2002-2-7 City Attorney Letter to Commission re Charter Issues

Home Browse Search

Jonathan Thomas February 7, 2002 Page 2 SJR-209854v1 MU210-4 Section 5.08 of the Charter—Recall. As you may recall, Sections 5.05 and 5.07 of the Charter were recently revised by ordinance to make these Charter provisions consistent with Minnesota court interpretations of the applicability of initiative and referendum charter sections. Likewise, footnote language was added to Charter Section 4.02, subdivision 2 as to the unconstitutional and unenforceable nature of terms limits. It appears that similar clarification is now being suggested for Section 5.08 as to recall of elected officers. My initial suggestion is that all references to recall authority in Chapter 5 of the Charter be entirely removed, rather than including a footnote similar to the language accompanying Charter Section 4.02, subdivision 2. This suggestion is made because nothing is gained by retaining the recall provision in the Charter beyond the authority that already exists in the Minnesota Constitution. If instead a footnote is desired, one similar to the term limit footnote, referencing the Minnesota case of Jacobsen v. Nagel, 96 N.W.2d 569 (Minn. 1959), should be included. As was the case for the initiative and referendum charter provisions, a recommendation from the Charter Commission for revising this Charter section by ordinance would seem to be the most expedient and cost effective method to clarify this section. I suggest raising this matter with the City Council to determine the viability of this revision. Section 12.13 of the Charter—Newsletter. Section 12.13 of the Charter contains language not generally found in the other city charters that I have reviewed or discussed with others. Such provisions as to administrative functions might be considered beyond the generally organic nature of a charter, which is in essence the constitution of the City. The newsletter provision, while a laudable administrative function of the City, is generally that, an administrative function that has been set forth in detail in the Charter, but is left to the discretion of the governing body. While most likely being very difficult to enforce in the event no newsletter is actually published, if a newsletter is published six times a year by the City of Mounds View, this Charter provision is satisfied. You had requested a suggestion as to how Section 12.13 might be interpreted, or how some parameters/guidelines might be utilized by the City as to the content to be contained in the newsletter. Such a request, which is a policy rather than legal question, is probably better addressed directly to the City Council. However, it should be pointed out that a newsletter generally cannot be used as a lobbying statement of the City or a commission (the city has some commissions that have some authority autonomous from that of the City Council, e.g., Economic Development Authority, Police Civil Service Commission, Charter Commission), however, it certainly can, within reason, be a useful tool for providing information to the public. Cost issues and limited space obviously preclude the inclusion and the conveying of every bit of information that passes through City offices and departments; this is a budgeting constraint the City must deal with in modifying or adopting a policy for materials to be included within the newsletter.