Legislation Details

File #: RES 26-1659    Version:
Type: Resolution Status: Passed Unsigned by Mayor
In control: City Council
Final action: 9/30/2026
Title: Appointing the law firm of Fisher Phillips as Special Counsel for Purposes of Providing Legal Advice, Counsel, and Representation for the defense of Mayor Kaohly Her in the lawsuit captioned, Axel Henry v. Kaohly Her and City of St. Paul, Ramsey County District Court, State of Minnesota.
Sponsors: Rebecca Noecker
Ward: Ward - 2
Attachments: 1. Administrative Code 3.02, 2. V2 Financial Analysis - Fisher Phillips, 3. Emma McDowell public comment, 4. Anthony Moss public comment, 5. Pete Gaffney public comment, 6. Gino Polverari public comment, 7. Claudia Hochstein public comment, 8. Jess Corner public comment, 9. Lindsey Franklin public comment, 10. Andrew Boucher public comment, 11. Adriana Peck public comment, 12. Howard Collins public comment, 13. Phil Aitken public comment, 14. Peter Hendricks public comment, 15. John Purdy public comment, 16. Joint East Side District Councils public comment, 17. Ianni Houmas public comment
Title
Appointing the law firm of Fisher Phillips as Special Counsel for Purposes of Providing Legal Advice, Counsel, and Representation for the defense of Mayor Kaohly Her in the lawsuit captioned, Axel Henry v. Kaohly Her and City of St. Paul, Ramsey County District Court, State of Minnesota.
Body
WHEREAS, Section 5.02 of the Charter of the City of Saint Paul provides that in any case of special or unusual circumstances, the City Council, upon the request of the City Attorney may appoint special counsel to assist in providing for the legal business of the City; and
WHEREAS, the City of St. Paul and Mayor Kaohly Her are identified as Defendants in the lawsuit involving Plaintiff, the Chief of the Saint Paul Police Department, Axel Henry currently pending in Ramsey County District Court, State of Minnesota; and
WHEREAS, the City of Saint Paul’s City Attorney’s Office is charged with the legal counsel and representation of matters involving the City of Saint Paul pursuant to the City of Saint Paul’s Charter; and
WHEREAS, the Saint Paul City Attorney’s Office has determined that a potential conflict exists in the City Attorney’s representation of Mayor Her in the lawsuit involving Plaintiff, Chief Axel Henry and the Co-Defendant, City of St. Paul; and
WHEREAS, due to the potential conflict, the City Attorney seeks City Council approval for the appointment of the law firm of Fisher Phillips to serve as special counsel for the purpose of providing advice, counsel, and representation to Mayor Kaohly Her in the defense of the above-referenced litigation; and
WHEREAS, the provision of legal advice, counsel and representation in civil employment law requires very specialized and technical expertise for which the law firm of Fisher Phillips is uniquely qualified in terms of expertise, experience, and skill;
WHEREAS, the City Attorney seeks City Council approval for the retention of services of the law firm of Fisher Phillips at a rate not to exceed $500 per hour.
Now, t...

Click here for full text
Date NameDistrictOpinionCommentAction
9/30/2026 8:24 PMSarah Evans Against It comes down to ethics and common sense; The tax payers have had enough of these “elected” officials having neither. Shame on Mayor Her. +1
9/30/2026 6:45 PMKayla Against There comes a point in any career when basic professionalism should not need to be taught. If the Mayor has failed to meet that expectation, taxpayers should not be responsible for covering the cost of defending that conduct. At a time when residents are being warned about budget deficits and the prospect of yet another property tax increase, asking them to pay substantial legal fees tied to the Mayor's actions is a tough sell. The city should be focused on improving services and addressing community needs, not managing avoidable controversies. What makes this situation even more concerning is that Mayor Her is still in her first year in office. This is not the result of years of complacency; it is the performance residents are seeing at the very beginning of her tenure. +3 1
9/30/2026 6:01 PMAnn  Against City taxpayers should not have to pay the legal costs for the mayor's unprofessional behavior. +1
9/30/2026 5:30 PMMatt Ehlert Against We should not be paying to cover the costs for the mayor, she should be doing this herself. Especially if its a historical union busting firm.
