Agenda Packets - 1999/08/09 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mayor Coughlin stated that he would move to direct the City Administrator to accept, post and publish the corrected Charter, including the added provision discussed. In addition, he would request that Council present an official request to the Charter Commission that they revisit this and all items which have been deemed unconstitutional by various court actions or the State Supreme Court. In addition, he would move that a separate document, and not a codicil,be included in any election packet, outlining the summary of the Minneapolis Term Limit Coalition vs. Keith case, and any summary documents from the State Supreme Court, so as to accept that which has been voted for by the people, and to request the Charter Commission deal with the fact that items in the Charter are unconstitutional, and to keep the citizenry informed, even those applying for office, so as to not mislead them in any way regarding the legal status of the term limits provision. Council Member Thomason stated that she would second that motion. Council Member Stigney stated that this motion was unclear. He stated he was on the Charter Commission, and at that time, Jerry Linke was the Mayor, and to his recollection the citizenry had this provision placed in the Charter by vote, and the City Council was not going to allow it, so it remained in limbo. He stated that whatever the correction, it was within the jurisdiction and domain of the Charter Commission. Mayor Coughlin stated that this motion was basically directing the Clerk Administrator to accept the charter as presented by the Charter Commission. Council Member Stigney stated that the Charter already existed that way. Mayor Coughlin stated that this was just resolving the question. Council Member Stigney stated that the matter was resolved in his mind. Council Member Quick asked City Attorney Long how something can be filed, when it is unconstitutional, and if so,who did the actual filing. City Attorney Long stated that when the vote was taken in 1994,there is a requirement that the City certify the results within a certain time frame. He stated that he had seen a letter from Samantha Arduna to the Secretary of State, sending the language that had been adopted at the election. He stated that this was done as required by law.He explained that they did not add the language because of the constitutional issues that would come up later. Council Member Quick asked who had the copies printed. City Attorney Long stated that he did not know, adding that they had given the opinion at that time that if you were going to reprint all of the charter issues,it should be done without the unconstitutional provision,to prevent the possibility of a taxpayer law suit. He added that once you have a constitutional ruling, you are obligated, and cannot just ignore it. Council Member Quick inquired if whomever had the Charters printed had acted frivolously, and had expended taxpayer's dollars for something that was unconstitutional. City Attorney Long stated that he was not aware how many copies were printed,but that this, and that they not continue to print copies after the ruling,was the concern. He stated that there was also the concern that the City not print the Charter with the unconstitutional provision as courts have 190:\ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\072699CC.MIN