01-17-2008 Charter Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Charter Commission January 11, 2007 Page 7 DRAFT Commissioner Trehus indicated that they had two members exercise a recall. Ms. Thomas clarified the difference between the repeal of an ordinance and recall. Recall was if an elected official was convicted of criminal activity it would be considered malfeasance, but the judge would require them to relinquish their position. Mr. Thomas explained that the court defines the terms as criminal behavior. It was clarified in their Charter in a footnote that was submitted to Commission guidelines that were drafted, and copies of the amendment were distributed. Commissioner Storberg inquired about the relationship between Council and Charter Commission. Ms. Thomas stated that her being a Council member and Commissioner was helpful because she knew the timing and scheduling in the City. Commissioner Storberg asked for clarification on the frequency of their meetings. Mr. Thomas answered that they used to meet once a year. Now they meet much more frequently, at times once per week. Ms. Thomas mentioned that staff had concerns and requests about the Charter, but the Commission did not address those concerns. Chair Warren noted it would be understandable for Council to not want to be limited. Mr. Thomas stated that there were Charter cities and statutory cities where the City had considerable power. In a Charter city, a Council member could pull out something from the Charter and explain it. He believed a statutory city was a disadvantage. In a Charter city, a Council member could state that the Charter was their authority. Chair Warren mentioned that Council and Commission have more ownership of the Charter. Mr. Thomas added that it was a living document, and in his opinion the best form of government. The copy of Mounds View Charter did not have section 7.03. All the rest was adopted. He admitted it was difficult to get a legal copy to the public. Ms. Thomas clarified that it was difficult to know how to submit to ballot. Mr. Thomas referred to Minnesota Public Meeting Law, where it was required to be maintained on record at city hall, but not necessary to post on line. Any member of the public can address or petition for an amendment. The issue must be addressed by the Commission. The only example of term limits was for Council and mayor. It was not constitutional law, but it was in the Charter. There were other cities that had that provision in their Charters. Commissioner Bening noted that state statute had been changed. Chair Warren inquired about other goals their Commission had. Mr. Thomas responded there was a concern as to the classification of the items from the ballot or ordinance. If the issue was a substantive change to the powers of the Council and Charter it had to go