11-08-2012 Charter Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Mr. Jeff Karlson August 1, 2012 Page 4 furtherance of its authority, the Charter Commission may not propose an amendment that expands its authority beyond what is granted in Chapter 410. Doing so would violate both the Minnesota Constitution and public policy related to the role of the legislature in defining the duties of the Commission. Minnesota's Constitution authorizes local units of government to adopt a home rule charter for their government. Minn. Const. art. XII, § 4. In order to allow for the creation of charters, the Constitution directs the legislature to provide a statutory framework for the formation and duties of charter commissions. Minn. Const. art. XII, § 5 ("The legislature shall provide by law for charter commissions"). The phrase the "legislature shall provide by law for charter commissions" leaves no room for a charter commission to define its own duties. A core principle of constitutional interpretation is the notion that "[e]very positive delegation of power to one officer or department implies a negation of its exercise by any other officer, department or person. If it did not, the whole constitutional fabric might be undermined and destroyed." Leighton v. Abell, 31 N.W.2d 646, 653 (Minn. 1948) (citation omitted). While there is no reported Minnesota case directly addressing this issue, case law in other jurisdictions recognize that charter commissions derive their authority solely from applicable state constitutional provisions and legislative enactments. See, e.g., Milne v. Hutchenreider, 2008 WL 4739779 *5 (Mass. Super. 2008). This conclusion is consistent with the recognized limitations on authority of local units of government, such as cities. Minnesota's Constitution authorizes the legislature to create and define the duties of local government units, and the legislature has done so. Minn. Const. art. XII, § 3. Minnesota courts routinely recognize that the scope of a local government unit's authority is limited to those powers expressly conferred by statute or implied as necessary in aid of those expressly conferred powers. See, e.g., Calm Waters, LLC v. Kanabec County Bd. Of Com'rs, 756 N.W.2d 716, 721 (Minn. 2008). A city may not engage in conduct that is not so authorized. A charter commission, with its similar constitutional and statutory grants of authority, is similarly limited.- It may only engage in conduct that is authorized by statute. For the reasons outlined below, the proposed amendment adding new Sections 1.04 and 1.05 -to the Charter is unconstitutional, violates public policy, and is partially preempted by State law because itseeksto expand the authority of the Commission -beyond what has-been granted by the legislature in Chapter 410. The Commission's general purpose is limited to framing and amending the Charter. Minn. Stat. § 410.05. Starting with the proposed Section 1.04, the proposed language is problematic for two primary reasons. First, the language purports to authorize an "ongoing Charter Commission." This vague language implies that the Commission will exist in perpetuity, which would violate the statutory provisions authorizing the discharge of charter commissions. Minn. Stat. § 410.05. A commission can discharge itself or voters can discharge it in a referendum. Id at subd. 5. A charter provision may not abrogate the statutory rights of the either the Commission or voters to discharge the Commission.