Laserfiche WebLink
support) by the Legislature to put an <br />amendment on the ballot. <br />SD -20. Initiative and Referendum <br />Issue: The Legislature has frequently <br />considered legislation to establish initiative <br />and referendum by proposing to place a <br />question for voter approval on the state <br />general election ballot to amend the state <br />constitution to allow voters to initiate or <br />repeal state laws by submitting a petition <br />which would cause such questions to be <br />placed on the state general election ballot. <br />Response: Cities strongly support our <br />representational system of governance <br />and, therefore, oppose amending the state <br />constitution to provide for initiative and <br />referendum. The Legislature is the <br />appropriate governing body to consider <br />and enact public policy that reflects <br />statewide interests. <br />The process of adopting state law based <br />on good public policy is best upheld and <br />supported by increasing the <br />accountability and responsiveness of the <br />legislative process, not by circumventing <br />it. Presenting complex issues to voters in <br />the guise of direct democracy further <br />weakens representative government. <br />A state constitutional amendment to <br />provide for initiative and referendum <br />subjects cities and their residents and <br />taxpayers to the unintended outcomes of <br />sometimes unwise attempts to place <br />significant public policy decisions into the <br />hands of special interests that can raise <br />unlimited funds for the purpose of <br />promoting their more narrow interests. <br />SD -21. Civil Liability of Local <br />Governments <br />Issue: One of the barriers to the delivery of <br />governmental services and programs is the <br />exposure of local governments and their <br />officials to civil damage claims. The state <br />has acted to protect itself and its local <br />governments by enacting exceptions and <br />limitations to liability suits, and authorizing <br />self-insurance and other mechanisms to deal <br />with claims allowed by law. <br />Response: The League of Minnesota <br />Cities supports: <br />a) Creating an exception to municipal <br />tort indemnification law, Minn. Stat. § <br />466.07, where an employee is defended <br />and indemnified for claims under a <br />contract of insurance carried by the <br />employee. <br />b) Extending the protection of the state <br />and municipal Tort Claims Act to <br />quasi -governmental entities when <br />performing public services such as <br />firefighting or licensed third -party <br />ambulance providers that contract <br />with a municipality to provide <br />ambulance services. <br />c) Existing constitutional safeguards for <br />protecting public and private property <br />interests without any statutory <br />expansion of property rights. <br />d) Clarifying and maintaining the <br />applicability of municipal immunity in <br />various areas, including, but not <br />limited to, vicarious official immunity <br />and park and recreational immunity, <br />including the extension to entities <br />providing a public service that have <br />not traditionally been included within <br />the immunity (e.g., state trails over <br />municipal utility easements). <br />e) Preserving changes to Minnesota's <br />joint and several liability laws that <br />require a municipality to be at least 50 <br />League of Minnesota Cities <br />2016 City Policies Page 12 <br />