07-26-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mayor Coughlin stated that he would prefer an actual document requesting specific funding, rather than a request for an ambiguous amount. Ms. Olson stated that if they bring this motion forward at the present meeting, and request the Charter Commission to review those items, they would not able accommodate the request unless the Council extends additional attorney fees for that purpose. She stated that if Council so desired, they could come back before the Council with a document to that effect in the future. Mayor Coughlin requested that they utilize the League of Minnesota Cities' staff, as the Charter Commission has already done, adding that the services are free of charge as they are dues payers. He requested that they do whatever is required outside of the purview of expending additional taxpayer dollars. Ms. Olson stated this was not fair or right, in light of the documentation, which came from the League of Minnesota Cities, which states that the League of Minnesota Cities' attorneys are not for the citizens, for their Constitution, nor for the Charter. She explained that they are on opposite sides of the fence. She stated that he would be asking them to take direction based upon something that would not be legal counsel for the citizens. Mayor Coughlin stated that what he was requesting is to put the matter back in the realm of the Charter Commission. He stated there are several instances where items are not in keeping with the State Constitution, and he would ask that the Charter Commission be allowed to dialogue as a group, prior to a major expenditure of legal fees by anyone. Ms. Olson stated, because the Charter Commission was presently working on some very important amendments to the existing Charter, and particularly in light of the City's new budget, which could bring forward a special election to the citizens, they could not allow the sixty-day time frame to deter them from their work. Mayor Coughlin clarified that the motion states the Council is giving the Charter Commission sixty days from the date of the present meeting, and requested, as they currently meet on a regular basis for purposes of reviewing and amending the document, they would add this item to their discussion. He added that neither he, nor any other member of the Council was attempting to set priorities at the Charter Commission level. Mr. Linke stated that as a first step the Charter Commission could go back through the minutes of previous years and easily pull those items out. He added that they already have, either by statute or ordinance, approximately $1,100.00 for facilitating this. MOTION/SECOND: Coughlin/Thomason. To Direct the City Administrator to Accept, Post and Publish the Current February 13, 1995 Charter, Including the Added Provision Discussed, In Addition He Would Request the Council Present An Official Request to the Charter Commission that they Revisit this and All Items Deemed Unconstitutional by Various Court Actions or the State Supreme Court, and After Sixty Days Have Passed, the City Council Will Explore All Avenues Available To Find Resolution of Said Inconsistencies, h1 Addition He would Request that a Separate Document, Not a Codicil be Included in any Election Packet, Outlining the Summary of the Minneapolis Term Limits Coalition vs. Keefe 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 that the Charter Commission Deal with the Fact that Items in the Charter are Unconstitutional and to Keep 22N:\DATA\USERSUOANB\SHARE\MINUTES\CC\ 1999\07-26-99.MIN