Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDocs re Term Limits Amendment { SEP 07 '94 16:11 HOLMES & GRAVEN P.2 110LMES &GRAVEN CHARED Attorusy6 Al Lao 470 Millbury Center,Minneapolis,M(nno is 555,602 RO111rR1 A.ALSO? (612)331-9306 RoURT C,LONG RONALD H.BA TY LAURA LC.MOUE'? Sl#4ALDi J.8[iYVL Falls(612)337.9310 SARBANA L.POY1woOD JAMS M.Staohslaw Jo1ne R.DEM JAMMI 3.TROMsoN.u. MARY G.D09{!N9 LIMY M.viina um Smouts N GAMY COSMIC A.BMW BaNNI8 L.W1L1i3Ns WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL GARY P.Wiring IQ=S.Howls DAM J.KDYDAvm L.GRAVEN(1�-1991) JOHN H.LARSON 337-9203 Ronal C.CARLSON�C..UMW; Row=LDAwbsoN JoHN LEPSVES,JR. T.JAY SALMHNROf1J.LIKIALL MORSEL September 7, 1994 Mayor Jerry Linke and 'City Councilmembers City of Mounds View 2401 Highway 10 Mounds View, MN 55112-1498 RE: Proposed Charter Amendment Re Term Limits Dear Mayor Linke and Councilmembers: It is my understanding the Mounds View Charter Commission has proposed an amendment to the city charter to read as follows: Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, no person may file to be a candidate for election to a term that would cause the person to serve more than eight total'years in the office of Mayor or eight total years in the office of City Council. { You have inquired as to what the City Council's role is in the proposed charter amendment. Minnesota Statutes, Section 410.12 allows the Charter Commission to propose. amendments to the charter. Any such amendments shall be submitted at the next general election occurring within six months after delivery to the City Council of the draft amendment. The form of the ballot must be fixed by the City Council. In a typical situation, the City Council's sole role regarding a proposed amendment submitted by the Charter Commission is to fix the form of the ballot. (There is another procedure for amending the charter under which the City Council would propose an amendment by ordinance, but that option does not apply in this situation because the Charter Commission has chosen to propose the amendment itself.) The second question that has been asked is whether the city should place the matter on the ballot in light of a 1981 attorney general's opinion that a charter provision imposing a limitation on consecutive terms would not be valid. In addition, In an • opinion dated June 28, 1994, the attorney for the Mounds View Charter Commission concluded that he could find no authority for a charter amendment creating term limits. .1.7027 5658 $U125-31 SEP 07 '94 16:13 HOLMES & GRAVEN P.4 Mayor Jerry Linke and City Councilmembers September 7, 1994 Page 3 Because this'issue has not yet been addressed.b .,elAY Minnesota appellate court, it is MV,,,gpinien that the question of whether a charter city can impose term limits for members*f its elective body is not "manifestly" unconstitutional. The options that are available to the City Council are as follows: 1. Choose not to fix the form of the ballot for the proposed charter amendment on the grounds that the attorney general and the Charter Commission's attorney have concluded that such an amendment is invalid; or 2. Fix the form of the ballot for the proposed charter amendment. If the proposed amendment fails, the issue as to its constitutionality becomes moot. If the City Council chooses to fix the form of the ballot for the proposed charter amendment, I recommend that the City Council ask the Charter Commission to address the following Issues to clarify the proposed amendment: 1. The proposed charter amendment states that "no person may file to be a candidate." On its face, the amendment would not prevent a person from conducting a write-in candidacy. The question 1 have is why did the Charter Commission use the phrase "file to be a candidate" as opposed to the phrase "serve a term"? 2. The proposed charter amendment deals with total terms, not consecutive terms. Was this the Charter Commission's intent? 3. The proposed charter amendment states that a person cannot serve"more than eight total years in the office of Mayor or eight total years in the office of City Council." Was the intent of this provision to allow a person to serve eight } years as mayor and eight years as a councilmember? ,se4. Does the eight-year limitation include time that a person might have served as an appointed member of the City Council? I would be happy to address any additional questions you have on this issue. Sincerely, 1 A 4111 s . Thomson JJT:jes cc; Samantha Orduno JJT75668 *J125-it SEP 07 '94 16:12 HOLMES & GRAVEN P.3 Mayor Jerry Linke and City Councilmembers September 7, 1994 Page 2 If T ota Supreme Court has held that where a proposed charter amendment is manifestl constitutional" the amendment does not need to be placed before the Hous' and Redevelopment Authority of Minneapolis v. City of Minneapolis, 198 N.W.2d 531 (Minn, 1972). No Minnesota appellate court has ruled on the question of whether a charter city can impose term limits for mayor and couneilmembers In the 1981 opinion, the Minnesota attorney general concluded that a city charter cannot impose a limitation upon the number of consecutive terms that a person may serve as an elected member of the city's governing body. The rationale for the attorney general's opinion was that Minnesota Constitution, Article VII., Section 8', states that any person who is entitled to vote at any election and is 21 years old is eligible to hold an elective office in the district where that person has resided for 30 days'previous to the election, except as otherwise provided ;in_ the Minnesota Constitution, or in the Constitution and laws of the United States. The attorney i general concluded that absent another constitutional provision allowing cities to establish additional eligibility requirements for holding elective office, Article VII, Section 6 precluded a municipality from adopting such restrictions. Article XII, Section 3 of the Minnesota Constitution, which was adopted in 1958, states in part: The legislature may provide by law for the creation, organization, administration, consolidation, division and dissolution of local government units and their functions, for the change of boundaries thereof, for their elective and appointive offices including qualification for office and for the transfer of county seats. (Emphasis added) The attorney general concluded that because the legislature has not provided any additional qualifications for elective office in local governmental units (other than the ones set forth in Article VII, Section 8), a charter city cannot do so in its charter. In that opinion, however, the attorney general noted that the issue has not been. addressed-imidinnesota-courts— The general rule is that in matters of municipal concern, home rule cities have all the ' legislative power possessed by the legislature, except those powers that are expressly or impliedly withheld. State ex rel Town of Lowell v. City of Crookston, 91 N.W.2d 81 (1958). Ina 1993 decision, Elbers v. Growe, 502 N.W.2d 810 (Minn. App. 1993), the Court of Appeals held that Article XII, Section 3 authorized the legislature to provide additional qualifications for the office of sheriff. In this case, an argument can be made that because the Minnesota Constitution gives the legislature the power to impose additional qualifications for office of local government units, charter cities may do likewise. ,: (See Minnesota Statutes, Section 410.21, which states that the "provisions of any charter . - . shall be valid and shall control as to . . . elections for municipal offices - . .") 6172756611 twigs-U ei-14 .) ' ©2517 ©F nrior Phone: (612) 784-3055 `7h� Fax: (612) 784-3462 "Quite Simply the Best" July 19 , 1994 Mr. Len Burgers, Chair Mounds View Charter Commission 8470 Knollwood Mounds View, MN Dear Len; Councilmember Julie Trude received the attached legal opinion_ in the mail yesterday, July 18 , 1994 . She wanted you to have a copy as soon as possible. I have also attached a copy of a petition which came into my office on Friday, July 15, 1994 . It appears the Commission's request for a legal opinion was extremely timely. If you have any questions, please contact Councilmember Trude or myself. Warrtfest Personal Regards, Samantha O. duno 1ty AdminQstrator r PRINTED WITH 'PRINTED ' 24.01 Highway 10 • Mounds View, MN 55112-1,199 RICHARD I:a::r,ni.) IL '1MEL.