11-08-2012 Charter Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Mr. Jeff Karison August 1, 2012 Page 6 The fact that the Commission has no authority to direct the City Council to pay expenses related to informing the public is underscored by a failed bid to amend Section 410.06 during the last legislative session. H.F. 2107, 87th Leg. (Minn. 2012). The proposed amendment would have required cities to pay the costs incurred by charter commissions for informing the public of the effect of a proposed charter amendment. Id. The funding authority obviously does not exist if there was an attempt to change the law to allow it and the attempt failed. In addition, there is at least one District Court case supporting the notion that the City is not required to provide funding to the Commission for the purpose of informing the public. In 2008, a Dakota County Judge ruled that the expenditure of $1,200 by the Eagan Charter Commission to create a website for the purpose of informing the public of the purpose and mission of the Commission was not an expense incurred for the purpose of framing a charter and was not a necessary expense for the framing of a charter. Fedde v. City of Eagan, Court File No. 19-C9-08-12422 (May 8, 2008 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Order, and Order for Judgment)). The Commission cannot acquire authority by Charter amendment when such authority has been denied by the legislature. Lastly, the proposed requirement that the City provide "equal funds and opportunities" to the Charter Commission to inform the public about an amendment violates public policy because it implies an adversarial relationship between the Council and the Commission. It is elementary that neither the Council nor the Commission may spend public funds for the purpose of advocating a particular position on a proposed Charter amendment. Essentially, the proposed amendment would either waste taxpayer money by duplicating efforts to provide factual information to the public or it would have the effect of authorizing the Commission to violate the law by advocating a particular position on a proposed Charter amendment. CONCLUSION In the aggregate, the deficiencies and ambiguities in the proposed new Sections 1.04 and 1.05 render thesecondproposed Charter amendment an unconstitutional infringement on the legislature's authority to define the duties of charter commissions. The amendment is preempted by Chapter 410. Accordingly, the City may decline to submit the amendments -to voters during the November 6, 2012. Very trulyours, C seph J. L'angel John P. Edison Enclosure JJL/jpe RRM: 166596