9/30/2026 5:19 PMDrew Against Imagine the good that could be done by using these funds for the public. If our mayor requires public funds to defend her personal actions, she shouldn’t be our mayor.
9/30/2026 5:10 PMJeremy Ward Against St. Paul taxpayers should not be on the hook for subsidizing Mayor Her's legal representation. This city is already struggling enough with budgetary concerns; we literally can't afford to keep the lights on in parts of the city. To allocate budget toward defending the mayor's abhorrent behavior when citizens of this city already pay the highest taxes in the state is unconscionable. I firmly oppose taxpayers funding her defense. +2
9/30/2026 4:57 PMJeremy Stomberg Against Under no cir***stances should the city pay for the legal defense of any employee due to their personal behavior. +3
9/30/2026 3:57 PMCody Against To even consider this is abhorrent. Just resign if it requires $500/hr help to keep someone in office. Sounds like the mayor cares about herself more than her constituents. Absolutely appalling. +5
9/30/2026 3:11 PMCraig Wieber Against As a taxpayer who is looking at double digit percentage increase in their property taxes, I am absolutely against using public funds to pay for the mayor's conduct. She's a grown adult who doesn't understand what constitutes basic civil behavior in the workplace. Just because she's the mayor, why do taxpayers need to pay the bill for her inexcusable behavior? If she wants legal representation, she can hire a lawyer using her own money. The same should go for council members who can't follow the law or city policies. My taxes are already too high, and I want them to pay for the services I need, not legal settlements for politicians who can't follow the law. +6
9/30/2026 2:50 PMAudrey Against Taxpayer dollars should not go towards the mayor's defense. Release the tax-payer funded investigative report into her actions. It's time for members of the City Council, business interests, and community leaders to start putting pressure on Her to resign. This is all beyond embarr***ing. +3
9/30/2026 2:36 PMSteve Against This would be an inappropriate expenditure by the City. City employees should be covered if they make a mistake while actively performing their ***igned duties. No one asked Mayor Her to engage in her behavior; it is 100% possible to be Mayor and serve the city without being so inappropriate and toxic. So defending Her's actions should be her responsibility, not the city's. Do not allow city funds to defend Her's behavior. +3
9/30/2026 2:30 PMM Rascoe Against The city must defend the mayor — I'm not contesting that. What I'm contesting is the price. $500/hour is a national-firm rate for multi-state matters. This is a single-plaintiff employment suit in Ramsey County. Local Twin Cities employment attorneys with 15+ years' experience in exactly this type of case bill $300–$375. The Council has the charter authority to control this. I ask you to: (1) require three firms to submit proposals with rates, (2) cap the rate at $350/hour, (3) approve in phases — $50,000 through the answer and discovery — with a Council vote to exceed it. The city is deferring street light repairs and closing libraries. In that same budget, $500/hour for a local employment case is a choice, not a necessity. I support a defense at a rate that reflects the actual local market, with a budget cap and competitive process. That protects the legal obligation and the taxpayers. +5 -2
9/30/2026 2:28 PMFern Against So many (expensive) problems in Saint Paul at the moment and this one is entirely caused by Mayor Her. I'm feeling generous and recommend giving her back the $20k she cut from her salary in lieu of the city paying her legal fees. +2
9/30/2026 2:19 PMMandy Against Taxpayer dollars should not be used for the mayor’s defense. +1
9/30/2026 2:09 PMMatt B. Against It is wholly inappropriate for taxpayer funds to be used to pay for Mayor Her's private, union busting law firm to defend her. Mayor Her should resign, not only because of this, but for her entire tenure as mayor which has done nothing but be one debacle after another. +1
9/30/2026 2:05 PMDaniel Wade Against The city's budget is already strained by the actual needs of our community, and with an extreme winter likely ahead of us because of unprecedented El Nino conditions, greater public works spending is likely to increase as well. Limiting the city's ability to fulfill its commitments and obligations in order to fund the Mayor's exceptionally poor judgment and lack of self-control would be a serious error at a time when we can least afford to make one.