•t\I.HARRIS Di RRELL A.ENSE lLL • CHARLES�I.SEYKCI,L DARRELL A.;IESEN { �: AR EY S.JOHNSON IL EL M.HANSEN RUSSELL H.CRNSON ii \ l DANIEL D..DODGE i. H.CRN n 3EVERLY K.DODGE Barna GuL'J &. Steffen, LAWRENCE R.;ONNSO�! L r�� camc M.AYERS DAVID A.COSSI GREGGE5V.HERRICK THOMAS R MALONE ATTORNEYS AT LAW \CIES D.HOES MICHAEL f HURLEY ;CAN M.QUADS =C0 Nornc�otun Financial Playa VE �1.LEP.•�K :'1RG1LC.:�Ef LLE STEVEN L.�IACKL'i 1.'!R LCL.T'1LLc 00 Coon rapids'Boulevard Minneapolis, MN ))r3,_5%189 WILLIAETHA.SCHAC;. WILLIAM F.IiUEFNER FAX` ROBERT C.HYNES (( F 1 ) 780-.3500 ;612) '80-;'__ Wr_Cer' 'i935•i943 MEMORANDUM2) 73.7-5122 TO: Mounds View Charter Commission FROM: Gregg Herrick .r� RE: �• Term Limits DATE: June 23 , 1994 4UE— STION DOES THE CITY HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO INSTITUTE TERM LIMITS THROUGH ITS CHARTER FOR THE CITY COUNCIL? The Attorney General's Opinion of April 14 , 1981 has been questioned and I have been asked to- give an independent opinion regarding the Charter Commission's ability to place term limits on elected municipal offices within t ityft considerable research into this question, Ihave1comerctoatheing conclusion that there is no direct case law interpreting this particular question. I have, therefore, reviewed t. by the Attorney General, as wellreview the cases cited as a _ I=e'•i C i the cases Since the 1981 Attorney General's Opinion. Since t::>.ere was a movement in the State Legislature last Session to establish termlimits I also obtained information on their' interpretation of :the Question. I also contacted the League of M; if they had any prepared material on this topiCsota Cities to see The research shows that one's - eligibility to hold office is generally viewed as a fundamental right. It is also clear that prior to the 1958 Constitutional Amendment, the Court interpreted the Constitution as restricting any legislative tyt-td restricting - � egisla�.yse body's ability to enact laws r estr ' t; g i g hold of: 1958 Amendment provides that the Leaislature `ice. The may provide for The Constitution.11.._ i on provides that to hold office an individual must be entitled to vote. Mounds View Charter Commission June 28 , 1994 Page Two qualifications for local government office. The language of Article XII, Section 3 on its face seems clear. The Amendment gives the State Legislature the right to provide qualifications Lor local office. While this Constitutional Amendment may give the Legislature the authority to grant to individual municipalities the right to set qualifications for local office, there is no statute, in my opinion, which could be interpreted as attempting to convey such authority. There is a recent case in which the Appellate Court reviewed the Legislature's authority to place limitations on eligibility for county sheriffs positions. In Elbers v. Grow, 502 N.W. 2d 310 (Minn. App. 1993) the Appellate Court was asked to rule- on the ability of the State Legislature to place limitations on individuals for two separate county sheriffs positions. The Court held that the "plain language" of Minnesota's Constitution, Article XII, Section 3 , clearly authorizes the Legislature to change qualifications for local office. While the Fibers Court did not address the issue of local regulations of local f, it very -- offices , _ces , clearly concluded that the State Legislature under Article XII, Sectibn 3 , was the body authorized to place qualifications on local offices . In the State Legislature last year there was a proposed Bill which called for . term limits . The $ill which issue of term limits to the voters failed in a Senateave Committeehe e and was never acted upon. I am enclosing a copy of a it a House Research Department position paper on term limits s for of or elected offices, dated November of 1993 . In that memo the�House Research Department indicated that local government offices can be subject to statutory term limits . This Opinion is consistent with the Elbers Opinion, as well as the Attorney General' ssO inionthat the State Legislature is the body which has the a`+`i o i`'- `' lace limitations on holding local office. Based upon my research I find no authority `or a charter amendment creating term limits . ` amink sium --�- Lyin11.15 3490 Lexington Avenue North League of Minnesota Cities St. Paul, MN 55126-8044 September 12, 1994 Ms. Samantha Orduno City Administrator City of Mounds View 2401 Highway 10 Mounds View, MN 55112 Dear Ms. Orduno: I am writing in confirmation of our telephone conversation of earlier this afternoon regarding the issue of term limits being placed on the ballot. As you aware, it is nearly unanimously accepted that term limits are unconstitutional under the Minnesota State Constitution. By now, you should have received a copy of a memo which outlines the options a city has when dealing with a petition calling for an election on term limits and which was faxed by the League to all home rule charter cities this past Friday. I know that the action in Mounds View was initiated by the Charter Commission, but the council's options remain the same. A copy of that memo is attached in case you did not receive it earlier. Should the city elect to allow the issue of term limits to go on the ballot and they are adopted by the voters, it is likely that an incumbent subsequently denied the opportunity to seek re-election will challenge the law in court, and there is every reason to believe that the councilmember will prevail. In this situation, the City of Mounds View was concerned over whether or not the League's Insurance Trust would provide coverage for the claim. In particular, you asked whether or not the charter commission would be covered by the city's insurance should the commission and its members be sued in addition to or instead of the councilmembers. I discussed your particular concerns with the Pete Tritz, LMCIT's Administrator, who I believe you had talked to earlier. In addition, Carla Heyl, LMC Senior Staff Attorney, left me a note with her thoughts on this matter. We are all in agreement that the charter commission would be considered a part of the city and would therefore be covered by the city's coverage under LMCIT. Whether or not a particular claim will be covered by LMCIT of course depends on the specific facts of the case. Only claims for damages are handled under LMCIT coverage. In the situation most likely to arise out of the term limit debate, the councilmember seeking to have the term limit provision overturned would seek attorney fees under what is known as 4 section 1983 action. Under the provisions of the LMCIT coverage document, an action for attorney fees under section 1983 constitutes a AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER (812)490-5600 1100-925-1122 plus your city code TDD(812)490 038 Fax(812)490.0072 ZOd S3I .LI a Mtn 40 3CIJd3 'I * id £ it : is0 i56 °Z i '60 claim for damages. Such a claim, therefore, would be subject to LMCIT coverage provided there were no other disqualifying circumstances as layed out in the basic coverage agreement. A claim of nature would have to be evaluated to determine whether ordnoteitnwas a claim for damages. In any event, the city should submit to LMCIT any claim filed against the city so that a determination on coverage can be made. I hope that this information adequately addresses your concerns. If the city has any further questions, please feel free to contact the League again. Because of the legal issues involved with the term limit debate, I will be trying to contact your already had some discussions with Greg Herrick whoyIattorneunderstandlwasve retained by the city to assist the charter commission. Sincerely, Kent Sulam Codification Attorney Enc: i70a S3I .Li3 MN 30 3110113 -1 * Wdeiv : 170 i76 3490 Le ington Avenue North League of Minnesota Cities St Paul, MN 55126-8044 September 9, 1994 Please contact LUC Ifyour city considers taking action. LMC has a packet to aid cities to obtain court decision. TO: Mayor, Manager, Clerk, Home Rule Charter Cities PROM: Ann Higgins, IGR Representative Kent Sulem, Codification Attorney RE: Options for response to petitions proposing a ballot question to amend the city charter to impose local term limits Numbers of home rule charter cities have reported to the League that they are receiving petitions calling for charter amendments imposing local term limits to be placed on the ballot in November. 