Agenda - Charter Commission - 10/23/1997

Home

Motion carried. Voting Yes: Chairperson Peterson, Anderson, Donovan, Spain Brist and Vogt. Voting No: and Netzlo ff. Commissioners None. Absent: K/efer, Swokowski, Commissioners Marn COMMISSION BUSINESS Case #2: Review Chapter 410 of the Minnesota State Statutes Chairperson Peterson noted that there has been three recent amendments to the Charter, done by election, and each time this comes up, there have been questions raised about whether or not we are doing it the right way. Ben Deemer, 14501 Sunfish Lake Boulevard NW, Ramsey, resident and member of the Planning Commission, proceeded to summarize Chapter 410 of the Minnesota State Statutes. 410.12 is the section he felt has not been followed properly with regard to Charter amendments by petition and election and who is the appropriate body with which to bring the petition to. Attorney Goodrich agreed that this section is not specifically clear, but he disagreed that the City has not correctly followed the procedure. He stated that the Charter Commission is the advisory, not the governing body; the City Council is the governing body. According to the Attorney General's opinion, if the Charter Commission disagrees with a Charter amendment petition, they do not have the authority to amend it. You must pass it onto the City Council and the City Council schedules the election within the next 90 days. Some people feel that ~l~some of the Charter amendments should have not been submitted to the voters, however, unless the amendment is considered manifestly unconstitutional, the City shall schedule that election. The Charter Commission has no power to inquire into the validity of an amendment. The City could have a judge review the proposed amendment and if it is constitutional, Council could maybe not bring it to election, then the petitioners could ask for a court order. Mr. Deemer commented that this is an area where he disagrees with the City Attorney also - the area that says the Charter Commission cannot amend a request for a Charter amendment. He added that the 90-day clock should not be started until the Charter Commission actually passes the amendment request onto the Council. Upon inquiry of the percent of signatures on a petition, Attorney Goodrich replied that it takes 5% of the number of voters in the last election to amend the Charter. That State Statute is clear and case law and the Attorney General's opinion on this issue is clear. Commissioner Anderson expressed a concern about the retroactivity. Commissioner Swokowski mentioned lobbying to get 410 rewritten more clearly. Commissioner Donovan felt that a retroactive law may not be unconstitutional until the law is passed - it could then be considered unconstitutional because it affected someone personally. Charter Commission/JuIy 10, 1997 Page 2 of 5