My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Other City Charter Provisions
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
Charter Commission
>
1990-1999
>
1993
>
Correspondence
>
Other City Charter Provisions
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/6/2018 5:10:28 AM
Creation date
9/6/2018 5:10:25 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Misc Documentation
Date
1/1/1993
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
INFORMATION SERVICE <br /> of <br /> League of Minnesota Cities <br /> 480 Cedar Street, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 <br /> 100A <br /> Council Role in Recall V *140A <br /> September 4, 1979 • <br /> • <br /> Jeff Nelson - <br /> City Administrator <br /> City Hall • <br /> 2401 Highway it10 <br /> St. Paul , Minnesota 55112 ' <br /> Dear Jeff: <br /> At your request, I calied the city attorney in Duluth to discuss their recall <br /> provision and its interpretation. The Duluth provision is not lirited in its <br /> terms to incidents of nonfeasance or malfeasance in office. however, on the <br /> strength of 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 malfeasance arguably <br /> Was involved. In that case, the petition alleged far-reasons for the recall , <br /> three 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 re: oval <br /> for violation of a charter provision which prevented interference by individual <br /> councilors with departmental operations. This cne involved a statement that a <br /> particular employee should ce 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 /> determi nation. Y <br /> The election resulted in a recall , and though a couple of avenues of litigation <br /> --gene-commenced-and later dropped, they were ineffective in giving- uscase -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 /> air; 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 /> 'A hope this answers your question satisfactorily. • <br /> Sincerely, <br /> • <br /> Stanley G. Peskar <br /> General Counsel <br /> S' '/rj . . <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.