312 • - ' offs '• s ,. .. . ci, :ttO -• item_.'alai 3011 '- .10.• ,. The city has three options to consider in this situation: 1• Accent petition and Mace mi.ballot, Cities may let voters decide whether or not to support term limits at the local level. Local officials need to be aware, however, that city attorneys generally have viewed imposition of local term limits by charter as unconstitutional since Article VII, Section 6 of the State Constitution clearly sets out requirements for holding elective offices, including those at the local level, providing that any person meeting qualifications set forth there shall be eligible to hold public elective office. The constitution contains no term limit authority for cities to adopt more restrictive requirements. If the charter amendment were adopted by voters, a legal challenge could be anticipated by any person adversely affected. The charter provision would almost certainly be held unconstitutional and therefore unenforceable. Resolution of the issue under this option could take several years and could also give the appearance of city support of term limits. Z� Declaratory iudzmept. Cities may seek to have the court order the issue declared unconstitutional and improper to be placed on the ballot. The city has to accept the financial burden_ There is a possibility that the court may not grant standing to the city itself unless the judge accepts the argument that the city is harmed by being required to expend funds and voter actions in a meaningless election. This option would be a reasonable action, however, to have the court order the matter off the ballot. Cities may want to consider providing assistance to one another to support this approach. The League understands several cities may consider this option if other cities would also support such mons. (Attached is a list of all home rule charter cities. The League encourages cities to contact us and to communicate on the matter to coordinate responses.) Li2grahraglitign and keen the issue off the ballot. The city may, on the advice of the city attorney, decide to reject the petition as invalid, either because of reasons stated above, or because the petition may also include a requirement that is improperly put before the voters. The language ons presented to date, for example, also would require the city council to vote on resolution calling fort one of thee a state constitutional amendment to impose term limits at the state and federal level. This is an adviso which is not authorized under current law and can be rejected on that basis. rY petition Attachment AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER (612)490.5600 1 4l54l22pfusyourritycode TDD(612)490.9038 Fax ca sa xa. t o bunt 3O 3tl0v3 '! * mucic : ir0 176 HOLMES & GRAVEN CHARTERED Attorneys at Law 470 Pillsbury Center,Minneapolis,Minnesota 55402 ROBERT A.ALSOP (612)337-9300 ROBERT C.LONG RONALD H.BATTY LAURA K.MOLLET STEPHEN J.BUBUL Facsimile(612)337-9310 BARBARA L.PORTWOOD JOHN B.DEAN JAMES M.STROMMEN MARY G.DOBBINS JAMES J.THOMSON,JR. STEFANIE N.GALEY LARRY M.WERTHEIM CORRINE A.HEINE BONNIE L.WILKINS JAMES S.HOLMES WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL GARY P.WINTER DAVID J.KENNEDY JOHN R.CARSON 337-9209 DAVID L.GRAVEN(1929.1991) WELLINGTON H.LAW - OF COUNSEL CHARLES L.LEFEVERE ROBERT C.CARLSON JOHN M.LEFEVRE,JR. ROBERT L.DAVIDSON ROBERT J.LINDALL T.JAY SALMEN September 7, 1994 Mayor Jerry Linke and City Councilmembers City of Mounds View 2401 Highway 10 Mounds View, MN 55112-1499 RE: Proposed Charter Amendment Re Term Limits Dear Mayor Linke and Councilmembers: It is my understanding the Mounds View Charter Commission has proposed an amendment to the city charter to read as follows: Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, no person may file to be a candidate for election to a term that would cause the person to serve more than eight total years in the office of Mayor or eight total years in the office of City Council. You have inquired as to what the City Council's role is in the proposed charter amendment. Minnesota Statutes, Section 410.12 allows the Charter Commission to propose amendments to the charter. Any such amendments shall be submitted at the next general election occurring within six months after delivery to the City Council of the draft amendment. The form of the ballot must be fixed by the City Council. In a typical situation, the City Council's sole role regarding a proposed amendment submitted by the Charter Commission is to fix the form of the ballot. (There is another procedure for amending the charter under which the City Council would propose an amendment by ordinance, but that option does not apply in this situation because the Charter Commission has chosen to propose the amendment itself.) The second question that has been asked is whether the city should place the matter on the ballot in light of a 1981 attorney general's opinion that a charter provision imposing a limitation on consecutive terms would not be valid. In addition, in an opinion dated June 28, 1994, the attorney for the Mounds View Charter Commission concluded that he could find no authority for a charter amendment creating term limits. JJT75668 MU125-11 Mayor Jerry Linke and City Councilmembers September 7, 1994 Page 2 The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that where a proposed charter amendment is "manifestly unconstitutional" the amendment does not need to be placed before the electorate. Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Minneapolis v. City of Minneapolis, 198 N.W.2d 531 (Minn. 1972) . No Minnesota appellate court has ruled on the question of whether a charter city can impose term limits for mayor and councilmembers In the 1981 opinion, the Minnesota attorney general concluded that a city charter cannot impose a limitation upon the number of consecutive terms that a person may serve as an elected member of the city's governing body. The rationale for the attorney general's opinion wasthat Minnesota Constitution, Article VII, Section 6, states that any person who is entitled to vote at any election and is 21 years old is eligible to hold an elective office in the district where that person has resided for 30 days previous to the election, except as otherwise provided in the Minnesota Constitution, or in the Constitution and laws of the United States. The attorney general concluded that absent another constitutional provision allowing cities to establish additional eligibility requirements for holding elective office, Article VII, Section 6 precluded a municipality from adopting such restrictions. Article XII, Section 3 of the Minnesota Constitution, which was adopted in 1958, states in part: The legislature may provide by law for the creation, organization, administration, consolidation, division and dissolution of local government units and their functions, for the change of boundaries thereof, for their elective and appointive offices including qualification for office and for the transfer of county seats. (Emphasis added) The attorney general concluded that because the legislature has not provided any additional qualifications for elective office in local governmental units (other than the ones set forth in Article VII, Section 6), a charter city cannot do so in its charter. In that opinion, however, the attorney general noted that the issue has not been addressed in Minnesota courts. The general rule is that in matters of municipal concern, home rule cities have all the legislative power possessed by the legislature, except those powers that are expressly or impliedly withheld. State ex rel Town of Lowell v. City of Crookston, 91 N.W.2d 81 (1958) . In a 1993 decision, Elbers v. Growe, 502 N.W.2d 810 (Minn. App. 1993), the