07-26-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

charter as presented by the Charter Commission. Council Member Stigney stated that the Charter already existed that way. Mayor Coughlin stated that this was just resolving the question. Council Member Stigney stated that the matter was resolved in his mind. Council Member Quick asked City Attorney Long how something can be filed, when it is unconstitutional, and if so, who did the actual filing. City Attorney Long stated that when. the vote was taken in 1994, there is a requirement that the City certify the results within a certain time frame. He stated that he had seen a letter from Samantha Orduna to the Secretary of State, sending the language that had been adopted at the election. He stated that this was done as required by law. He explained that they did not add the language because of the constitutional issues that would come up later. Council Member Quick asked who had the copies printed. City Attorney Long stated that he did not know, adding that they had given the opinion at that time that if you were going to reprint all of the charter issues, it should be done without the unconstitutional provision, to prevent the possibility of a taxpayer law suit. He added that once you have a constitutional ruling, you are obligated, and cannot just ignore it. Council Member Quick inquired if whomever had the Charters printed had acted frivolously, and had expended taxpayer's dollars for something that was unconstitutional. . City Attorney Long stated that he was not aware how many copies were printed, but that this, and that they not continue to print copies after the ruling, was the concern. He stated that there was also the concern that the City not print the Charter with the unconstitutional provision as courts have ruled that it might be an improper expenditure of taxpayer dollars. City Attorney Long stated that the matter was basically simple. He stated that the United States Supreme Court would not rule on a Minnesota State Supreme Court decision, interpreting its own Constitution. He stated that for now, the law of the land in Minnesota has determined term limits to be unconstitutional, and added that the legislature could not change that either. He explained that the Constitution would have to be amended to allow this. He stated that one option was that the Charter Commission could repeal unconstitutional laws, which he believed was the most prudent action, and if denied, he thought the Charter Commission as the codifier could include the footnoting. He stated the third option, which would be equally valid, would be to notify all candidates filing for office that the provision still on the books is unconstitutional. Council Member Quick inquired if it would be prudent for the City Council to direct the City Attorney to take the matter to court to obtain a ruling from a judge, and to direct the Charter Commission to amend the Charter to bring it into line with the Constitution. City Attorney Long stated that this could be done in the form of a Declaratory Judgment action which seeks to clarify whether the provision in the Charter is unconstitutional. Council Member Quick stated that, as the Charter Commission is appointed by the courts, this would seem the proper way to do this. He requested the Mayor withdraw his motion, and substitute his. Mayor Coughlin stated that he would like to, however, he would have to decline. He stated that 19N:\DATAiUSERSUOANB\SHARE\MINUTES\CC\ t 999\07-26-99.MIN