Minutes - Charter Commission - 03/29/2010

Home

time, it was sent back to the Charter — the Charter made changes and sent it back to the City Council. It was done by the rules. Commissioner Field expressed a concern about that. He stated he read the City Council minutes from January 2007. The way he views it was the Council did not vote by unanimous vote because of the effective date. The date was changed and it went back to the Charter Commission but it did not go back to the City Council. Chairperson Deemer stated that the Charter vote was unanimous to change the date. Commissioner Field felt that if you proceed as if this is going into law, someone could still challenge it. It's not a definitive — it merited an opinion from the City Attorney. Chairperson Deemer stated that the 90 days has passed and it cannot be challenged now. Commissioner Anderson stated it sounds like a unanimous intent. Commissioner Niska stated it happened in the wrong order. If this went to court, he felt that the court would say the Charter would have had to send it back to the City Council to vote unanimous. City Attorney Goodrich stated there is no legal precedent but there are a lot of things we do with no legal precedent. The approved process was adequate to protect constituencies. The City Council unanimously passed the 2011 date and the Charter Commission confirmed the 2011 date. It was published — the 90 days passed and no one to date has challenged that. He felt the court would find that moot. Commissioner Field stated he would not want to get hung up after the fact. When there is no legal precedent, this can set a legal precedent. There is a logical, practical effort but he sees it as a potential flaw. If it is unconstitutional, it can be challenged at a later date. Commissioner Niska stated he would like the City Attorney to give the Commission some idea how this ballot question would be posed. He stated he has some concerns that the question may be being confusing. Attorney Goodrich agreed it will be a challenge — it has to be fairly succinct. There may be some issues from the City Council wanting to expend funds to promote the question and the City Council has to be neutral. There is the question of how much public funds can be spent on it as well. He suspected the question would be something like "shall the form of government of the City of Ramsey be the Mayor /Council plan of government. We would leave it at that and hopefully the residents will be informed. Or, we can send a letter — get creative — the question could say, "Shall the form of government be changed from Council/Manager to the Mayor /Council form of government" and maybe add a line that the City is currently governed by the Manager /Council plan. Commissioner Anderson stated it is confusing because this is not in effect right now. Charter Commission — March 29, 2010 Page 6 of 9