Order-Other - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

10 (Mounds View Charter Commission By-Laws, Art. III, § 3.) Pursuant to the by-laws, if five of the nine qualified and acting members of the Charter Commission attend a properly convened meeting, it may conduct any legally authorized business. If there are fewer than nine qualified and acting members, the Charter Commission may conduct all legally authorized business as long as four charter commissioners are in attendance. The plain and unambiguous statutory language does not require the presence of nine authorized members to conduct business.3 The unambiguous language of the statute and the by-laws require the same outcome both when there are charter commission vacancies and when qualified and acting members choose not to attend a meeting.4 Notwithstanding the applicable quorum requirements, petitioner failed to meet its burden of proving that respondent had anything to do with Charter Commission meeting attendance at any time during his various tenures as a Charter Commissioner. In 2006-2009, when respondent was not a Charter Commissioner, quorums were not met just as frequently as when respondent was a Charter Commissioner. Since respondent’s most recent appointment, and the 2016 reduction in authorized Charter Commission membership from 11 to 9, there was a quorum for 100% of Charter Commission meetings. For most of these meetings, respondent was Charter Commission Chair. 3 Petitioner cites a League of Cities Handbook provision stating that the “commission should always contain its full complement of members” to support its argument that a charter commission cannot legally operate without a full complement of members. (Pet’r’s Final Argument, Aug. 12, 2019 at 4 & n.8 (citation omitted).) The League of Cities’ stated aspirational goal of full membership falls far short of a legal opinion that full membership is required to operate notwithstanding section 410.05, subd. 2 and the language of a duly adopted by-law that defines a quorum. 4 Petitioner also cites two Attorney General opinions from 65 and 69 years ago to support its argument that a Charter Commission cannot legally operate absent a full complement of authorized Commissioners. (Pet’r’s Final Argument, Aug. 12, 2019 at 3-5.) These opinions are of no assistance to the court. The statute was amended to add the provision permitting charter commissions to establish operational rules after the Attorney General opinions were written. Act of May 5, 1971, ch. 208, § 2, 1971 Minn. Laws at 412 (amending Minn. Stat. § 410.05, subd. 2). The plain and unambiguous language of the statute as amended stands on its own and allows for no other reasonable interpretation. The statute permits charter commissions to adopt rules regarding their “operations and procedures”, “including quorum requirements.” Minn. Stat. § 410.05, subd. 2 (2018). The legislature delegated to charter commissions the authority to establish a rule permitting charter commission operation under any circumstance in which a defined quorum is present. The current Mounds View Charter Commission by-laws are perfectly consistent with the enabling statute. A minority of charter commissioners cannot stymie charter commission operations by a mass resignation any more than they can accomplish the same result by boycotting meetings. Business may proceed as long as a quorum is present as defined in the by-laws.