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

Home Search

Severson, Sheldon, Dougherty £t Molenda, P.A. EVERSON SHELDON D Attorneys 1 Advisors MEMORANDUM TO: Dan Tesch, City Administrator FROM: Michael G. Dougherty, Esq. DATE: August 5, 2009 RE: Charter Commission Our File No. 10556 -28517 The following is a response to the letter opinion prepared by Karen Marty of the Marty Law Firm, LLC, dated June 1, 2009 addressed to Carolyn Dahl, Chair of Lino Lakes Charter Commission (the "Opinion "). As you are aware, the Opinion comments on my memorandum of April 6, 2009 regarding the investigation of Charter Commission materials. The Marty Opinion attempts to create a proposition that is neither supported by the facts nor the law. To follow the position espoused in the Opinion would place the City in a risky position. First and foremost, the language used in the Opinion is cavalier. The Opinion makes no effort to distinguish the city as an entity from the commission; in Paragraphs 2 through 4 the powers of a city (which are found in numerous chapters and sections of state statutes) are entangled with those of the commission (which are found only in Chapter 410 of the statutes). As a result of this ambiguous use of nouns and pronouns, it is implied that a commission's power may expand, which is false. Furthermore, in an attempt to discredit my opinion, it is suggested that I relied upon laws affecting statutory cities without a charter (I did not); nevertheless, the Opinion cites as support a court case involving the City of Orono (a statutory city without a charter and a case having absolutely nothing to do with the powers of a commission). A careful reading of the Opinion reveals that there is no legal support for any argument that a "charter commission" has powers other than those identified in my memorandum. Secondly, the Opinion spends a considerable amount of time attempting to justify a charter commission's ability to recommend for or against charter amendments. The argument implies that the term "recommendation" is synonymous with the ability to expend funds. However, there is nothing in the Opinion nor in the cases cited that support such a theory. In fact, in none of the cases cited in the Opinion is there evidence that a charter commission spent a dime. Moreover, none of the cases cited involved a charter commission as a party, nor is there evidence that a commission spent public money to fight arbitrary, illegal or questionable amendments. The