Laserfiche WebLink
10/30/92 10:30 HOLMES & GRAVEN NO.002 011 <br /> r - <br /> and (i ) 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 /> a• •royal. These •owers are the initiative and referendum res•ectivel .24 <br /> Section 5.08. Recall." <br /> 24The present Section 5.Cl 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 /> i3The recall has also been stricken. The Xinnesota <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 /> MIR436511 <br /> 11111315-141 8 <br />