07-26-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

City Administrator Whiting stated that he and the Charter Commission Chair, Julie Olson, had • discussed a matter originating a few years ago, in regard to whether or not a provision for term limits belonged in the Charter. He stated that, pursuant to discussion at that time, the matter had been reviewed by legal counsel, in terms of the court ruling which considered term limits to be unconstitutional, and that the Charters were not printed with that provision in them. He noted that the Secretary of State's Office had been notified that this provision was to be included in the Charter, which resulted in some confusion as to whether or not to put that provision back into the Charter or whether it should have been there all along. He stated that it appeared to have been assessed that the provision belonged in the Charter, and the reason that he requested the matter be brought forward to the Council, was to provide public acknowledgment, should it be determined that the Charter be changed. He stated there was concern regarding having an item in the Charter, which is not considered to be constitutional, and how to inform the residents of that. City Attorney Long stated that in November of 1994, when the measure was originally adopted, the Supreme Court had not made their ruling, and it was his understanding that after the vote was tallied, there was nothing legally preventing the results from being certified, which they were. He stated, after that time, the Court did rule in the case of the Minneapolis Term Limits Coalition vs. Keith, which struck down the Charter provision in Minneapolis, a provision exactly the same as that of the City of Mounds View. He stated that this ruling declared that City Charters could not be amended to include term limits as that was in conflict with the State Constitution. He stated that, after the Supreme Court Ruling, the question arose regarding putting the Charter out with this new amendment in it. He stated that they had written an opinion stating that, given the unconstitutional • ruling, it might potentially raise other conflicts and expenditures of public funds, in regard to putting measures on ballots to print charters and code, and could be seen as an improper expenditure of public dollars. He stated that, at that time, they advised not to create a new set of charters with the provision, which was considered unconstitutional, thinking that the provision would be disposed of procedurally. He stated that what he was not aware of at the time, was that some Charters had incorporated those changes. He stated that when the question was posed to him, he thought that the matter should be clarified. He stated that when a state law is passed, and then struck down in the interim, often the legislature will come back and try to amend it to make it constitutional, or they leave it alone, and the reviser adds a provision to their bill repealing the unconstitutional provision, so that it disappears a year later. He added that if they do not have a repealor bill, they might include a footnote indicating that the statute has been ruled unconstitutional, so as to prevent confusion. He recommended that the Charter Commission initiate a provision to remove the unconstitutional provision, with the Council voting on the ruling, which would probably be the cleanest way to accomplish this. He stated that another option would be to reprint the Charter with the footnote identifying the provision as having been ruled unconstitutional, and that this could be done simultaneously with the printing of the next round of ordinances. He stated that either way, they should attempt to remove the provision from the books, as any attempt to enforce it would place them in court. Bill Doty, 3049 Bronson Drive, Chair of the original Charter Commission, stated that the Charter is the City's constitution. He stated that the citizenry of Mounds View went to the Charter after • conducting a study regarding a 6.5 million-dollar storm sewer in Mounds View, which became an issue of actual abuse. He stated that the citizenry conducted a study to determine what would was best for the City. He stated that Mounds View is a statutory City, and they found out this meant they 15N:\DATA\USERS\JOANB\SHARE\MINUTES\CC\ 1999\07-26-99.MIN