Laserfiche WebLink
10 Jonathan Thomas <br /> l;cbruary 7, 2002 <br /> Page 2 <br /> Section 5.08 of the Charter—Recall. <br /> As you may recall, Sections 5.05 and 5.07 of the Charter were recently revised by ordinance to <br /> make these Charter provisions consistent with Minnesota court interpretations of the applicability of <br /> initiative and referendum charter sections. Likewise, footnote language was added to Charter <br /> Section 4..02, subdivision 2 as to the unconstitutional and unenforceable nature of tetras limits. It <br /> appears that similar clarification is now being suggested for Section 5.08 as to recall of elected <br /> officers. My initial suggestion is that all references to recall authority in Chapter 5 of the Chatter be <br /> entirely removed, rather than including a footnote similar to the language accompanying Charter <br /> Section 4.02, subdivision 2. This suggestion is made because nothing is gained by retaining the <br /> recall provision in the Charter beyond the authority that already exists in the Minnesota. <br /> Constitution. If instead a footnote is desired, one similar to the term limit footnote, referencing the <br /> Minnesota case of Jacobsen v. Nagel, 96 N.W.2d 569 (Minn. 1959), should be included. As was <br /> the case for the initiative and referendum charter provisions, a recommendation from the Charter <br /> Commission for revising this Chatter section by ordinance would seem to be the most expedient and <br /> cost effective method to clarify this section. I suggest raising this matter with the City Council to <br /> determine the viability of this revision. <br /> lbSec 1ot . ._ 1.eCt-. - ew..e e.. <br /> Section 12.13 of the Charter contains language not generally found in the other city charters that I <br /> have reviewed or discussed with others. Such provisions as to administrative functions might be <br /> considered beyond the generally organic nature of a charter, which is in essence the constitution of <br /> the City. The newsletter provision,while a laudable administrative function of the City, is generally <br /> that, an administrative function that has been set forth in detail in the Charter, but is left to the <br /> discretion of the governing body. While most likely being very difficult to enforce in the event no <br /> newsletter is actually published, if a newsletter is published six times a year by the City of Mounds <br /> view,this Charter provision is satisfied. <br /> You had requested a suggestion as to how Section 12.13 might be interpreted, or how some <br /> parameters/guidelines might be utilized by the City as to the content to be contained in the <br /> newsletter. Such a request, which is a policy rather than legal question, is probably better addressed <br /> directly to the City Council. However, it should be pointed out that a newsletter generally cannot <br /> be used as a lobbying statement of the City or a commission (the city has sonic commissions that <br /> have some authority autonomous from that of the City Council, e.g., Economic Development <br /> Authority, Police Civil Service Commission, Charter Commission), however, it certainly can, <br /> within reason, be a useful tool for providing information to the public. Cost issues and limited <br /> space obviously preclude the inclusion and the conveying of every bit of information that passes <br /> through City offices and departments; this is a budgeting constraint the City must deal with in <br /> modifying or adopting a policy for materials to be included within the newsletter. <br /> 11 <br /> s.rrt-2o9554v1 <br /> MU2t01t <br /> 989—d 1:0/E0'd 089-1 01E61EE+ N3AYa9 7 AO31013X—Weld 1E:11 20-10—Z0 <br />