9/30/2026 2:02 PMBen Ashley-Wurtmann Against I am strongly concerned by the distraction and waste of funds involved here. The mayor's own report called her behavior "offensive and inappropriate." While I recognize the level of inevitability here, it is galling to ask taxpayers to fund this, but not the east side library. This, but not a more effective homeless response. The priorities are completely backwards. +2
9/30/2026 2:02 PMJoel Nelson Against This is a terrible use of the city's resources, especially during a time of financial hardship. +1
9/30/2026 1:03 PMClarissa L Against It is in no way appropriate to pay Mayor Her's defense, even in the best of times, but especially now, when the residents of Saint Paul are experiencing historically high property tax rates at the same time we are facing stagnating wages and record inflation. +3
9/30/2026 12:22 PMSean D. Against Tax payers should not have to shoulder the burden of paying for the mayor’s defense. The actions of the mayor were already found to be inappropriate, at this point she should pay to defend her conduct personally. +4 2
9/30/2026 10:06 AMSam Against I do not support using taxpayer funds to hire an extremely expensive, out-of-state, union busting law firm to defend Mayor Her in the pending sexual har***ment lawsuit. +2
9/30/2026 5:09 AMHeidi M.  Against Absolutely not! Public dollars should not be redirected towards financing a personal defense. So many of our residents are in need of services. Moreover, at a minimum, Mayor Her created an uncomfortable and inappropriate work environment for employees that are dependent on sound and ethical leadership. Rebecca Noecker, please be a voice of the constituents you serve. +3
9/30/2026 3:26 AMThomas Anderson Against I do not support using tax dollars to fund the legal defense of Mayor Her. MN State Statute 466.07 governs legal representation for municipal employees. This statute allows for taxpayer funding of officials when they are performing official duties AND not guilty of malfeasance in office, willful neglect of duty, or bad faith. 1. The lawsuit includes allegations that are disturbing and not part of the official duties of the Mayor's office. 2. The independent investigation has already established that Mayor Her engaged in "offensive and inappropriate behavior", which is indicative of malfeasance/acting in bad faith. +5 -1
9/30/2026 3:08 AMJason H Against Absolutely ridiculous for taxpayers to find this legal spectacle. +4 1
9/30/2026 2:30 AMKaren Allen Against I am writing as a citizen and ward 1 constituent - do not use city funds to pay Mayor Her’s legal fees. Do not hire an anti-union law firm. Release the full report. Call for Mayor Her to resent. The focus of our city government must return to the critical work of improving our city’s financial stability. +2
9/30/2026 2:22 AMKatherine Against Using taxpayer money for this is inappropriate. +3
9/30/2026 2:16 AMMaddie R. Against This is not what public tax dollars are for. Paying the legal fees for the personal conduct of an elected official who has acted egregiously is the responsibility of the person on trial and/or at fault and should not be a burden shouldered by the constituents. This is embarr***ing to the citizens of St. Paul and is a frankly horrifying proposition. Fund our libraries and public programs; don't fund the legal fees for someone who definitely acted inappropriately, whether or not this lawsuit is warranted. Strongly opposed. +1 -1
9/30/2026 2:02 AMRachel W Against We absolutely should not be paying for the legal defense of the mayor in this situation. Strongly opposed +2
9/30/2026 1:36 AMM.W. Against +1
9/30/2026 1:27 AMJohn C Against The City should not pay for legal expenses to represent and defend a Mayor who is accused of doing things that clearly are not a part of her duties as Mayor. The cost to defend her personal inappropriate behavior should not be a public expense. +1
9/30/2026 1:25 AMElizabeth Against It is absurd that we would even consider using taxpayer funds for Mayor Her’s legal defense. The Mayor’s inability to function in an appropriate manner should not take taxpayer funds away from city business or improvement. +1
9/30/2026 12:55 AMTJ L.  Against There is no reasonable defense for Mayor Her’s inappropriate behavior and therefore no reason the city should use taxpayer dollars on her defense in any way, shape or form. +3