Court of Appeals held that Article XII, Section 3 authorized the legislature to provide additional qualifications for the office of sheriff. In this case, an argument can be made that because the Minnesota Constitution gives the legislature the power to impose additional qualifications for office of local government units, charter cities may do likewise. (See Minnesota Statutes, Section 410.21, which states that the "provisions of any charter . . . shall be valid and shall control as to . . . elections for municipal offices . . .") JJT75668 MU125-11 Mayor Jerry Linke and City Councilmembers September 7, 1994 Page 3 Because this issue has not yet been addressed by any Minnesota appellate court, it is my opinion that the question of whether a charter city can impose term limits for members of its elective body is not "manifestly" unconstitutional. The options that are available to the City Council are as follows: 1. Choose not to fix the form of the ballot for the proposed charter amendment on the grounds that the attorney general and the Charter Commission's attorney have concluded that such an amendment is invalid; or 2. Fix the form of the ballot for the proposed charter amendment. If the proposed amendment fails, the issue as to its constitutionality becomes moot. If the City Council chooses to fix the form of the ballot for the proposed charter amendment, I recommend that the City Council ask the Charter Commission to address the following issues to clarify the proposed amendment: 1. The proposed charter amendment states that "no person may file to be a candidate." On its face, the amendment would not prevent a person from conducting a write-in candidacy. The question I have is why did the Charter Commission use the phrase "file to be a candidate" as opposed to the phrase "serve a term"? 2. The proposed charter amendment deals with total terms, not consecutive terms. Was this the Charter Commission's intent? 3. The proposed charter amendment states that a person cannot serve "more than eight total years in the office of Mayor or eight total years in the office of City Council." Was the intent of this provision to allow a person to serve eight years as mayor and eight years as a councilmember? 4. Does the eight-year limitation include time that a person might have served as an appointed member of the City Council? I would be happy to address any additional questions you have on this issue. Sincerely, A J es . Thomson JJT:jes cc: Samantha Orduno JJT75668 MU125-11 I 7" NtP e_)/11 Section 4.02 paragraph 1 shall be numbered Subdivision 1. (Subdivisions 2 through 4 below are to be included under Section 4.02 upon adoption by the voters.) Subdivision 2. TERM LIMITS. Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, no person may file to be candidate for election to a term that would cause the person to serve more than ei`� ght total years in the office of Mayor or eight total years in the office of City Councils mb n , '` ire.- , ^w c e h e�� I � / ?cis" csluf.L/ n cif" '�*ta, i/I !Xf'j7 '�l t��t i'.r, *74'k/ •u• .ivision 3. Sery fter Januarcount in determining length of ser ' e. Subdivision V SEVERABILITY. If any part of this section shall be declared unconstitutional by a court, all others shall remain in full force and effect. Gl,cL-�dL /If(C` 4 ✓ }I I Q, Et'Yr.JI' b V;), 1 Bej C,I Avadrb7 L 5 yo-fir,vde ct cam,, LIDIISh 1)a - PI&L -- JAI c `�-� Loam L-�^ ie'r Shall Section 4.02 of the Mounds View City Charter be amended to add the following provisions? Subdivision 2. TERM LIMITS. Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, no person may file to be a candidate for election to a term that would cause the person to serve more than eight total years in the office of Mayor or in the office of City Councilmember combined. Subdivision 3. Service before January 1 , 1995 shall not count toward determining total length of service. Subdivision 4. SEVERABILITY. If any part of this section shall be declared'unconstitutional by a court, all others shall remain in full force and effect. YES NO INITIAT 'ETITION Props sing an ordinance . limi the number of total te is for which ape son co ld file for he o ice of M yor or City Coun• 1, a co. of which ordinance i• hereto attached This o dinanc- is spon- sored by the following commits:e of registerd electors: NAME ADD'_ESS /_ 3. k i rl .LN ♦ �r .1 a •' .tlr Al L.� ll ~ // 4. /1r' C, Dr)wail.4 ?/ 5A u , -1 /)t),LA/ c (% JJ //L 5. ,&- A D. ?de? 5LA.N yy 'l¢ ',LC/ • v55.1/ • ' .V . 8 PS:3Z ' yyonidS �1 •L�" S� I i:Z" aT7 ' . `�t�;c_ e_ g t$`1 c. �� M o • s 5 511.2, Coo 17. `L7'•"v� 11' a ''u.k, a , _ ' Com. (110 • as L .5s742. ' • L NJ/ ef`-1 'F /" atit. Ow)w) a M ;'4 Gluier ►''ea) QCs • ifDWS • SettieFfri. TERM LIMITS. Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, no person may file to be a candidate for election to a term that would cause the person to serve more than eight total years in the office of Mayor or eight total years in the office of Cit Coun Service after Januar, 1, 1990 shall cou in determinin otal length of s ice. • Sect on 2. INST .CTION. The city c -r' 's hereby instructed to c• tac , exactly as he wo d do if so i' structed by ' res,,lution of the Ma •r or 'ty Council, in writin;•, within 30 days of -r adoption of is ordinanc-, all s i te legislators a d mem.-rs of the United St tes Cong ess who •ve an cos stituents wi hin the ity limits and nstruct th-m that it is there elute desi e of the c'tizens it the ci , of Mound, View t iat term limit be enactes by the legislature of Minnesota and t e Unite.' S •tes Congress, and th t the maxim m life-time tenure in office le no more than six ,ears (th -e te ms) in the nited St tes House or epresenta ives, no more than twelve , ears (two terms) i the United States '.enate, a d no more t an ten total years in either t e Minnesota State 'enate or '.tate ouse. The p• ople of he city of M.unds View hereby instruct all state a . federal ,egislator', re presenting a y part • this city, to individuall do their utmo•.t to promo,e and pass binding egisla- t•.n or a constitutional amendmen enacting the term limits sp-cified in t s sectio . The ins ction a d resolutio shall re ain in effe t and be rep ated annuall , for as man, years .. are requi -d to e,fect these c, anges, .nd shall so state on its fa e. Se•tion 3. VERA s ILITY If any part of t .'s petitio shall be declare. unc'anstitutional by a cou all o ers shall -main 'n full force and e fect. r V - a co,0)'• JUL 1994 /), • Received t< �, Y of w� , �, Mounds view41. ti H,ottset Ressuch Cepar=ent Novernter 1993 Term Limits far Eaccive Ott= PIP 3 Depending on the office, term limits could become law . in Mhinesota by.constitutional amendment or statute. •• 1 • • The method for adopting term limits in 3/finnesota depends on which elective offices are -- • being covered. or consilimi@tally =rated offices's terra limits would require passage of a ----- constitutional amendment; Fit elective offices in local government units, the legislature may set term limits in statute. Far federal elective offices there is a strong argument that a state cannot impose team limits.: The issue remains open pending litigation in other states that have - -•, adopted term limits for niaMbets of Congress. A constitutional amendment is =Tilted to adopt term limits for constitudonal offices because the state constitution sets the standards of eligibility to hold office and the particular qualiricaticais for individual constitutional offices. Article Yu, section 6, of the Minnesota __Constitution allows every-eligible.voter. 21.or-more years old, residing in the relevant district • for 30 days prior to the eledtion;to seek office.":1118-aitions to the eligibility 1nrguage are those 'otherwise proviciestin,thieicil the conation and law of the United Slums." By the terms of this exp=klanguage only a state constitutional amendment could change the eligibility requirermmts for seeking an office created by the Consdtution.7 . •- Local. government offices, in comrast, can be subject trrstatutary terra limits. The Winnesota'h •-rA . Constitution eStressly authorizes the legislature to provide by law for the =canon of local gOVer111==lt units and. the qttaifficetions for local elective offices! . - . • . • - ; • . . - •- • • • r...lcut=ast C-o-m-scr. S . yof Stscs. Ary CA-x=1i. Trwsurt-r. prtnve. Senator, ' cfcc v. Pzviak, i N.W.2:.4. 