,” she recalls, “I got up from my seat and walked to the table by the door. There were photocopies of an anonymous envelope and photos showing trailers, trucks, and campers parked off the improved surfaces—at least six addresses were named.” Normally, Jensen says, each code complaint is spelled out in the published agenda packet. But on July 10, the official agenda implied “ anonymous complaints regarding code violations,” with no addresses.

Anonymous Complaints, Specific Targets
The public packet contained two undated, unsigned letters labeled “Public Complaint—Code Violations,” listing:
• 602 Jansen Place (ice house and trailer not on improved surface)
• Radal Court @ Sixth Street (blue truck expired tabs; not on improved surface)
• 211 Second Avenue West (black trailer not on improved surface)
• 506 Park Street (unsightly nuisance trailer; no improved surface)
…and from a second letter dated June 23:
• 602 Dutton Drive (unlicensed mud truck on trailer)
• 304 Fourth Street NW (camper, boat, car and trailer all unregistered and off‐surface)
• Fourth Avenue @ Fourth Street NW (Suburban, RV, tow dolly; all unregistered; public nuisance)
• 209 Fourth Avenue (commercial trailer with expired tabs parked on the street)
• 320 Second Street and adjacent houses (multiple trailers off the surface)
• N. School Street—“too many vehicles” off the surface

Photographs of each vehicle—blue truck, mud rig, weathered camper—were stapled behind photocopies of the envelopes. Yet the council’s published agenda included none of these addresses.

The Council Member Just a Few Blocks Down
What made Jensen pause was that one of the complained‐of properties belonged to sitting Council Member Joel Meyer. But Meyers joined colleagues in seconding and voting for motions to investigate and enforce the code against other homeowners and property owners that night, without stepping aside.

Breaking Minnesota’s Open Meeting Law?
Minnesota’s Open Meeting Law (Minn. Stat. § 13D.01, subd. 4) requires that “at least one copy of any printed materials relating to the agenda items…shall be available for inspection by members of the public during the meeting.” By omitting addresses from the posted agenda and formally circulating only anonymous complaint discussions, the council arguably deprived citizens of fair notice.

As the Minnesota Court of Appeals held in Free Press v. County of Blue Earth, 677 N.W.2d 471 (Minn. App. 2004), even if a meeting remains open, vague agenda language undercuts the public’s “full and accurate knowledge of [its] official activities.”

A “Class-of-One” Equal Protection Claim
The U.S. Supreme Court in Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562 (2000), recognized that a “class-of-one” may sue if a government treats someone differently from all others without any rational basis.” Here, dozens of trailers, boats, campers, and cars off improved surfaces were observed—and not all were investigated, in fact none were - a direct violation of Ellendales own set codes and processes. Yet one individual has been routinely singled out. Absent any city policy explaining the disparate treatment, this may rise to an equal‐protection violation.

Minnesota’s Discriminatory-Enforcement Standard
Minnesota law also prohibits arbitrary code enforcement. In City of Minneapolis v. Buschette, 240 N.W.2d 500 (Minn. 1976), the state Supreme Court required a showing that (1) similarly situated parties were treated differently and (2) the disparity was based on an unjustifiable standard. Ellendale’s pattern—aggressively pursuing one property owner while leaving other violators unchallenged—raises exactly this concern.

Ethics, Conflicts, and the Public Trust
The League of Minnesota Cities’ ethics guidance emphasizes that officials must recuse themselves from decisions in which they have a personal interest. Yet Council Member Meyer neither disclosed his property’s role in the complaints nor abstained from motions and votes. That contravenes the LMC’s “Official Conflict of Interest” model and undermines the public’s confidence in fair governance.

The Common Good and Equal Enforcement
For decades, Ellendale residents have accepted that code enforcement is “complaint-based.” They’ve seen staff occasionally “spot check” yards—but never have they witnessed enforcement targeted so narrowly, nor a council member voting on citations for others while ignoring his own parallel violations.

As resident Jensen put it, “We don’t mind obeying the codes. But we expect equal treatment. We should not have to wonder if the law is a tool against just some people.”

What Comes Next?
Ellendale’s clerk, council, and mayor have been embattled in litigation over the past year and a half, largely over code enforcement, with cases already in front of the Minnesota Appellate Court. This week’s activity may encourage citizens to explore formal complaints under:
• Minn. Stat. § 13D.06 (Open Meeting Law penalties)
• Minn. Stat. § 152.316–.319 (zoning‐complaint and hearing procedures)
• 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (federal equal protection claims)

A Call for Transparency and Fairness
Small‐town government thrives on trust. When a council’s actions appear secretive, selective, or self-serving, residents lose faith. Ellendale now stands at a crossroads: it can embrace clearer agendas, uniform enforcement policies, and strict ethical rules—or risk eroding the very community it was elected to serve.

For the citizen expecting “equal justice under law,” the choice is clear.