Ordinance 743 - MOTION FAILED/NOT ADOPTED

Home Browse Search

Mounds View City Council September 27, 2004 Regular Meeting Page 6 • Ayes -5 Nays -0 Motion carried 10. COUNCIL BUSINESS A. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance 743, Amending Chapter 5 of the City Charter (Roll Call Vote). Council Member Quick asked the City Attorney that if recall is contrary to the Constitution in Minnesota, how could they have it in their Charter. City Attorney Riggs stated that it is not entirely contrary, and that there generally has to be a finding of some type of malfeasance: He stated unless there is a finding of some type of malfeasance, the courts would not entertain it and allow it to move forward. Council Member Quick stated that it would have to be something serious then, and City Attorney Riggs stated it would have to be serious. Council Member Quick stated that if a Council member is not doing what one member or a group doesn't like, then they couldn't have them up for recall, and City Attorney Riggs agreed. Council Member Quick stated that there is a fine line that the Constitution allows, and he wanted • it in the minutes. City Attorney Riggs stated that it was a limited provision that is authorized by statute for that type of a situation. Duane McCarty, 8060 Long Lake Road, stated that amendments are added at the end of the Constitution, so this process is not necessarily entirely correct. He stated this was probably not a big deal since they are a small city, and these sorts of things can be handled. Mayor Linke informed the public that Duane was on the original Charter Commission and helped to write the existing Charter. Mr. McCarty stated that these amendments don't really improve a whole lot, and that in fact they give more problems. He stated that in Chapter 410, Charter Law of the State of Minnesota, there is a savings clause at Section 33, that where a Charter is silent on a matter of general law, then the Council may apply general law, unless it's specifically forbidden. Mr. McCarty stated that in Chapter 410 it states that the Clerk Administrator has the responsibility to determine whether or not a petition is sufficient, which means was it properly signed by the voters of the city as required by law and the Charter. He stated that it has nothing to do with the verbiage or the content of the proposed amendment or addition and so forth. He stated that state law isn't clear on what he would term immediacy, and the City Charter requires • that. He stated that when the Clerk Administrator receives a petition, he has 10 days to report to the City Council that the petition is either sufficient or insufficient. He stated that the Council