Minutes - 1999/11/15 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View City Council November 15, 1999 Regular Meeting Page 12 City Attorney Long stated the question at hand is what to do about the provision, now that it has . been adopted. He explained his concern from a legal standpoint is that what they attempt to clarify all of these three points, to avoid litigation from arising by virtue of the language in the Charter. He pointed out there were complications and some question as to if it was fair to remove something that the public has voted upon. He advised they would not want a situation to occur, whereby someone files for City office, and the City Clerk is essentially burdened with having to interpret whether the Charter provision valid or invalid. He advised that either way there is the potential for litigation over the issue. City Attorney Long stated option were discussed, which include repealing the provision, which was his original recommendation to the Council, or indicating by a footnote in the Charter that the Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled this provision unconstitutional, to provide clear written guidance that the provision is not being enforced. He stated they also discussed the procedure by which the Charter can be amended, and there was some lack of clarity in this regard. He explained to the Charter that the City Council was requesting them to use their authority, under State law, to amend the Charter by ordinance, whereby the Charter Commission can recommend ordinances, which by unanimous consent of the Council, can amend the Charter. He noted this is atypical procedure by which clean up is performed on charter language. City Attorney Long stated the Charter Commission had questioned whether or not the City Council has the authority to request the language of the Charter be changed, and he explained that the Council could request the Charter Commission to utilize its authority to bring forward those changes. He advised that if the Council unanimously agrees to those changes, they would become an amendment to the Charter. He indicated the changes could also go directly to a vote, and under State Statutes, the City Council can also propose Charter amendments. He explained that the Charter Commission has the right to review the proposed amendments, which would then go on the ballot. City Attorney Long stated there was discussion regarding Council's motion, which authorized action to seek a court order to require the Charter Commission to make these changes, and he advised that this is another avenue the City Council could pursue. He explained that if something is found to be unconstitutional, the Council can seek a declaratory judgement through the courts, rather than placing it back on the ballot for removal, which might be seen as an inefficient use of the electoral process. City Attorney Long reiterated this was a very good meeting, with many strongly held beliefs presented on these issues, and in the end, everyone felt they had received objective information. He stated if the Council so desires, they could authorize City legal staff to prepare the proper language to address these four issues, and provide that language to the Charter Commission at their January meeting. He stated this would provide the Charter Commission would not be expending monies from their budget, but rather the City would assume the costs of preparing this language. Mayor Coughlin inquired if it was the City Attorney's recommendation that the Council authorize legal staff to prepare a draft of the proposed changes, and present them to the Charter • Commission for a final reaction one way or the other, and bring this forward to the Council.