Minutes - Council - 04/09/1996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

What you will find is §410.20 which confers the power to create the process of initiative, with out saying that "DIRTY WORD". As of April 2, 1996 the Minnesota State islature has continued to reserve for themselves the powers of "Initiative, Referendum, and Recall", to themselves in this state, when they again defeated an amendment attempt to provide a form of it. What you will also find in §410.21 is language that could be interpreted to mean that the Charter prevails over general laws in that we are allowed Recall, which is elections for municipal offices, and it is part of Chapter 5 where the initiative is defined. {put up section 1.2-1.3} This intent is again illustrated in Chapter 1, Section 1.2. and 1.3. of the Ramsey Charter, which states, "The charter shall be construed liberally in favor of the city, and the specific etc." and again in Section 1.3. "need not be pleaded or proved in any case." Section 1.2. further states that all authority is the councils unless they choose vest it to some one else. This means that the city attorney can only advise you, not make the decision for you, unless you take action to give him that power in this case. {put up 410.12 subd 5 emphasize the last sentence} If Chapter 5 of the Ramsey charter was not there, the petitioners would have to follow all of Chapter 410, and this is the procedure that is followed in the cities that don't offer initiative. This should not provide the petitioners any more rights than given the City Council ohas under § 410.12 Subd. 5. Which states that the council must submit their proposed ordinances to the Charter Commission for approval or rejection in a time frame of up to but not necessarily 150 days, before the council can take action to submit it to the voters. And I also reiterates my position on §410.12 Subd.-1.,-wh~i.gh states the charter commission shall do so upon petition of the voters. '~)~i~) {pur up 412 subd. 1 again} ~ As stated at the outset, I do not challenge the petitioners right to present an amendment to the city charter. What I disagree with is the procedure being followed. If they wish to use Minnesota Chapter 410, then they must present the petition to the charter commission, just as the city council would have to, and then the charter commission will have the same rights, just as if the city council had brought it to them. To give the petitioners more latitude under this chapter than the elected officials would be unlawful. {put up charter minutes 6/6/83 pp 3} {put up 410.05 subd 4.} The city attorney's suggestion that it was inconvenient and nearly impossible to present to the charter commission is incorrect. Jo Theilen normally acts as the charter commission's recording secretary and she could receive the petition and put it on their agenda. This is not to confuse that duty with Clerk-Administrator duties which are sometimes rust upon her by the actual City Clerk-Administrator, Ryan Schroeder. Nor should it be confused with position of Charter Commission Secretary, which is reserved to the members appointed.by the court. Or if they choose not to wait, they can submit a petition requesting that the charter commission meet to receive their petition, as described in § 410.05 sub& 4. Or in the interest of fairness, the city council could pass a resolution requiring the charter commission to meet immediately. {put up 410.12 subd 3} And then as §410.12 Subd. 3 provides, when the charter commission transmits it to the council-city clerk the clock to determine when the election will occur will start. This is the portion of the procedure that is causing this presentation. The city attorney's opinion of March 26, 1996 is based partly on this and he has stated that he thinks it is ambiguous. I don't agree with this and you shouldn't either. Jo Theilan, acting as charter commission recording secretary, received the petition of 5 percent as required in §410.12 subd. 1.