My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
League of MN Cities Information Services
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
Charter Commission
>
1978-1989
>
1979
>
Correspondence
>
League of MN Cities Information Services
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/7/2024 11:37:59 AM
Creation date
8/23/2018 3:10:44 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Misc Documentation
Date
12/31/1979
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
34
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
, <br /> INFORMATION SERVICE <br /> of <br /> League of Minnesota Cities <br /> 480 Cedar Street, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 <br /> 100A <br /> Council Role in Recall >/*140A <br /> • <br /> September 4, 1979 <br /> Jeff Nelson <br /> City Administrator <br /> • <br /> City Hall <br /> 2401 Highway 410 <br /> St. Paul , Minnesota 55112 ' <br /> Dear Jeff: <br /> At your request, I called the city attorney in Duluth to discuss their recall <br /> provision and its interpretation. The Duluth provision is not limited in its <br /> terms to incidents of nonfeasance or malfeasance in office. however, on the <br /> strength cf the case„Jacobsen v. Nagel and as recommended by the city attorney, <br /> the city council in that recent case involving .former councilor Thomas Agnew, <br /> permitted a recall election only in circumstances where r:alfeasance arguably <br /> Was involved. in that case, the petition alleged fan-reasons for the recall , <br /> tree of which related to matters of judgment and quality of performance. How- <br /> ever, an election was called only to decide whether there should be a , oval <br /> ' for violation of a charter provision which prevented interference by individual <br /> ccunci i ors. wi th departmental operations. This one involved a statement that a <br /> particular employee should be dismissed. Since the charter prohibited this <br /> activity, the city attorney's office advised that an election should be permit- <br /> ted on this issue with the electorate sort of functioning as a jury to make the <br /> determination. <br /> The election resulted in a recall , and though a couple of avenues of litigation <br /> were commenced and later dropped, they were ineffective in giving us case law <br /> confirming the power of the council to decide whether reasons stated for recall <br /> on a petition are sufficient is a matter to be judged by the council . Neither <br /> d i d they resolve the question whether conviction of a crime that amounts to <br /> nonfeasance or malfeasance is a prerequisite to recall . <br /> Thus, there presently exists a good deal of uncertainty as to the extent of <br /> powers conferred upon the citizenry by a broadly drafted recall provision. <br /> • <br /> We hope this answers your question satisfactorily. <br /> Sincerely, <br /> Stanley G. Peskar <br /> General Counsel <br /> SCP/rj <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.