Laserfiche WebLink
• <br /> Duane McCarty believed the language clearly described an 8 year total. Other <br /> commissioners disagreed with his interpretation. A polling of the commissioners <br /> found that 6 believed the language was meant to limit service to 8 years and 5 <br /> commissioners believed the language described 8 plus 8 for a total of 16 years <br /> service (one member abstained and said it's not clear). A majority found the <br /> language unclear (8). <br /> Duane McCarty moved to amend the language as follows to clarify the intent, <br /> second by Virgil Beyer: <br /> "Section 4.02, paragraph 1 shall be numbered Subdivision 1. <br /> Subdivision 2. Term Limits. Notwithstanding any other <br /> provision of law to the contrary, no person may file to be a candidate <br /> for election to a term that would cause the person to serve more than <br /> eight total years in the office of Mayor or in the office of City <br /> Councilmember combined. <br /> Subdivision-3. Service after January 1, 1990 shall count in <br /> • determining total length of service. <br /> Subdivision 4. Severability. If any part of this section shall <br /> be declared unconstitutional by a court, all others shall remain in full <br /> force and effect." <br /> Jerry Linke stated that 8 years total in office continues to present a constitutional <br /> issue. People eligible to hold office under our state constitution are prohibited by <br /> this amendment from filing for office and voters are limited in who they may elect <br /> to office. He noted that the City of Minneapolis had voted today to not put similar <br /> term limit language on the ballot. The Minneapolis council and their charter <br /> commission considered the term limit proposal to be unconstitutional. However, <br /> the Committee on Term Limits was planning to force the issue and had been <br /> threatening to file papers in court against Minneapolis for refusing to put term limits <br /> on the ballot. Jerry Linke noted that even though commission members had been <br /> assuming the League of Minnesota Cities would defend Mounds View in a similar <br /> lawsuit, the League had been contacted and it was not their intention to defend <br /> • Mounds View in such actions. LMC would not defend Mounds View in seeking a <br />