Agenda - Charter Commission - 01/08/2002 - Memorandum

Home

C P~ne: (61Z) 281-1200 · (800) 925-1122 (612) 281.1299 · ~D (612) 281-1290 April 9, 1996 To: Ben Deemer, P!anning Commiusiom~" From: Kent Sulem, LM¢ Codification Attorney Re: Chafer Amendment Procedures Dear Mr. Deemer: I am writing this memo in response to our telephone conversation of April 8, 1996 regarding a concern you have over the interpretation of State law and the City of Ramsey's (~ after in regard to the proper procedures for amending the City Charter. You indicated that the city's attorney has already issued an opinion on this matter, and the State AVa~mey General's office has also been contacted. I would like to preface my response by stating that it is not the League's intent or purpose to substitute its opinions for those of the city's attorney or the Attorney General, but rather it the League's intent anco purpose to provide infomtion from our files and experiences that will help the city and its attorney make necessary decisions. h is my understanding that the city has received a petition requesting a charter amendment to be submitted to the voters. There is some confusion as to the nttmber of signatures required to have the petition found valid, anti there is further confusion as to whether or not any body of the city has the right to review and amend the proposed charter amendment before it is submitted to the voters. It is also my UnflerSta_nding that the city attorney ha~ i~Slled an opinion that. the petition is valid, that a special 'election must be scheduled to vote on the proposed amendment, and that the city has no authority to amend the proposal. You further stated that you believed the petition was invalid because of an insufficient number of signatures as required by the Charter for initiatives and that even if the petition were valid, the' city has the authority to review and amend the proposal. It was your hope that the League would have references to case hw directly on point for this matter, or at least some further information that would clarify the issues involved. Unfortunately, ia the short period of time ! had to research your request, I was unable to fi.ml any caselaw directly dealing with the issue at hand, but I was able to find a few pieces of inforrm__tion that cited cases involving similar and analogous situatiom. With regard to the correct procedures for amead~g a charter, Minnesota Statutes control the process. Minn. Stat, § 410.12, subd, Ia specifically states that only the procedures set forth in subdivisions I through 7 of that statute may be used to amend a charter. Any charter provision that provides a means of amending the charter that is different from the methods set forth in Mina. Stat. § 410.12, subds. 1 through 7, would be invalid 9 (for a general summary