07-26-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Jerry Linke, 2310 Knoll Drive, stated he was on the Charter Commission during that period of time, and at that time they did have a charter attorney, and raised the same question. He stated that they were advised that they should not put the provision in the Charter. He stated that the City did pay for that attorney, and that this has already been done. He stated that he would like to know when the Charter was printed, adding that during the time he was Mayor, no printings were authorized. Ms. Olson stated that the City authorized the printing in 1994. City Administrator Whiting stated that there was no disagreement that this had been done, and that it was understood, the vote was taken and passed, and that it had been certified by the Secretary or State. He stated that, as he recalled from attending some of the earlier Charter Commission meetings, there were printed copies of the Charter with the provision in them. He stated that, in 1996, they had discussion regarding whether or not this provision should have been included in the Charter, and that Ms. Olson had shown him that it had been done. He stated that he put the matter on the Agenda, without deciding on his own to reprint all the Charters with this provision included, to notify the Council. He stated the intent was to present the options provided by the City Attorney, adding that another option would be to do nothing and print the Charter as it was. Ms. Olson stated that she had also notified the Council regarding the matter, and did not think that the Council meeting was a proper forum for the discussion of the matter. She stated that in regard to a footnote or codicil, the Charter already states clearly in Section 4.02, that if for some reason the provision should be found unconstitutional, others shall remain in full force and effect. She stated that parts of the City Code also require amendment or correcting, but they were not being dealt with in this manner. She stated that this was no different than the portion of a resolution for initiatives by referendum, for a citizen to uphold his right within the City of Mounds View, which is contained in the Charter, and does not correlate to State Statutes, and cannot be done. Mayor Coughlin stated that he would move to direct the City Administrator to accept, post and publish the corrected Charter, including the added provision discussed. In addition, he would request that Council present an official request to the Charter Commission that they revisit this and all items which have been deemed unconstitutional by various court actions or the State Supreme Court. In addition, he would move that a separate document, and not a codicil, be included in any election packet, outlining the summary of the Minneapolis Term Limit Coalition vs. Keith case, and any summary documents from the State Supreme Court, so as to accept that which has been voted for by the people, and to request the Charter Commission deal with the fact that items in the Charter are unconstitutional, and to keep the citizenry informed, even those applying for office, so as to not mislead them in any way regarding the legal status of the term limits provision. Council Member Thomason stated that she would second that motion. Council Member Stigney stated that this motion was unclear. He stated he was on the Charter Commission, and at that time, Jerry Linke was the Mayor, and to his recollection the citizenry had this provision placed in the Charter by vote, and the City Council was not going to allow it, so it remained in limbo. He stated that whatever the correction, it was within the jurisdiction and domain • of the Charter Commission. Mayor Coughlin stated that this motion was basically directing the Clerk Administrator to accept the 18N:\DATA\U SERS\JOANB\SHARE\M INUTES\CC\ 1999\07-26-99. MIN