In re the Matter of Troy Kenneth Scheffler (Rosemary Franzen).

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by
Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A22-1797

In re the Matter of Troy Kenneth Scheffler (Rosemary Franzen).

Filed September 11, 2023
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded
Reyes, Judge

Office of Administrative Hearings
File No. 71-0325-38723

Troy Scheffler, Merrifield, Minnesota (self -represented relator)

R. Reid LeBeau, II, Jacobson, Magnuson, Anderson & Halloran, P.C., St. Paul, Minnesota
(for respondent Rosemary Franzen)

Considered and decided by Reyes, Presiding Judge; Ross, Judge; and Bjorkman,
Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
REYES, Judge
In this certiorari appeal, relator challenges the decision of a panel of three
administrative-law judges on his complaint alleging c ampaign-practice violations. Relator
argues that the panel erred by (1) determining that relator failed to establish probable cause
for a claim asserted under Minn. Stat. § 211B.04 (2022) and (2) imposing an insufficient
penalty against respondent. We affirm in part , reverse in part, and remand .

2
FACTS
In the November 2022 general election, r elator Troy Kenneth Scheffler and
respondent Rosemary Franzen we re both candidates for the same seat on the Crow Wing
County Commission. Franzen was the incumbent candidate and has served as a Crow
Wing County Commissioner since 2006.
On August 26, 2022, Franzen made a campaign disbursement in the amount of
$1,065.97 for campaign materials to hang on the doors of residents’ homes (the door
hangers). The door hangers had two sides. One side included a partial disclaimer that said:
“Prepared and Paid for by Volunteers for Franzen.” The other side displayed a pictur e of
Franzen with her spouse, provided background information about Franzen, and included a
statement at the bottom indicating: “If you have questions or concerns, please call me at
[telephone number], or email me at [email address].” Franzen distributed approximately
2,500 door hangers beginning in early September 2022. Franzen also distributed campaign
lawn signs that read “Rosemary FRANZEN FOR COUNTY COMMISSIONER.” In the
lower left corner of the sign in significantly smaller font it had the statement “Prepared and
Paid for by Volunteers for Franzen,” with a mailing address.
On October 3, 2022, Franzen filed her initial campaign -finance report which
covered the period from August 26, 2022, through October 3, 2022. The report identified
a total of $600 in contributions received and the disbursement for the door hangers in the
amount of $1,065.97.
On October 10, 2022, Scheffler filed a complaint with the Office of Administrative
Hearings (OAH), alleging that Franzen (1) violated campaign -finance reporting
3
requirements under Minn. Stat. § 211A.02 (2022) by failing to file a timely campaign-
finance report and (2) prepared and distributed door hangers and lawn signs that lacked
prominent disclaimers as required by Minn. Stat. § 211B.04.
In an October 21, 2022 order, an administrative -law judge (ALJ) determined that
probable cause supported the premise that Franzen violated section 211A.02 regarding the
reporting requirement and section 211B.04 as to the door hangers. But the ALJ determined
that no probable cause existed to support the claim that Franzen violated section 211B.04
as to the lawn signs.
Based on the ALJ’s probable-cause fi ndings, the case was then assigned to a panel
of three ALJs. By an order dated November 16, 2022, the panel determined that Franzen
violated section 211A.02 by failing to file a timely campaign financial report and violated
section 211B.04 by distributing door hangers without a sufficient disclaimer. The panel
assessed a civil penalty of $50 for the reporting violation and $100 for the door -hanger
violation.
On November 28, 2022, Scheffler filed a petition for reconsideration with the c hief
ALJ. The chief ALJ dismissed the petition, stating that Minn. Stat. §§ 211B.01-.37 (2022)
do not provide a mechanism for the chief judge to review a panel’s decision; rather, the
appellate process is governed by Minn. Stat. §§ 14.63-.69 (2022).
4
In December 2022, Scheffler filed a certiorari appeal to this court, seeking review
of the OAH’s October 21, 2022 and November 16, 2022 orders. 1
DECISION
I. The OAH did not err in its penalty assessment as to the reporting and door-
hanger violations.

Scheffler contends that the OAH erred in assessing Franzen’s penalty. We are not
persuaded.
When evaluating the OAH’s imposition of a penalty , just as when evaluating other
decisions by an agency, we presume the penalty is correct and “defer [] to an agency ’s
expertise and its special knowledge in the field of its technical training, education, and
experience.” See Fine v. Bernstein, 726, N.W.2d. 137, 142 (Minn. App. 2007) (citation
omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Apr. 17, 2007) . To ensure consistency, the OAH developed
the penalty matrix as guidance, which “provides a range of penalties for infractions based
on the gravity and willfulness of the violation found.” Id. at 149. Each penalty is assessed
to reflect the specific facts of the case. See id.
A. Reporting violation
Scheffler contends that the OAH erred by (1) finding that Franzen’s reporting
violation w as inadvertent because Franzen knew the applicable law and (2) failing to
consider the impact of the violation on the early absentee voting which began on September
23, 2022, approximately one month before the general election.