9/30/2026 12:25 AM  Against Our tax dollars are meant to be used to improve the city and our quality of life. In no way does using our tax money to pay legal fees for the mayor’s personal misconduct in the workplace improve anyone’s quality of life. In fact, this entire scenario is an embarr***ment to the city and is already wasting man-hours and resources. The city council should be encouraging the mayor to resign, otherwise residents might start calling for their resignations too. Do better. +2
9/30/2026 12:06 AMSarah Against It would be highly inappropriate for taxpayer money to be used to defend Her in this matter. I basically can’t afford to live in this city now—I’d like to think that my skyrocketing property taxes at least pay for something of value to city residents. +2
9/29/2026 11:59 PMAustin Against This is ridiculous, the mayor can pay for her own lawyers. Waste of taxpayer money. +1
9/29/2026 11:44 PMA. J. M.  Against I am against the use of taxpayer money for Mayor Her’s legal defense. Especially in a year of budget cuts to the City budget and asking homeowners to pay more property taxes - this is a completely inappropriate use of taxpayer money. I urge Mayor Her to do the right thing and resign from her position and cover her own legal expenses +2
9/29/2026 2:47 PMJace L. Against The use of taxpayer money to fund the mayor's legal defense is completely unacceptable, especially during a budget deficit where the mayor is considering cuts to critical services and infrastructure. I hope the city council prioritizes their constituents over party loyalty in this decision. +4
9/29/2026 2:40 PMJudith G Against I am outraged that this is even being considered. Saint Paul residents are being priced out of their homes by absurd property taxes, a library is being closed, and we're being told they won't fix street lights anymore because of budget shortfalls but we can somehow afford to pay for an expensive law firm known for being anti-union for Mayor Her's egregious behavior while in office? If she won't resign, a recall should be held because she's been an embarr***ment. I am not a fan of SPPD, but this behavior towards other city employees is reprehensible. +4
9/29/2026 2:11 PMRobert S Against It's deeply insulting as a constituent that the city is even considering spending taxpayer money on the mayor's legal defense for her own personal behavior as budget issues force us to make cuts to services elsewhere. Do politicians really think they can just do whatever they want with public money? I hope City Council shuts down this motion unanimously. +2
9/29/2026 1:56 PMKevin Schneider Against While I believe that the city's existing counsel is completely inept for getting this complaint to this point, they've created this problem and should be solely in charge of fixing it. At any point in the previous 9 months, the mayor could have taken responsibility and ended the har***ment. Instead, she continued the behavior while the city's counsel sat on their hands. This is unbelievable, and I am against spending money on an expensive, high-powered law firm to defend this behavior. If any of us taxpayers had done any of the things outlined in the 73-page complaint at our jobs, we'd be fired immediately. +4
9/29/2026 1:45 PMPhilip M Against Public money should not be used for legal defense of an individual's alleged sexual misconduct. Additionally, I don't think the state should be hiring a notorious union-busting law firm under any cir***stance. Our tax dollars shouldn't be supporting this litigation or the proposed defense firm. +2
9/29/2026 11:48 AMJ.S.  Against Tax payer money should not be used for legal defense. That is what professional insurance is for that is paid for privately. +1
9/29/2026 3:20 AMColin Turner Against I completely disagree with the use of public funds for legal defense of Mayor Her’s inappropriate behavior. That money is earmarked for the benefit of the people of St Paul. +6
9/29/2026 3:14 AMErik Vorhes Against Public funds should not be used to defend against sexual har***ment allegations. +1
9/29/2026 3:10 AME. Kosluchar Against It’s entirely inappropriate for a mayor to use city tax dollars for a legal defense of her har***ment case. Her duties as mayor are not why she is facing this suit; her behavior is. I work for another city, and you can bet they wouldn’t fund my legal defense if I was behaving toward my coworkers or people that I hold power over this way. Holding elected office does not make one special; it is added responsibility to the already existing duties of good citizenship. +3
