Minutes - Charter Commission - 04/18/1996

Home

If the charter commission shall/must propose an amendment, then a majority of the 9 members must sign the document that is being proposed. The petitioners can explain and discuss this with you, to get your acceptance and signatures, otherwise they can use the initiative procedure to propose it exactly as they want it to the city council, as allowed by the charter in chapter 5. If you refuse to sign the document as it is proposed, 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. I am here to emphasize this right that.you have. In the video presentation, a copy of some of the 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 see the point I am making, you the charter commission must receive the petition, with the attached amendment and present an amendment of the charter to the governing body, the process requires your endorsing it by a majority, which gives you the latitude to modify it before presenting it. Now it makes sense, as it may not be exactly the same as that which was presented to you. It also refers only to the Petition in §410.12 - 3. I find nothing in §410 that states you must propose "the amendment", but several references to "a amendment" or "an amendment", and there is a difference in the way each of those terms can be read. This is why there is a legal system. If I was on your commission, I would certainly be asking your BOSS, the Chief Judge of District Court for help. At the very least force them to ask your boss, and writing a letter to the Chief Justice of District Ten, is not the correct procedure. It can also be argued that the amendment as proposed does not belong in the charter, because they are trying to modify a City Code provision which requires hook-up to the utilities provided within two years, and that it definitely takes an initiative to amend the city codes, and they know that they cannot get a 10% of the registered voters petition to get it on the ballot, let alone the Special Election that they know they need to get it passed. Remember that this charter was drafted by anti-sewer expansion proponents for the most part, and passed at a special election, on the grounds that they didn't want people who were not interested in the issue, to ignore it at the general election in Nov, thereby creating a NO vote. That discussion is in their minutes. They spent 50% of their time trying to get chapter 8 correct and fair, and that was the heart and soul of why a charter was being drafted in the first place. The system has been working properly for 12 years, and now the owners of 3 properties who don't like the legal outcome of a petition, and another citizen, are saying it should be changed to suit their needs. On the last page of the handout from me is (EX21). If you believe that Mr. Terry Hendriksen is correct in his assertion that he is following the correct procedure and that all of the legal opinions support him, and the court will also, Then you might as well propose Section 5.6.1. as an amendment to Ramsey's city charter, as by allowing him to proceed as he asserts, without your right to propose changes just as you would have if the city council proposed an amendment to you, then you will be setting the precedent that is described on EX21': In closing let me say to you commissioners that, To pass this amendment on, as has been suggested without the ability to modify would make the proposed amendment an initiative, and I don't believe for a second that the legislature intended that. They don't allow initiative in the laws they pass, and only allow it for Home Rule Charter Cities, who have their own constitution and that cannot be less restrictive than ail the laws they pass. I don't believe the legislature intend what is being proposed by Mr. Hendriksen.