My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Various Docs re Numerous Proposed Changes
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
Charter Commission
>
1990-1999
>
1992
>
Correspondence
>
Various Docs re Numerous Proposed Changes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/6/2018 4:31:18 AM
Creation date
9/6/2018 4:31:14 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Misc Documentation
Date
12/28/1992
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
41
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
and (ii) require ordinances, except ordinance appropriating money or authorizing <br /> the levy of taxes, enacted by the Council to be referred to the voters of the city for <br /> approval. These powers are the initiative and referendum, respectively.24 <br /> Section 5.08. Recall.25 <br /> 24The present Section 5.01 is overbroad and almost <br /> certainly invalid in extending initiative and referendum <br /> (IR) to resolutions and "measures." The courts have <br /> held that IR applies only to legislative matters and <br /> does not extend to administrative matters. Legislative <br /> matters are embodied in ordinances that, in effect, <br /> establish law, proscribe certain conduct and impose <br /> penalties for violation. All other City Council actions <br /> are administrative in nature (e.g., setting employee <br /> salaries, approving subdivisions, granting permits and <br /> licenses, etc. ) . The suggested language makes it clear <br /> that onlyordinances are subject to IR and goes further <br /> to except any ordinance levying taxes or apportioning <br /> money. These exceptions are almost universally <br /> contained in IR charter provisions and are sound from a <br /> policy point of view since the financial management of <br /> the city and its need to meet its financial obligations <br /> in an orderly fashion should not be continually subject <br /> to voter review. <br /> 25The recall has also been stricken. The Minnesota <br /> Supreme Court has removed the usefulness of that device <br /> by holding that recall is only available in the case of <br /> malfeasance or nonfeasance in office. Thus, the recall <br /> is not available for its intended purpose of making an <br /> incumbent stand for re-election because of voter <br /> displeasure with the incumbent's performance. <br /> DJR43658 <br /> MU125-16 8 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.