1 On January 18, 2023, Franzen moved to dismiss this appeal, arguing that Scheffler lacked
standing and failed to exhaust administrative r emedies. This court denied the motion in a
February 7, 2023 special-term order .
5
Under section 211A.02, subd ivision 1, candidates must file an initial campaign -
finance report within 14 days after exceeding $750 in campaign contributions or
expenditures. Here, Franzen made a campaign disbursement of $1,065.97 on August 26,
2022. Franzen did not file her report until October 3, 2022, which was after the reporting
deadline.
Franzen claimed that she was unaware of the reporting deadline. Franzen explained
that, in her prior campaigns, she never reached the threshold disbursement amount
triggering reporting, and that another Crow Wing County commissioner told her that the
report was due by October 24, 2022.
The OAH found that Franzen’s “report was still made more than one month before
the general election. Voters had ample time to review the report prior to voting.” The
OAH determined that Franzen’s “failure to [] file her initial campaign financial report
[timely] was an inadvertent error, and there is no evidence that this issue had any impact
on voters.” Further, nothing in the record indicates the level of impact on the absentee
voters. As a result, Scheffler fails to carry the burden of showing that the OAH’s findings
were unsupported by the record, viewed in its entirety. See Bernstein, 726, N.W.2d. at 142.
The penalty matrix provides a presumptive range of $0 to $250. Because the record
supports this penalty, we conclude that the OAH did not err by assessing a $50 penalty for
the reporting violation.
B. Door-hanger violation
Under Minnesota l aw, it is unlawful to prepare or disseminate most types of
campaign material without prominently disclosing the name and address of the person or
6
committee that prepared or disseminated the material. § 211B.04, subd. 1(a), (b). The
address in a disclaimer must be either the committee’s mailing address or the committee’s
website if the website includes the committee’s mailing address. Id. Here, the OAH found
that Franzen violated section 211B.04, subd ivision 1(b), by not including an address or a
website where the address can be found on her door hangers.
In assessing the penalty for the door -hanger violation, the panel considered the fact
that the door hangers included Franzen’s photograph, telephone number , and email
address. The OAH determined that Franzen’s failure to comply strictly with section
211B.04 was “inadvertent and had little to no impact on voter s,” and that “there [was] no
evidence that any person was confused or unsure about who prepared and paid for the
material.” Furthermore, t he penalty matrix provides a presumptive range of $0 to $250.
The OAH assessed Franzen a $100 penalty related to the door hangers, which is within that
presumptive range.
Because substantial evidence in the record supports the OAH’s determination, we
conclude that the OAH did not err in its penalty assessment with regard to the door hangers.
II. The OAH err ed by determining that Scheffler failed to establish probable
cause for the lawn -sign claim.

Scheffler asserts that the OAH e rred by dismissing the lawn -sign claim without
interpreting and applying the statute requiring a disclaimer to be “prominently include[d].”
We agree.
“Agency decisions are presumed correct, and this court defers to an agency’s
expertise and its special knowledge in the field of its technical training, education, and
7
experience.” Bernstein, 726 N.W.2d. at 142. We will reverse an agency’s decision “only
when it constitutes an error of law, when the findings are arbitrary and capricious, or when
the findings are unsupported by substantial evidence.” Id. “An agency’s conclusions are
not arbitrary and capricious if a rational connection between the facts found and the choice
made is articulated.” Id. “[T]he appealing party bears the burden of establishing that the
findings of the agency are unsupported by the evidence in the record, considered in its
entirety.” Id.
Minnesota’s campaign-practice law requires a ny person “who participates in the
preparation or dissemination of campaign material” to “ prominently include the name and
address of the person or committee causing the material to be prepared or disseminated,”
in accordance with statutorily prescribed di sclaimer language. § 211B.04, subd. 1(a)
(emphasis added).
In a civil case, p robable cause requires “a bona fide belief in the existence of facts
essential under the law for the action and such as would warrant a person of ordinary
caution, prudence and judgment, under the circumstances, in entertaining it.” Weinberger
v. Maplewood Review, 668 N.W.2d 667, 674 (Minn. 2003) (quotation omitted).
Following a probable -cause hearing , the ALJ found that there was not probable
cause that a violation of section 211B.04 had occurred regarding Franzen’s lawn signs. In
an October 21, 2022 order, the ALJ stated:
Minn. Stat. § 211B.04 does not define what constitutes a
“prominent” disclaimer for campaign signs. [. . . ] Contrary to
[Scheffler]’s assertions, there is no requirement that
disclaimers on lawn signs be in large enough font to be visible
by individuals while driving past or from five feet away.
8
[Scheffler] did not offer evidence establishing that font size of
the disclaimer on [ Franzen’s] signs is so small as to be in
violation of the statute.

(Emphasis added.)
The OAH’s finding that Scheffler did not offer evidence is not supported by the
record. Scheffler alleged that Franzen failed to comply with the prominent -disclaimer
requirement under section 211.B.04, subdivision 1(a), because the disclaimer on her lawn
signs was printed in “microscopic” font, blend ed in with the rest of the colored material,
and was only noticeable “within a couple feet of the sign.” Scheffler also submitted
pictures of the lawn signs. While Scheffler did not identify any caselaw or statute
establishing a specific font-size requirement for the disclaimers, he offered evidence of
pictures that supports a probable-cause determination under the circumstances. Moreover,
although the statut e does not expressly require that disclaimers be visible from five feet
away, as Scheffler argued, the OAH still must interpret the statute requiring campaign
materials to “prominently include” certain information and apply it to the facts of the
instant case. See Pietsch v. Minnesota Bd. of Chiropractic Examiners , 683 N.W.2d 303,
306 (Minn. 2004) (reviewing ALJ’s application of law to facts).
We conclude that t he OAH erred b y dismissing the lawn -sign claim for lack of
probable cause. Accordingly, we reverse and remand the claim for the OAH for a factual

9
finding on whether the disclaimer in the instant case is “prominently include[d]” within the
meaning of the statute , as interpreted by the OAH .
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. 2

2 Scheffler also contends that Franzen “mocked the court, its orders, statute” and “its
imposed penalty.” None of these arguments have merit or legal support. Nor does
Scheffler appear to request any remedy. We therefore decline to further address these
arguments.