My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Council - 04/08/2008
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Council
>
2008
>
Agenda - Council - 04/08/2008
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/19/2025 9:17:12 AM
Creation date
4/4/2008 8:41:11 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Council
Document Date
04/08/2008
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
231
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br />preferences, which appears in the paragraph immediately preceding the Town Preference <br /> <br />paragraph in section 124D.I0, subd. 9(3). There is no question that the legislature could have <br /> <br />used a term that would have included both. cities and towns in the residential preference clause, <br /> <br />but it did not do so. Look's request would require the Court to add words to the statute that the <br /> <br />legislature omitted. This would go beyond interpretation to rewriting and is not within the <br /> <br />province of the Court. <br /> <br />Had section 124D.1O'sresident preference language included a broader term such as <br /> <br />"local unit of government," "municipality," or "specific geographic area" Lookmight have some <br /> <br />fodder for his argument that a resident preference must be used in cities as well as towns. <br /> <br />However, the legislature chose to use the more particular term, "town." The legislature's <br /> <br />specificity calls for limiting the scope. of the resident preference exception to the general rule, <br /> <br />which is an equal lottery for all applicants. See Minn. Stat. S645.19 (2006) (exceptions shall be <br /> <br />construed to exclude all others). In other words, in the context of the charter school statute, <br /> <br />"town" should be limited according to its ordinary meaning and should not be expanded to <br /> <br />include cities. <br /> <br />3. Precedent Demonstrates that Town Is No Longer Presumed to <br />Encompass City Absent an Express Indication to Do So <br /> <br />Minnesota precedent regarding the proper interpretation of municipal terms within <br /> <br />Minnesota statutes and rules also implies that the term "town" should be read narrowly. <br /> <br />In Kleppe v. Gard, the Minnesota Supreme Court considered a question similar to the one <br /> <br />presented here, analyzing whether a statute that applies by its terms to a town or village must be <br /> <br />construed to cover cities as well. 109 Minn. 251, 123 N.W. 665 (1909). Voters within the City <br /> <br />of Fergus Falls attempted to expand a statute to apply to the City of Fergus Falls where the <br /> <br />statute by its terms covered towns and villages. The statute provided that: <br /> <br />12 <br /> <br />-139- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.