Laserfiche WebLink
Opinion did not cite to any court case that even mentioned the public funding of a charter <br />commission's position on a proposed amendment, let alone a case that upheld such expenditure. <br />Finally, the Opinion seeks to dust off with the waive of a hand the opinions of the Attorney <br />General and State Auditor that cited in my memorandum. To simply state that such opinions are <br />nonbinding in court disregards the powers of the co -equal legislative and executive branches of <br />Minnesota government. The City of Lino Lakes does not operate in a vacuum without oversight <br />for the expenditure of public funds. It is not my practice, nor would I counsel the City of Lino <br />Lakes, to disregard or leave unexamined the opinion of state agencies based on the criteria that <br />such opinions are not binding on any court. What the Charter Commission believes it may or <br />may not do based on the Opinion should be carefully scrutinized before such similar activities <br />are undertaken by city government. Here is the exact language from a letter authored by the <br />office of the State Auditor regarding the design and distribution of flyers by a charter <br />commission: <br />Further, in our opinion charter commissions have no implied power to direct a <br />city to pay any expenses for educational flyers. As noted above, an implied <br />power can only exist if it is necessary in the aid of expressly conferred powers. A <br />charter commission has express authority to ...frame proposed amendments .. . <br />The publication of flyers explaining a proposed charter is not a necessary aid to <br />any of these express powers. <br />It is logical and prudent to apply the same analysis to the design and distribution of flyers with <br />respect to amendments to existing charters. <br />While it is well recognized that two lawyers may have two different opinions, the Marty Opinion <br />is an obfuscation of the differing powers possessed by a city versus a charter commission. My <br />prior opinion is in concert with the opinions of the State Auditor, the State Attorney General and <br />a Minnesota District Court, each of which has addressed the extent of the powers of a charter <br />commission. I might point out that the extent of such power prohibits the City from paying for <br />the Opinion rendered to the Charter Commission. <br />MGD /j It <br />