09/08/2009 Council Packet (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

This power extends to recommending and considering amendments to the charter. Under the Minnesota Constitution, Article 12, § Sec. 5, "charter amendments may be proposed by a charter commission ". In one of the few charter commission cases, the Minnesota Supreme Court reviewed an amendment to the charter of the city of Columbia Heights. It noted that "the city's charter commission in February 1972 recommended adoption of the challenged charter amendment." Charter commissions are expected to recommend adoption of beneficial amendments, and nothing suggests that a charter commission may not recommend against adoption of an amendment deemed to gut the charter or harm the city. In 2008 the Minnesota Supreme Court was asked to interpret a statute which gave authority to "approve" but was silent regarding authority to "deny ". The Court ruled that the power to approve includes the power to disapprove. The authority to approve "some or all categories" necessarily includes the authority to not approve "some or all categories," that is, to deny. Thus, we conclude that the term "approve" in this context includes the authority to deny. See, e.g., Oahe Conservancy Subdistrict v. Janklow, 308 N.W.2d 559, 561 -62 (S.D. 1981) ( "It is generally held that statutes which vest 'approval' authority imply a discretion and judgment to be exercised to sanction or reject the act submitted. "). Calm Waters, LLC v. Kanabec County , 756 N.W.2d 716, 721 -722 (Minn. 2008). Taking this rule and applying it to Lino Lakes, it logically follows that the Charter Commission's power to recommend amendments would necessarily include the power to recommend against amendments. Cities and charter commissions have often spent public moneys to fight arbitrary, illegal, or questionable amendments to their charter. Nearly every case involving a charter commission also involved the expenditure of public money to oppose a charter amendment. See, e.g., Minneapolis Term Limits Coalition v. Keefe, 535 N.W.2d 306 (Minn. 1995) (opposing attempt to amend charter to add term limits, in conflict with the state constitution); HRA of Minneapolis v. City of Minneapolis, 293 Minn. 227, 198 N.W.2d 531 (1972) (opposing attempt to amend charter when the amendment would require the city to violate the law); Bard v. City of Minneapolis, 256 Minn. 581, 99 N.W.2d 468 (1959) (fight over whether a sufficient majority approved a charter amendment); Leighton v. Abell, 225 Minn. 565, 31 N.W.2d 646 (1948) (opposing claim that a revised charter was only an amendment, and subject to different approval procedures); and Haumant v. Griffin, 699 N.W.2d 774 (Minn. App. 2005) (opposing attempt to amend charter when the amendment would violate state law). It is difficult to contemplate how else a charter commission might fulfill its statutory and constitutional duties, than to discuss, consider, and respond to proposals to amend the charter. In summary, while Mr. Dougherty is correct in much of what he says, he appears to inappropriately rely on nonbinding opinions, relating to actions in a city where no charter was adopted. Lino Lakes, which is a home rule charter city, is not bound in the same way as a statutory city, and its charter commission has the powers utilized by other charter commissions in Minnesota: to recommend and to recommend against charter amendments.