Msc Correspondence & Term Limit Docs

Home Browse Search

The Honorable Kenneth .7. Fitzpatrick May 23, 1996 Page 2 role as the appropriate appointing authority to remove charter commissioners according to the clear terms and authority granted in the statute. Minnesota statutes, 1 410.05, subd. 2 states that "[a]ny member may be removed at any time from office, by written order of the district court, the reason for such removal being stated in the order." The City's request to remove the commissioners is made pursuant to this provision. The City of Mounds View respectfully requests that you issue a written order removing the eight Charter Commission members for the following reasons to be stated in the order: 1. Minnesota Statutes, Section 410.05, subdivision 2 requires that each charter commission member must file, along with an acceptance of the appointment, an oath of office which requires that members uphold the Constitution of the State of Minnesota. After having been informed by the City Attorney of Mounds View that the Mounds View Charter Amendment providing for term limits for the City's elected offices is unconstitutional based on Minneapolis Term Limits Coalition v. Keefe, 535 N.W.2d 306 (Minn. 1955), the eight members o the Mounds View Charter Commission who voted to print the unconstitutional amendment to the City Charter have chosen to ignore the ruling of the Minnesota Supreme Court and in doing so have violated their oaths of office by not upholding the Minnesota Constitution as recently interpreted by the Court. 2. The eight Charter Commission members who voted to require that the unconstitutional Charter Amendment be printed in the City's Charter knowingly acted to cause a misuse and waste of public funds, and thus violated their official duties as appointed charter commission members. If the unconstitutional Amendment were to be printed as requested by the eight Charter Commission members, it would result in the wasteful expenditure of between $2,000 and 52,500 to have the City's current codification service, _Sterling Codifiers of Weiser, Idaho, include the unconstitutional amendment in the City's Charter. Some additional amount of public funds would again be wasted when Sterling Codifiers would later have to remove the unconstitutional amendment. Avoiding such a waste of taxpayers' dollars has been clearly recognized by the Minnesota Supreme Court. The Keefe decision relies upon earlier Minnesota Supreme Court decisions which cognize that where a proposed charter amendment is manifestly unconstitutional, the city is not required to ut the matter on the ballot because the City should be able to avoid what would amount to "a total waste of taxpayers' money," Davies v. City of Minneapolis 318 N.W.2d 498, 504 (Minn. 1982) and what would be "ultimately cleaned to be futile." Ii11A v. City of Minneapolis, 198 N.W.2d 531, 536 (Minn_ 1972). 3. If the to be eere C ity's Charter, it would mislead the citizens of MunView to part tof emlimits 119310066 MU/25-36