9/29/2026 3:06 AMGeoff Stenrick Against As a St Paul resident of 25 years, I find it highly offensive that our Mayor would consider using tax payer funds to defend her outrageous and unprofessional behavior. If I or any of my coworkers acted this way at work we would have been terminated on the spot. Our city is struggling financially. The last thing we need is a personnel liability spending our city’s budget. Pay for this out of your own pocket or resign. +4
9/29/2026 2:51 AM    As a home owner who pays outrageous property taxes to a city that has told us they can’t even afford replace street lights for 2 years, I am very much opposed to tax dollars being used in this manner. +2
9/29/2026 2:14 AMB. J. Against Its not the responsibility of the city to pay for their mayor's legal problems. With how much we are already taxed, especially in Saint Paul, and how little we get in return from said taxation, it would be reprehensible for our already limited funds to be used so callously. +5
9/29/2026 2:04 AMA. Smith Against St. Paul is our state's capital and our tax money should go towards making it a better place. +7
9/29/2026 1:54 AMAaron K. Against This is absurd there is even a debate about having taxpayers fund a legal defense of an individual. The mayor can be responsible for her own actions. +3
9/29/2026 12:03 AMElise  Against We should not be supporting this in any way. The citizens of Saint Paul deserve better leadership and their tax dollars to be used to make the community we live in better. We should NOT fund the defense for the disgraceful pubescent actions of our Mayor. Let's get the adults and the accountability in the room for our city. +6 -1
9/28/2026 11:39 PMAndrew Lee Against I am against using taxpayer funds for this purpose. +2
9/28/2026 10:08 PMS. Amey Against I read the entire legal do***ent filed on behalf of our police chief against Mayor Her, and was stunned by the highly credible and extremely serious allegations. Mayor Her needs to be removed from office for misconduct, not defended at taxpayer expense. +17
9/28/2026 9:51 PMEmilie Henthorne Against Do not allow tax payers to pay for Mayor Her's har***ment of city workers. Do not use Fisher Phillips. They are union busters and do not have the public's best interest in mind. +5
9/28/2026 9:41 PMCayla V. Against To ask taxpayers to foot the bill of Her's legal team regarding her sexual har***ment case is an absurd way to throw salt in the wound that her embarr***ing behavior continues to cause. What a dire misuse of taxpayer's dollars. She is the one who made awful choices with her behavior, she is the one who has to pay for it. Why should we do her a favor as constituents when she has done nothing but embarr*** this city? She should resign or be removed from office and keep her perverted fingers and memes away from our hard earned money. +6
9/28/2026 8:44 PMJacqueline Colt Against As a homeowner and taxpayer in Saint Paul, I am strongly against using further taxpayer dollars to fund Mayor Her’s defense or legal counsel in regards to any sexual har***ment or misconduct that she is being accused of. Those tax payer dollars would be better spent on fixing our dark streets, keeping a rec center open in a low-income part of Saint Paul, expanding library services, servicing or expanding public transportation, or providing resources to unhoused individuals and families. +9
9/28/2026 7:49 PMAlan Richardson Hohn Against +4
9/28/2026 7:39 PMH. Vang Against As a home owner and tax payer I do not support my taxes being used for the legal defense for the unprofessional conduct of Mayor Khaoly Her. +6
9/28/2026 7:33 PMMatthew L Against The legal and financial consequences of Mayor Her's personal conduct are not the public's responsibility. The mayor and any city council members invested in her legal defense can pay for it from their own salaries, which are already derived from public funds. Otherwise, they have the reach and resources to perform fundraising, which the average Saint Paul resident does not. Mayor Her must expect to recover her legal fees since she will not be found liable. If she is found liable, she should resign to protect the city and the administration from further damage and embarr***ment. A vote against is a vote of confidence for the mayor. A vote against is a vote for the residents of Saint Paul. +11
9/28/2026 7:24 PMGabriel Karsh  Against I do not see how it is in the interest of the city or its taxpayers to spend resources defending such obviously inappropriate conduct from the mayor. +5
9/28/2026 7:05 PMAndrew LB Against Absolutely not! Taxpayers should not be on the hook for public official misconduct. +5