343 ( inn. PROPOSALS TO GO TO VOTERS Section 4 . 02, Subdivision 2 Term Limits . No elected City officer holder will be allowed to serve more than eight consecutive years in the same. office. Section 5 . 04, Subdivision 2 Proposed Language for Burden of Proof on Petitioners Using Initiative. If the City Council determines on its own motion that a sufficient and regular petition is determined to be illegal under case law, legal precedence, or constitutional nonconformity, thereby refusing to submit an initiative to the voters as provided in this Charter, a court order or injunction permitting the City Council authority to refuse such election must be produced by the Council within 15 days of the. date of determination of sufficiency. If the Council has not acted according to this subdivision within the above 15 days period, the sponsoring committee may appeal to the Charter Commission and the Charter Commission may provide for said election to be paid by the City. The Clerk-Administrator shall provide for said election upon the order of a majority vote of the Charter Commission. Section 4 . 03 Primary Elections . On a Tuesday at least' four weeks in advance of the regular municipal election as determined by the Council, such as concurrent with a statewide primary, there shall be a primary election for the selection of two nominee's for each office to be filled at the municipal election, unless no more than four times the number of candidates to be elected file for any elective office . No primary shall be required in the event a special election is required regardless of the number of candidates filing for office. cDTV OF . , 1111106c • JEW Phone: (612) 784-3055 J C U�/ Fax: (612) 784-3462 "Quite Simply the Best" September 1, 1994 Dear Steve; Faxed to you this afternoon is the following information: 1. Resolution of Insufficiency regarding the Initiative Petition for term limits. 2 . The Initiative Petition presented to the City of Mounds View 3 . Greg Herrick's legal opinion to the Charter Commission regarding term limits, and 4. The 1981 Attorney General's opinion regarding term limits. I will update you next week on what I learn from the other "Big Five (or six, or seven, or ) communities. Have a safe and happy Holiday weekend! - es Personal Regards, . - ) Samantha N l 6 PRINTED WITH Tcia SOYINKr. 2401 Highway 10• Mounds View, MN 55112-1499 D4 ) recycled paper 1 iIr.+oet—,S'.J1 Xtilt kiVU1Vtall. liOrr•JI1J.EJtS.ci'AVIV Report Number: 9L�_t9SG If STAFF REPORT Report Date: 7-21-9' 'T' Council Action: 0 Special Order of Business CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE July 25, 1994 0 Public Hearings ❑ Consent Agenda t Council Business Item Description: Consideration of Resolution No. 4607 Declaring Insufficient the Initiative Petition Proposing an Ordinance to Limit the Number of Total Terms for Which a Person co>>>d file for th,. Office of Yeyor or City Cou*wil Administrator's Review/Recommendation: - No comments to supplement this report - Comments attached. Explanation/Summary (attach supplement sheets as necessary.) TTMMARY; On Friday, July 15 , 1994 an individual gave Tim Cruikshank the attached Initiative Petition. Nothing was said to Tim other than the individual, who did not name himself, wanted the date stamped on the Petition. In processing this Petition, the procedures outlined in the City Charter have been followed. It is unclear exactly what the intent of the Petition is in that the language which proposes the Ordinance addresses only the term limits of Mayor and City Council, yet the body of the proposed Ordinance goes on to address the terms limits of all elected officials. Also, the Petition does not follow the Initiative Petition -guidelines set forth in the City Charter in that it does not contain the signatures of at least 15% of the total number of electors who' cast their votes for President at the last Presidential election nor does the Petition include the required verification oath of the circulator. Based on the lack of required signatures and missing circulator oath of verification, the Petition is "Insufficient" under Chapter 5, Sections 5 . 02 and 5 . 03 of the City Charter. The subject of the Petition is alsd one that is not within the jurisdiction of local government authority. This issue is currently under discussion by the Charter Commission. They commissioned an independent attorney' s opinion on the State Attorney General' s Opinion which stated that term limits do not fall within the jurisdiction of a local unit of government. A copy of the Charter Commission' s attorney is attached. The attached Resolution of Insufficiency has been prepared for your consideration. - ,_,:F,.....) (c,,,...,L.,,,,,_ Bama ,tha Crduno, City Admini trator z • ,ol 11 _ • ► RESOLUTION NO. 4607 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW STATE ON MINNESOTA COUNTY OF RAMSEY DECLARING INSUFFICIENT THE INITIATIVE PETITION PROPOSING AN ORDINANCE TO LIMIT THE NUMBER OF TOTAL TERMS FOR WHICH A PERSON COULD FILE FOR THE OFFICE OF MAYOR OR CITY COUNCIL. WHEREAS , an Initiative Petition, sponsored by eight registered voters of the City, proposing an ordinance to limit the number of total terms for which & person could file for the office of Mayor or City Council has been filed in the Office of the Clerk-Administrator; and WHEREAS, the City Charter requires the Clerk-Administrator to examine the Petition as to its sufficiency and report to the Council within 10 days ; and WHEREAS , the Council , by Resolution-, will determine the sufficiency of the Petition; and WHEREAS , the City Charter, Chapter 5 , Sections 5 . 02 and 5 . 03 set forth the general provisions for petitions; and WHEREAS, the attached Petition does not meet the provisions of the City Charter, Chapter 5 , Sections 5 . 02 and 5 . 03 . THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council in and for the City of Mounds View does hereby declare Insufficient the attached Initiative Petition for a proposed ordinance to limit the number of total terms for which a person could file for the office of Mayor or City Council . BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the City Council does hereby direct the Clerk-Administrator to deliver to the Sponsoring Committee, via first class mail, this resolution, a copy of the Petition and a written statement of the Initiative' s defects, as required by City Charter, Chapter _5 , Section 5 . 04 . Attest : Mayor (Seal) City Administrator INITIATIVE PETITION Proposing an ordinance to limit the number of total terms for which a person could file for the office of Mayor or City Council, a copy of which Ordinance is hereto attached. This Ordinance is spon- sored by the following committee of registered electors: NAME ADDRESS 1. G o- f L18 - '9 Q ?i/a5 Sa.CI Tl1 leen.� /.��u4v s ,� ,)/sh 2- 2. :s r K e ri 9e, / 10 5" st LC c»cQ ,y - ►�►c vck G'few- s5 P12. 3. /c.� a . trf� bAJ b 5 Gro cre.Awl4--)0L .� /6 C NC/ aesC 557/Z 4. /')i t Do n(a1 it e. � S}s L L on£ i nnajad5 �ei �7 5"112) �� // 5. C., .11. �,. � .6,?!' uN . . . � .� � . . SSI%.Z, �4•' (1.\/ }f, 13 mho•-ce r 55732- 57" 5 -e•-:€1,6rem t—' fl1otorc5 5502 �'1�Jfihv:� DeNr-\nu.e_. 81$11 q. iho -ccRt)C MO S Ule.L ��j1,�2 Q,,,,Ao� VYV.� 1JG[c1.: (�t�� �l�.rJN( OIoP g allow S UietAt ���1•� Section 1. TERM LIMITS. Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, no person may file to be a candidate for election to a term that would cause the person to serve more than eight total years in the office of Mayor or eight total years in the office of City Council. Service after January 1, 1990 shall count in determining total length of service. Section 2. INSTRUCTION. The city clerk is hereby instructed to contact, exactly as he would do if so instructed by a resolution of the Mayor or City Council, in writing, within 30 days after adoption of this ordinance, all state legislators and members of the United States Congress who have any constituents within the city limits and instruct them that it is the resolute desire of the citizens of the city of Mounds View that term limits be enacted by the legislature of Minnesota and the United States Congress, and that the maximum life-time tenure in office be no more than six years (three terms) in the United States House or Representatives, no more than twelve years (two terms) in the United States Senate, and no more than ten total years in either the Minnesota State Senate or State House. The people of the city of Mounds View hereby instruct all state and federal legislators, representing any part of this city, to individually do their utmost to promote and pass binding legisla- tion or a constitutional amendment enacting the term limits specified in this section. The instruction and resolution shall remain in effect and be repeated annually, for as many years as are required to effect these changes, and shall so state on its face. Section 3. SEVERABILITY. If any part of this petition shall be declared unntitutional by a court, all others shall remain in full force and effect. .3 la JUL 1994 ReCe1Ved Aro.. of n w - op CITIES: CHARTERS: OFFICERS: City charter may not mi he consecutive terms that a person may serve as a city o ficer . Minn. Const. Art. VII , Sec . 6 and Art. XII , Sec . 3; Minn. Stat. S 410. 07 . April 14, 1981 59a-29 (Cr . Ref. 64 ) Mr . Clayton L. LeFevere LeFevere , LeFler , Pearson, O'Brien & Drawz 1100 First National Bank Building Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 Dear Mr . LeFevere: In your letter to Attorney General Warren Spannaus , you present substantially the following FACTS The Charter Commission has under consideration a proposed charter amendment which would limit the number of consecutive terms that a person could serve as a member of the city council or as mayor , or both. A copy of the proposed charter amendment ordinance now under conoider.ation is enclosed . Before the Charter Commission proceeds to recommend the charter amendment to the city council , your opinion on '-.' ::; constitutionality of the limitation on consecutive terms is desired . In particular, the Commission is concerned about whether the limitation would transgress Article VII , Section 6 of the Minnesota constitution. You then ask substantially the following • QUESTION May a city charter impose a limitation upon the number of consecutive terms that a person may serve as an elected member of the city' s governing body? Clayton L. LeFevere - 2 April 14 , 1981 OPINION We answer your question in the neg"ative. Minnesota Constitution, Art. VII , Sec . 6, provides: Every person who by the provisions of this article is entitled to vote at any election and is 21 years of age is eligible for any office elective by the people in the district wherein he has resided 30 • • days previous to the election, except as otherwise provided in this constitution, or the constitution and law of the United States . By this provision, the Constitution guarantees the right of qualified voters to vote and defines eligibility to office. The legislature cannot change or add to the constitutional qualifications for public office. State ex rel . Nordin v. Erickson, 119 Minn. 152, 137 N.W. 385 (1912) . Article VII , Section 6 , applies to both constitutional and statutory offices . Hoffman v. Downs, 145 Minn. 465, 177 N.W. 699 (1920 ) . The provision applies to municipal offices under a city charter . State ex rel . Childs v. Holman, 58 Minn. 219, 59 N.W. 1006 (1894) ; Op. Atty. Gen. 64 , Feb . 10 , 1956 . As discussed recently in Paviak v . Growe, 284 N.W.2d 174, 176 (Minn. 1979) : • This constitutional provision forcefully presents an • important democractic principle--that all citizens meeting minimal , unchanging requirements are eligible for the elective positions that control their government . The opinions of this court applying Article VII, Section 6 , have consistently held that, as a guarantee of universal eligibility for public office , its standard may not be made more restrictive by legislative action unless expressly authorized by another constitutional provision . nr . Clayton L. Le evere - 3 April 14, 1981 It is suggested that Article XII , Section 3 , of the Minnesota Constitution is another constitutional provision, allowing a more restrictive standard . It provides in part: The legislature may provide by law for the creation , organization , administration, consolidation, division and dissolution of local government units and their functions , for the change of boundaries thereof, for their elective and appointive officers including. qualification for office and the the transfer of county seats . ( Emphasis added . ) Whine the legislature may provide for the setting of qualifications for elective. office in local government units, it has not done so. "The general rule is that, in matters of municipal concern, home rule cities have all the legislative power possessed by the legislature of the state , save as such power is expressly or impliedly withheld ." State ex rel . Town of Lowell v. City of Crookston, 252 Minn. 526 , 528, 91 N.W. 2d 81, 83 ( 1958) . In Minn. Stat . S 410 . 07 , a home rule charter may provide for any scheme of municipal government not inconsistent ,wth the constitution, and may provide for the establishment and administration of . 411 departments of a city government, and for the regulation of all local municipal functions , as fully as the legislature might have done before home rule charters for cities were authorized by constitutional amendment in 1896. . . . It may prescribe .methods of procedure in respect to the operation of the government thereby created, and the duties thereunder of all courts and officers of the district and county in which the city is situated . . Mr . Clayton L. LeFevere - 4 April 14 , The legislature was not able to set qualifications for local government officers prior to the constitutional amendment in 1396 authorizing home rule charters . In 1394 the Minnesota Supreme Court held that the legislature did not have the power to add qualifications to eligibility for an. elective office beyond those specified in, what is currently, Article VII, Section 6 , of the Minnesota Constitution . State ex rel . Childs v. Holman, 58 Minn. 219, 226, 59 N.W. 1006 (1894) . The clause in Article XII , Section 3, which allows the legislature to set qualifications for local government officers was adopted in 1958. Proclamation of Governor Orville L. Freeman ( November 20, 1958) , 1959 Minn. Session Laws 16,-18. Therefore Minn. Stat. § 410. 07 does not authorize local governments to set qualifications for elected officers . While the legislature has delegated much of its authority originally granted in Article XII , Section 3 , nowhere in section 410.07 did it delegate its authority to set qualifications for elective office . The "scheme of municipal government" clause derives from the first portion of Article XII , Section 3 . The prescription of "duties" is plainly distinguishable from a prescription of qualifications for office . Indeed , any additional qualifications for elective office would be contrary to the general . principle of universal eligibility and thus was wisely left within the power of the legislature alone . " Novel municipal legislation ilr . Clayton L. LeFevere - 5 April 14 , which seriously threatens the values embodied in the constitutiona :. restrictions should be invalidated ." Sandalow, The Limits of Municioal Power Under Home Rule : A Role for the Courts , 48 Minn. L. Rev. 643, 719 (1964 ) . Inasmuch as our courts have strongly supported universal eligibility for elective office and the legislature has withheld delegation of power to set qualifications for local office, we strongly doubt that the proposed charter amendment may constitutionally limit the number of consecutive terms a person may serve as a member of the city council or as mayor , or both. The purpose behind a limitation on the number of terms may be to avoid entrenchment in office , corruption, and the possibilities of improper use of an office to sustain tenure . A similar purpose w-•, rejected in Pavlak , when a statute . was involved . The court said , " [ i] n a democracy, and particularly in a jurisdiction with -a constitution provision akin to Article VII , Section 6, it is for tile people, not a particular legislature , to decide- if a (candidate] should be returned to the office . " . Pavlak v. Grower 284 N.W. 2d at 178. • States that do permit limitations on reelection do not have Minnesota' s constitutional guarantee of universal eligibility or have specific constitutional provisions authorizing such limitations . See 59 A. L. R. 2d 718. While the issue of limitations- _.