League of MN Cities Information Services

Home Browse Search

INFORMATION SERVICE of League of Minnesota Cities 480 Cedar Street,Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 August 17, 1979 Ms. Ruth White • Secretary Mounds View Charter Commission c/o City Hall 2401 Highway 10 Mounds View, MN 55112 Dear Ms. White: Today I examined Chapters 4 - 12 of the proposed Mounds View City Charter and am suhmitting these commentsfor the consideration of the commission, As was the case in my few comments on the first three draft chapters, these comments are almost entirely of a critical nature. Specific observations about: the sections which seem satisfactory would unnecessarily lengthen this memo- randum_: As a consequence, the comments are largely-confined to those sections about which questions might be raised or which might conceivably be improved. The Charter Commission might find itself in disagreement with particular com- ments. This is to expected since such comments often reflect only the personal views of the writer based upon his experience in the field of municipal govern- ment. Furthermore, anyone commenting on a charter from a distance must do so with a theoretical charter in mind and not from the vantage point of a local citizen who is thoroughly familiar with the community for which the document was designed. It should be noted too that because the Mounds View Charter is in some respects identical with the League model charter, some of these comments do in fact criti- cize the provisions of the model charter and suggest changes in it. GENERAL COMMENTS In most sections, the proposed charter carries out the modern drafting principle that such a document should contain only broad fundamentals, leaving details in the hands of the council . However, whenever the Charter Commission has inserted language in more detail than the model charter or added provisions not contained in the model charter, it might be worthwhile for the body as a whole to first articulate the objectives sought to be secured by these additional or more detailed provisions. Then, the body should consider carefully whether the proposed language accomplishes the objective with a minimum of verbage and a maximum of leeway for the council and staff to operate the city as changing circumstances may dictate and with a minimum of uncertainty as to what the document intends. In some areas, arguably Chapter 6, details have been included which could reasonably be left to nrdinances or rules.