9/28/2026 6:31 PMJess Corner Against I object strongly to the appointment of Fisher Phillips to represent Mayor Her, as both the expense and anti-worker sentiment of the proposed counsel is to the detriment of St. Paul residents and taxpayers. Proposed cuts to rec centers, libraries and pushing sweeps rather than housing-first approaches is extra appalling when the relatively minor sums that could benefit residents are denied and spent on legal fees instead. +8
9/28/2026 5:51 PMSteven Smith Against I am completely opposed to the use of city funds to pay for this situation. It is abundantly clear from all available evidence (including from the summary provided by the outside investigation team) that Mayor Her engaged in "offensive and inappropriate behavior". Furthermore, the report from the investigation has not been made public, so we, the taxpayers, are not able to accurately ***ess the quality of the report itself. If the mayor wanted taxpayer money to pay for this investigation, she should have gone to the City Council first and requested an investigation directed by the Council instead of her own office. Mayor Her should also seriously consider resignation from the office. The behavior that we already know of and that has been confirmed is not acceptable for any public office, and does not represent the people of Saint Paul. Especially when said behavior was occurring during Metro Surge, a time where we desperately needed focused leadership from our city. +9
9/28/2026 5:51 PMAndrew A Against Its an egregious misuse of funds to use taxpayers funds for the mayor’s legal defense for misconduct. +7
9/28/2026 5:30 PMTommy Navarre Against I understand the urge to use city funds to pay for a mayor's legal defense given that executives have a higher likelihood than normal of having frivlolous lawsuits filed against them. However, this matter arises out of the Mayor's personal conduct, not out of her conduct as mayor or out of an action taken by her office. It would therefore be entirely inappropriate to use city funds to counsel the Mayor on this issue, especially considering the burdens already being placed on Saint Paul taxpayers and the compromises requested of us during this budget season. +10
9/28/2026 4:53 PMDaniel Nelson Against If you force the citizens of this city to foot the bill for defending this mayor then it will become abundantly clear that you have fortified any and all reason, and are beyond any hope of attaining it. There is zero reason, and I mean absolutely zero, any of us should have to pay for Mayor Her's defense of her indefensible behavior. Stop defending people that do not deserve, based on her actions which she clearly does not deny in their entirety, and defend us from stupidity and abuses of power. Paying for Mayor Hers defense is the epitome of stupidity and abuse of power. +11
9/28/2026 4:11 PMElizabeth  Against +9
9/28/2026 4:11 PMJake R Against There is no reasonable universe in which city funds should be used to defend Mayor Her's creepy, disturbing actions towards city employees. While residents of Saint Paul were doing all they could to support their neighbors threatened by Operation Metro Surge, Mayor Her was unable to even behave professionally in her position as newly elected leader of our City. Public funds should not be used to defend her impropriety at any time, much less while streetlights remain dark with no plans to fix, libraries are slated for closure, and public works projects move at a glacial pace. A vote in favor of this is a vote against the people of Saint Paul. +17
9/28/2026 4:00 PMThomas Against It is clear, and apparently undenied, that the Mayor engaged in a host of totally unprofessional, creepy behavior toward Chief Henry and other senior leaders in PD. All of the things she is accused of (most of which she does not deny) represent malfeasance in office, willful neglect of duty and bad faith, which is the standard under Minn. Stat. 466.07. It is only fair and just that she, not the taxpayers of the City, bear the costs ***ociated with her own catastrophically stupid behavior. In a year when the City has a $26M deficit, why should residents pay for this, when Her is the one who committed the bad acts? +17
9/28/2026 3:45 PMAndrew L Against Defense of illegal or inappropriate actions taken while in public office should NOT be paid for using public funds. Her's lack of professionalism and inept governance is taxing enough on this city's citizens without also having to pay a lawyer for her mistakes. +14
9/28/2026 3:30 PMDustin K Against If you want what's best for the mayor and they believe they are innocent, allow them to step up and pay for their own counsel. Or crowd-fund it, if they believe they have the political leverage. +17