___ Mr . Clayton L. LeFevere - 6 April 14, 1981 on consecutive terms has not been addressed in Minnesota, it is our view that a charter provision such as that proposed would not be valid . Very truly yours, WzRREN SPANNACS Attorney General State of Minnesota KENNETH E. RASCHKE, JR. Assistant Attorney General WS:KER:dml 5 • • MUINIMOMME 10111 id I 3490 Lexington Avenue North League of Minnesota Cities St. Paul, MN 55126-8044 August 19, 1994 Ms. Julie Trude Councilmember City of Mounds View 2401 Highway 10 Mounds View, MN 55112-1499 Dear Ms. Trude: I am writing in response to your request for an informal review of the proposed new charter that the City of Mounds View is considering adopting. It is my understanding that the City has retained Greg Herrick of the Barna-Guzy law firm to provide a formal legal review, but you wanted the League's input as much of the charter is based on our model. In addition, you had a few specific questions that you wanted addressed. I have read everything that you sent to me and I hope that the following provides the information for which you are looking. First, from a general perspective, the proposed charter looks good. I did not spot any provision that should create any significant legal problems. While a legal challenge is always a possibility, the risk of such a challenge to any of the proposed charter provisions seems low and the risk of the city not prevailing in such a case seems even less likely. There are, however, a few provisions the city may wish to consider fine tuning. These sections are as follows: Section Potential Problem/Suggestion 1. 01 Fails to address boundary changes stemming from annexations, detachments, etc. Current charter's language in regard to name, location, and boundaries is more comprehensive. 2 . 03 Literal interpretation of the "and/or" provision for term of office creates a conflict with the vacancy provisions as it literally reads that a successor must be elected not appointed as would occur in a vacancy. Provision could simply provide that term would continue until successor qualifies for office. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER (612)490-5600 1-800-925-1122 plus your city code TDD(612)490-9038 Fax1612)4904)07. 2 . 05 Sub-part 7 could potentially be challenged as not being sufficient to reach a level of malfeasance or nonfeasance. City should have a strong argument that failure to perform duties without a sufficient reason for a period of three months is nonfeasance. 3 . 05 Has city considered allowing dispensing of two week delay on passage of ordinance if council votes to do so even in a non-emergency when efficiency, etc. might be better served? 3 . 07 Requires both full text and a summary to be published. This could prove very costly and impractical for lengthy ordinances such as zoning issues. City should consider authorizing summary-only publications similar to those described in M.S. 331A. 01. 4 . 05 Procedure can get very confusing to follow as subdivisions 4 and 5 are not totally consistent. If subdivision 5 is to be followed, subdivision,4 should specify ". . . except as provided in subdivision 5. . . . " In addition, these two provisions could probably be re-worded and combined into one easier to follow subdivision. 5. 03 Would be easier to prove numbers if it just required a set percentage of the voters voting in the last regular city election as opposed to requiring a percentage of Presidential votes. 5 . 08 Should also provide for recall in case of nonfeasance. 6. 03-6. 04 Has city considered granting authority. to allow counsel to combine the clerk and treasurer positions by ordinance should this become desirable? 7. 07 Very strict requirements. How about emergencies, etc.? 10. 01 Typo. The first "by" should be "be". I will now turn to the specific questions that you asked. First, it does not appear to be a legal requirement that an election be held before a utility is sold. Under an old law, M.S. 457. 13 , an election was apparently required before the sale of a water or electric utility, but this statute was repealed by the legislature. I discussed this matter with Stan Peskar, the League's general counsel who has worked with a number of home rule charters, and he agreed that it no longer appears to be a legal requirement to hold an election before the sale of an utility. He did state, however, that most charter cities have retained provisions similar to Mounds View's section 11. 04 for political reasons. The sale of a utility is a major step for a city to take and one that is hard to undo. Thus, to keep any one faction from having the power to bind a city to the sale of a utility, most charter cities require the approval of the general public. It should be noted that absent a formal requirement, the issue of the sale of a utility would still be subject to the initiative and referendum provisions of the charter. Second, the process the proposed charter outlines for determining the sufficiency of a petition appears to be the most common approach and one -that should minimize any legal problems. The clerk conducts the initial review and submits his or her findings to the council who must make the actual determination. As the council would have to act on any sufficient petition, they should be the ones who make the formal decision as to the petition's sufficiency. Of course, the person(s) who filed the petition could seek a court order on the issue, but the initial determination needs to be made first. The council should consult with the city attorney whenever it has a question about a petition's sufficiency. Having the council attempt to gain judicial review on each petition would prove costly and there is the possibility that the court would refuse to act on the matter. Third, you inquired as to whether the charter could provide for a higher filing fee for elected offices than what is provided for in the statutes. In the case of non-city offices, the answer appears to be no as the funds collected go to the county and state and filing fees do not fit within the areas of an election that M.S. 410. 021 authorizes charters to regulate over the provisions of state law. When it comes to local office filing fees, however, the statutes specifically authorize charter cities to set their own rates. M.S. 205 . 13 , subd. 3 , states that the fees of that statute shall be charged unless the charter of the city provides for the fee in that city. Finally, the general provisions of chapters l and 12 are fine as they currently exist, although the comments outlined above still apply. In addition, the city might want to consider adopting a provision stating that the city will follow the procedures outlined for statutory cities whenever the charter proves to be silent on an issue. The authority to do this was specifically granted during the past legislative session. Not all charter cities desire to take this approach, however. Such a provision would coincide with section 12 . 08 . I hope that this information adequately addresses your concerns. I am enclosing some statutory provisions that might be of some interest to you. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me again. As we discussed, however, I will be out of the office until September 7 . Sincerely, - _ (123 Kent Sulem Codification Attorney Enc: • 1994 REGULAR SESSION Ch. 446, § 1 by the affidavit required by section 327.64 if notice is mailed to the debtor. The notices required by section 327.64 shall not be considered as satisfying any of the notice requirements under chapter 565. Presented to the governor April 12, 1994. Approved April 15, 1994. CORONERS—EDUCATIONAL REQUIREMENTS—EXEMPTIONS • • . CHAPTER 445 • S.F. No. 2672 • , AN ACT relating to coroners; providing for exemption from educational requirements in certain circumstances; amending Minnesota Statutes 1992,section 390.005,subdivision 3. