08-31-1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

111 Following a brief discussion, Mr. Herrick was asked to submit a written report on Chapter 8 in lieu of attending a meeting on that topic. Trude also reported that the League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) had reviewed the draft of the Charter and provided written comments (excluding Chapter 8). (These comments were distributed during the meeting along with the second draft of the Charter.) Many of the comments require the commission to address problem areas in the re-draft. No information was available on the review by the English teacher since the Chair was not in attendance and he was handling that item. V. Discussion of legal issues presented by proposals to go to voters A. Term Limits • Mr. Herrick restated his legal opinion, as contained in the memorandum in the meeting packet. He agreed with the conclusion of the Attorney General, that term limits violate the State Constitution and state law. If the legislature would pass a law authorizing charter cities to limit terms of locally elected officials, then charters could be amended to include term limits. When asked if it would be illegal to let voters vote on the issue, he responded that no it would not be an illegal act to vote on the issue. Mr. Herrick also agreed with Mr. McCarty that no Minnesota court of law has ruled on the legality of term limits in charter cities. Mr. Herrick had also been in contact with the Minneapolis city attorneys who were reviewing an initiative petition for term limits. They also did not believe it was permissible to limit terms through a charter amendment. Attorneys for the City of Minneapolis were considering two options: (1) seek a declaratory judgment that term limits are not constitutional so as to avoid putting the issue on the ballot, or (2) put term limits on the ballot and then if it passes seek a declaratory judgment as to 11111 whether term limits are constitutional. -2-