Agenda Packets - 2000/05/08 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View City Council April 24, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 22 City Attorney Long stated legal staff has discussed this issue with Charter Commission Attorney, Ray Faracy, and City Attorney Scott Riggs has worked with Mr. Faracy to draft the resolution before the Council. He stated the “Whereas” clause on the second Page of the resolution, would indicate “The following language shall be included into the Charter as a footnote to Section 4.02 of the Mounds View City Charter. Any Charter Provision limiting the term of an elected city official is unconstitutional and unenforceable,” and would further cite the Minnesota Supreme Court case. He indicated Mr. Faracy was legally in agreement with this language, and at this point, he has not indicated whether or not he has had the opportunity to discuss this with his client, the Charter Commission, to determine if they are in agreement. He stated procedurally, the Council could adopt the resolution at this time. City Attorney Long advised that if the City Charter Commission desires to propose alternative language, this matter could be brought back for consideration, however, the primary concern is to have language in the Charter that would indicate this provision has been ruled unconstitutional, in the most simple language possible. He stated his thoughts were that this resolution could be adopted at this time, and if the Charter Commission desires further language, the City could bring the matter back for further discussion at that time. MOTION/SECOND: Thomason/Quick. To Approve Resolution 5435, Authorizing Revisor’s Footnote Addition to the City of Mounds View Charter. Council Member Stigney stated the Charter Commission Attorney legally agrees to this wording, however, the Charter Commission has not seen the language. He inquired if there was some reason, in the City Attorney’s view, that the Charter Commission should not see this language prior to adoption. City Attorney Long stated action could wait. He indicated he was simply suggesting, in that there has been some interest in having this issue resolved, that the Council proceed. He explained that this is a procedural matter, unlike the actual Charter provisions, which require the formal vote and agreement, and as a courtesy if the Charter Commission had some suggested language to change this proposed language, they could certainly present this. He explained however, this is purely a procedural matter, in that the City is the codifier. He indicated the City and the Charter Commission have been battling somewhat on this point, in terms of the actual deletion of this language which the Charter Commission rejected, and which would require the Charter Commission’s vote, and the second option would be to include a footnote. City Attorney Long advised that this item would not require the vote of the Charter Commission in order to proceed, as it is more of a clerical housekeeping issue, however, the Council could decide if they would care to wait until they have full input from the Charter Commission, or if they would prefer to act on the matter at this time, and entertain any changes proposed by the Charter Commission at a later date. He pointed out that the Charter Commission Attorney has stated there was no legal issue with regard to the proposed language. Council Member Stigney indicated that if the Charter Commission Attorney was in agreement with this language, he had no real problem with this, with the exception that the Charter Commission has not seen the proposed language, and as a matter of courtesy when working with the Commission, the Council may wish to obtain their input. He explained that when the Charter