Agenda Packets - 1999/08/09 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ruled that it might be an improper expenditure of taxpayer dollars. City Attorney Long stated that the matter was basically simple. He stated that the United States Supreme Court would not rule on a Minnesota State Supreme Court decision, interpreting its own Constitution. He stated that for now, the law of the land in Minnesota has determined term limits to be unconstitutional, and added that the legislature could not change that either. He explained that the Constitution would have to be amended to allow this. He stated that one option was that the Charter Commission could repeal unconstitutional laws, which he believed was the most prudent action, and if denied, he thought the Charter Commission as the codifier could include the footnoting. He stated the third option, which would be equally valid, would be to notify all candidates filing for office that the provision still on the books is unconstitutional. Council Member Quick inquired if it would be prudent for the City Council to direct the City Attorney to take the matter to court to obtain a ruling from a judge, and to direct the Charter Commission to amend the Charter to bring it into line with the Constitution. City Attorney Long stated that this could be done in the form of a Declaratory Judgment action which seeks to clarify whether the provision in the Charter is unconstitutional. Council Member Quick stated that, as the Charter Commission is appointed by the courts, this would seem the proper way to do this. He requested the Mayor withdraw his motion, and substitute his. Mayor Coughlin stated that he would like to, however, he would have to decline. He stated that these were two separate issues, and the verbiage would remain in light of the motion. He stated that they could appeal to the appointed judge for clarification. Council Member Quick requested City Attorney Long's opinion. City Attorney Long stated that in his opinion,it is a problem to leave an unconstitutional item in the Charter. He stated that he thought it proper for a public body, when given a court ruling and are obligated, to take action. He stated that if the Charter Commission did not remove the provision on its own, then a court action might be the necessary avenue. However, he stated, rather than taking a court action first, let the Charter Commission do the right thing, which is to remove the unconstitutional provision by a vote. He stated that, in his opinion, any attorney would tell them the same thing. Mayor Coughlin requested they have faith in both bodies present. Mr. Dody stated that when the Charter was originally made, the Charter was printed, and they made sure that the exact Charter, which was voted on, was represented by the City, and then the City copied that. He stated that the City Council is not the keeper of the City Charter. He stated that it is the responsibility of the Charter Commission. Mr. Linke stated he believed that in order to amend the Charter, the Charter Commission would recommend the Charter or amendment to the Charter for approval, and the Council would have to approve it unanimously, or the matter would have to be taken to the voters. He stated that at this time and to his knowledge,there had been no revisions to the Charter within the last four years, other than the term limit provision. He added that he was aware that there were other unconstitutional items. He stated that the Council provided the money to the Charter Commission to print the 20C:\ADMIN\MINUTES\CC\072699CC.MIN