Minutes - Council - 04/23/1996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Here I am again, to speak about what I have been told is going to happen here tonight. I will make another attempt to impress on this council the error in procedure that will take place. The first error is in believing Mr. Hendrikson when he says that is the only method that can be used to modify the charter. True chapter 410 say's this is the only way, but he is not following the procedure that is described. Let me liken this to the Lie told once is more believable than the truth told 1000 times. I have no reason to mislead you on this subject, because there is nothing for me to gain except maybe a stronger government. Mr. Hendriksen will lose immensely as the group that is following his leadership, might start to question his direction. There are only 2 people here tonight that say what is being done is clear. Mr. Hendriksen, says everything is Clear over and over but has also said it is clear because chapter 410 of statutes are ambiguous. I don't find anything ambiguous about chapter 410, and that is the truth I am telling to deaf ears. One of the things I do for income is read legal documents and make sure they are followed. I do contract management in the construction industry. I also do insurance policy interpretation upon request. You don't need a law degree to read Minnesota statutes. I contend that the ambiguity reported by the City Attorney and the Attorney Generals office, of §410.1~subd 1, is such that their legal advice is not cast in stone. Advise is only advise, it is not law. Even the attorney generals office has doubts. Let me insert a more famous recent Legal Opinion, issued by the Los Angeles County Attorney General. "O. J. Simpson is guilty and we will convict him." I don't propose to argue that case but that was a LEGAL OPINION, and the judicial process did not uphold it. Statute §410.12 subd. 1 reads as follows, the charter commission may/shall propose an amendment,, and if that amendment is longer than 1,000 words they have the right to pre-approve the summary of the amendment that is required, before any signatures are obtained. This subdivision does not put any further restrictions on the amendment that the charter commission must propose. Nothing after the semi- colon applies to the RRFRG's proposed amendment to the charter. If the charter commission shall/must propose an amendment, then a majority of it's 9 members must sign the amendment that is being proposed. If the charter commission does not sign the proposed amendment by a majority, it cannot be legally transmitted to the city council/city clerk under §410.12 subd.3, as §410.07 provides for the delivery of the charter and/or amendments and specifically requires the signing by a majority. Nowhere in chapter 410 does it provide for the circulating committee to present anything to the city council/city clerk. At a city council meeting where this amendment procedure was discussed Mr. Hendrickson said, "The charter commission meets as needed and state law only requires they meet once a year, so there is - - it is totally inordinate to expect that a charter amendment would wait - languish for up to a year so that they could receive this document to then hand it back to you unchanged - - that makes no sense what-so-ever !". I agree with Mr. Hendriksen, because in the scenario that he sees, it is ridiculous. But if you read it the way I am telling you, it makes perfect sense, so that blows holes in Mr. Hendriksen's theory of how chapter 410 should read.