07-26-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

these were two separate issues, and the verbiage would remain in light of the motion. He stated that . they could appeal to the appointed judge for clarification. Council Member Quick requested City Attorney Long's opinion. City Attorney Long stated that in his opinion, it is a problem to leave an unconstitutional item in the Charter. He stated that he thought it proper for a public body, when given a court ruling and are obligated, to take action. He stated that if the Charter Commission did not remove the provision on its own, then a court action might be the necessary avenue. However, he stated, rather than taking a court action first, let the Charter Commission do the right thing, which is to remove the unconstitutional provision by a vote. He stated that, in his opinion, any attorney would tell them the same thing. Mayor Coughlin requested they have faith in both bodies present. Mr. Doty stated that when the Charter was originally made, the Charter was printed, and they made sure that the exact Charter, which was voted on, was represented by the City, and then the City copied that. He stated that the City Council is not the keeper of the City Charter. He stated that it is the responsibility of the Charter Commission. Mr. Linke stated he believed that in order to amend the Charter, the Charter Commission would recommend the Charter or amendment to the Charter for approval, and the Council would have to approve it unanimously, or the matter would have to be taken to the voters. He stated that at this time and to his knowledge, there had been no revisions to the Charter within the last four years, other than the term limit provision. He added that he was aware that there were other unconstitutional items. He stated that the Council provided the money to the Charter Commission to print the Charter, and if the Council thought there were unlawful items in it, they should request rt be "cleaned up," before authorizing the expenditure. Mayor Coughlin restated his motion to direct the Clerk Administrator to accept post and publish the adjusted Charter including the added term limit provision, and to request that the Council request that the Chairperson and Commission Members to revisit all items in the Charter which have been deemed unconstitutional by various court actions, and to direct the Administrator to include a separate document outlining the summary of the Minneapolis Term Limits Coalition vs. Keefe Supreme Court ruling and a summary explaining why this provision is unconstitutional. Mayor Coughlin stated that this was to post on the Website and elsewhere, the Charter as it was voted upon. He added that he voted for term limits at the time. He stated this was also to acknowledge that the provision was duly voted upon and approved by the populous, and to acknowledge the fact that it is, at present, unconstitutional, unless a constitutional amendment be enacted at the state level He added that it also preserves the right of the Council and the City to not withhold any information from those people seeking re-election. He stated that he saw this as a compromise. Council Member Quick inquired regarding whether or not a time constraint should be placed upon the removal of any unconstitutional items in the Charter. City Attorney Long stated that they were presently in the process of updating the Code book, and 20N:\DATA\USERS\JOANB\SHARE\MINUTES\CC\ 1999\07-26-99.MIN