Laserfiche WebLink
requested that the Council give him the authority to make the decision. Nit. Goodrich also noted <br />that as with previous Charter petitions and amendments if the Council deems the proposed <br />amendments to be unconstitutional the Council has the authority, not to forward the questions to <br />the public. <br /> <br />k[ayor Gamec inquired if the City Attorney had any comment regarding any of the questions <br />being unconstitutional. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich replied no. <br /> <br />Councilmember Hendriksen inquired if the City Council should be sending the issue back to the <br />Charter Commission since the arrangement of the candidates does not meet the legal <br />requirements. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich replied that if it is found not to be legal to name candidates <br />alphabetically it will be removed. <br /> <br />Councilmember Hendriksen replied that the City Attorney took the opinion before that they <br />could not pick and choose. <br /> <br />City, Attorney Goodrich replied that in the previous instance where a Charter amendment was <br />proposed the issue in question was more serious. <br /> <br />Councilmember Hendr/ksen stated that if that Charter amendment was thrown out over one word <br />th/s one should be as wet1. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich replied that the Council could leave it off entirely, he did not feet it was <br />a significant issue. <br /> <br />Councilmember Kurak inquired as to who included the language. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich replied that he wrote the language off the recommendation of the Charter <br />Commission. <br /> <br />Keith K.ieffer, former Charter Commission Chairperson, stated that the City Attorney represents <br />the Charter Commission and understands what their intentions are. He felt that the City Attorney <br />has the authority to make those changes. <br /> <br />Councilmember Hendr/ksen replied that there is no legal basis. <br /> <br />Councilmember Zimmerman stated that he has a problem with changing the requirement for <br />adopting a comprehensive plan from a 4/5'" vote to a majority vote. He felt that the language <br />should be more clear in the question to make residents understand that they would be changing <br />the requirement to only three votes instead of the current requirement of four votes. <br /> <br />Ci~ Council/September 11, 2001 <br /> Page 15 of 22 <br /> <br /> <br />