Agenda Packets - 1999/08/09 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

that the matter has gone to higher courts in other cities in other states, and has gone through the House and Senate of Minnesota. She stated that it was passed at the House, which determined that term limits were acceptable. She stated that the matter was going to the next level because it had been passed for three of the four cities that requested it. Planning Commissioner Laube stated that he was a member of the Mounds View Charter Commission, and that there were several concerns which required clarification. He stated that the United States Constitution has to be ratified by the State and the courts, and does not allow the Congress to admit any codicils. He stated that the citizens of Mounds View ratified'this Charter, and asked what right the City had to add anything to it. He stated that he was not doubting City Attorney Long's abilities, but explained that he is the City's Attorney. He stated that the Charter provided monies for the purpose of retaining their own legal counsel, and that he felt the City Council should allot them money so that they can retain a charter attorney to advise them in this matter. He added that he believed term limits would be approved by the State of Minnesota in the future, and therefore felt that if the Charter Commission chose to leave this provision in the Charter, it was their right and the citizen's right to approve it. He stated that it was not the right of the City Council, adding that the Council is elected by the citizens in the same manner they approved the term limit provision. He stated that the Council can request the Charter Commission to act, but they cannot demand it. Mayor Coughlin stated that this is why the matter is before the Council as a review. Jerry Linke,2310 Knoll Drive,stated he was on the Charter Commission during that period of time, and at that time they did have a charter attorney, and raised the same question. He stated that they were advised that they should not put the provision in the Charter. He stated that the City did pay for that attorney, and that this has already been done. He stated that he would like to know when the Charter was printed, adding that during the time he was Mayor, no printings were authorized. Ms. Olson stated that the City authorized the printing in 1994. City Administrator Whiting stated that there was no disagreement that this had been done, and that it was understood,the vote was taken and passed, and that it had been certified by the Secretary or State. He stated that, as he recalled from attending some of the earlier Charter Commission meetings, there were printed copies of the Charter with the provision in them. He stated that, in 1996,they had discussion regarding whether or not this provision should have been included in the Charter, and that Ms. Olson had shown him that it had been done. He stated that he put the matter on the Agenda,without deciding on his own to reprint all the Charters with this provision included, to notify the Council. He stated the intent was to present the options provided by the City Attorney, adding that another option would be to do nothing and print the Charter as it was. Ms. Olson stated that she had also notified the Council regarding the matter, and did not think that the Council meeting was a proper forum for the discussion of the matter. She stated that in regard to a footnote or codicil,the Charter already states clearly in Section 4.02,that if for some reason the provision should be found unconstitutional, others shall remain in full force and effect. She stated that parts of the City Code also require amendment or correcting,but they were not being dealt with in this manner. She stated that this was no different than the portion of a resolution for initiatives by referendum, for a citizen to uphold his right within the City of Mounds View,which is contained in the Charter, and does not correlate to State Statutes, and cannot be done. 18C:\ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\072699CC.MIN