Agenda Packets - 1999/08/09 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

interim, often the legislature will come back and try to amend it to make it constitutional, or they leave it alone, and the reviser adds a provision to their bill repealing the unconstitutional provision, so that it disappears a year later. He added that if they do not have a repealor bill,they might include a footnote indicating that the statute has been ruled unconstitutional, so as to prevent confusion. He recommended that the Charter Commission initiate a provision to remove the unconstitutional provision, with the Council voting on the ruling, which would probably be the cleanest way to accomplish this. He stated that another option would be to reprint the Charter with the footnote identifying the provision as having been ruled unconstitutional, and that this could be done simultaneously with the printing of the next round of ordinances. He stated that either way, they should attempt to remove the provision from the books, as any attempt to enforce it would place them in court. Bill Dody, 3049 Bronson Drive, Chair of the original Charter Commission, stated that the Charter is the City's constitution. He stated that the citizenry of Mounds View went to the Charter after conducting a study regarding a 6.5 million-dollar storm sewer in Mounds View, which became an issue of actual abuse. He stated that the citizenry conducted a study to determine what would was best for the City. He stated that Mounds View is a statutory City, and they found out this meant they elected a City Council,and under statutory law,the Council could do whatever they pleased,and that there was abuse of that power. He stated that the Charter was the result of the citizenry reaction. He stated that the Charter Commission is a body appointed by the court,to look into the matters that the State Statute did not provide, so that the citizenry can react. He stated that this is what happened in regard to the issue of term limits. He inquired if the State Supreme Court ruling regarding the unconstitutionality of term limits was specific in the State Constitution, or if it was an amendment to the State Constitution. City Attorney Long stated that he would provide a copy of the Minneapolis Term Limits Coalition vs. Keith case,which interprets a provision of the State Constitution which has the State Legislature setting eligibility and qualifications for office. He stated that the State Constitution was specific on the issue of qualifications for office, and what was determined by the Supreme Court in this case, was that you could not amend the City Charter to include term limits,as the State Constitution is the supreme document. Mr. Dody asked if this was specifically stated in the State Constitution, or if the ruling was based upon interpretation. City Attorney Long stated the State Constitution sets the qualifications for office, and the City is bound by the Supreme Court ruling. Mr. Dody stated that when there is a question of interpretation,the matter could go to the next court. He stated that other cities in other states have instituted term limits which indicates they are legal,however, interpreted under the State Supreme Court Ruling. He stated that, in fact, the Federal Supreme Court has ruled term limits to be constitutional. He stated that it is a question, and therefore could go to a higher court for determination. He stated that the reason for having a Charter is so that the citizenry can react. He added that the right of the citizenry reaction is a form in the Constitution. Mayor Coughlin stated that Mr.Dody had been granted five minutes to speak,and requested he yield the floor. He explained, as the Charter Commission Chair can attest, the Charter states that the Council has to give a reasonable amount of time, and that the three-minute rule had been observed I6C:\ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\072699CC.MIN