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF' THE STATE OF MINNESOTA • Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 1992, section 390.005, subdivision-3, is.amended to read: Subd. 3. EDUCATIONAL REQUIREMENTS. A coroner must have successfully com- pleted academic courses in pharmacology, surgery, pathology; toxicology, and physiology. • ; However, if a board of county commissioners determines that the-office of coroner shall not be elective and it cannot appoint any person meeting the educational qualifications as corener, the board mar. - (1) appoint any qualified person, whether or not a resident_of the. county or not; or (2) if no qualified person can be found, appoint a person who iiservitsi or his. served as deputy coroner,whether or not a resident of the county. Sec. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. • Section 1 is effective the day following final enactment. Presented to the governor April 12, 1994. Approved April 15, 1994. ' CITIES—HOME RULE CHARTER—LAWS APPLICABLE,,, CHAPTER 446 - . . . . , S.F. No. 2070• - - AN ACT relating to cities; allowing home rule charter cities to apply law applicable to statutory cities in instances in which the charter is silent,with certain restrictions; proposing coding for new law in Minnesota Statutes,chapter 411 - - • • - -- - , • - -• - - -- - - - • BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATEOF MINNESOTA: _ Section L 410.33 SAVINGS CLAUSE. • If a city charter is silent on a matter that is addressed for statutory cities byelianter 412 or other general law and general law does not prohibit a city charter from addressing the matter - .1" or expressly provide that a city charter prevails over general law•on the matter,then the city may apply the general law on the matter Presented to the governor April 12, 1994. , F • . Approved April 15, 1994. Addition are Indicated by underline; deletion by Wagon 191 • • 1 . NEWSPAPERS 331A.02 . 1 699 whether or not a regular basis to gatherhenews and of the newspaper are conducted aell advertisements and tor,from the office, printing or any other operations and devoted primarily to business related to the newspaper. .s • 3 (.' Subd. 10. "Summary" means an accurate and intelligible abstract or synopsis of _, • the essential elements of proceedings, ordinances, resolutions, and other official ,, actions.It shall be written in a clear and coherent manner,and shall,to extent xt nt When i ble,avoid the use of technical or legal terms not generally familiar the • a summary is published,the publication shall clearly indicate that the published mate- z � rial is only a summary and that the full text is available forhpublic1ctio inspection at deemed s If noted location.A summary published in conformity 3 _ to fulfill all legal publication requirements as completely as if the entire merre which was summarized had been published. No liability shall be asserted against ;.• public corporation in connection with the publication of a summary or agenda. • t:' History: 1984 c 543 s 20: 1986 c 444 REQUIREMENTS FOR A QUALIFIED NEWSPAPER. - 331A.02 REQUIRE . _ Subdivision 1. Qualification. No newspaper notice unless tis qualified as a medium y compensation or fee for publishing any P of official and legal publication.A newspaper that is of is t not qualified-ed must To infobe qualified - body that presents a public notice for publication ' as a medium of official and legal publication, a newspaper shall: (a) be printed in the English language in newspaper format and in column and sheet form equivalent in printed space to at least 1,000 square inches; distrib- (b) if a daily,be distributed at least five days each week,or i not k in whichy,beo legal boli- ;, tiled at least once each week,for 50 weeks each year.In any day is included, not more than four issues of a daily paper are necessary;rcent of its , (c) in at least half of its issues each year, have no more than 75 pe printed space comprised of advertisingmm an often than weekly,or 50 percent,paid public notices. In all of t . issues each year,have 25 percent,if publishedwhich 1' if weekly,of its news columns devoted to news of local interest to the cotiimunity . it purports to serve.Not more than 25 percent of its total nonadvertising column inches , in any issue may wholly duplicate any other publication unless the duplicated material • is from recognized general news services; . (d) be circulated in the local public corporation which itt purports to serve, and arl delivered to paying subscribers,or have at least either have at least 500 copies regal y 500 copies regularly distributed without charge to local residents; which lies, in r' (e) have its known office of issue established in either the county in •3 whole or in part,the local public corporation which the newspaper puiports to serve, or in an adjoining county; (f) file a copy of each issue immediately with the state historical society;' ;1: (g) be made available at single or subscription prices to any person,corporation, associationrated and malting ; partnership,or other unincob odistributed without requestingo local residents; . the applicable payment, or (h) have complied with all the foregoing conditions of this subdivision for at least d one year immediately preceding the date of the notice publication; lish a�ad submit to the (i) between September 1 and December 31 of each year p •• secretary of state,along with a filing fee of$25,a sworn United States Post Office sec- • • ond-class statement of ownership and icirculation or a statement tilting agency covering a culation verified by a recognized independentthe filing period of not less than one year ending no earlier than the June 30'preceding deadline,provided that a filing published and submitted after December 31 and before July 1 shall be effective from the date of filing through December 31 of that year.The secretary of state shall make the list of newspapers whose filings have been accepted ; � available for public inspection.The acceptance of a filing does notconstitute a guaran- i i ; E tee by the state that any other qualification requirement has been met. # is- - 1029 MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS 205.13 205.11 MS 1957 [Repealed, 1959 c 675 art 13 s 1] 205.11 MS 1982 [Repealed, 1983 c 62 s 12] 205.12 MS 1957 [Repealed, 1959 c 675 art 13 s 1] 205.12 MS 1974 [Repealed, 1976 c 44 s 70] 205.121 NOMINATING PE iii IONS;CITIES OF FIRST CLASS;SIGNATURES. A nominating petition filed on behalf of a candidate for municipal office in a city of the first class shall be signed by eligible voters who maintain residence in the election district from which the candidate is to be elected. The number of signers shall equal 500, or two percent of the total number of individuals who voted in the municipality, ward,or other election district at the last preceding municipal general election,which- ever is greater. History: 1981 c 29 art 7 s 9 .): �t- a, 205.13 MS 1957 [Repealed, 1959 c 675 art 13 s 1] ;, 205.13 CANDIDATES, FILING• � ',. Subdivision 1. Affidavit of candidacy.Not more than (1) eight nor less than six weeks in the case of a town, or (2) not more than ten nor less than eight weeks, in the case of a city, _ ,v I:. ::..::..;itti before the municipal primary, or before the municipal general election if there is no �municipal primary,an individual who is eligible and desires to become a candidate for .,ian office to be voted for at the election shall file an affidavit of candidacy with theImunicipal clerk.The affidavit shall be in substantially the same form as that in section 204B.06,subdivision 1.The municipal clerk shall also accept an application signed by S not less than five voters and filed on behalf of an eligible voter in the municipality u ' whom they desire to be a candidate, if service of a copy of the application has been 4; ] made on the candidate and proof of service is endorsed on the application being filed. • 3 Upon receipt'of the proper filing fee, the clerk shall place the name of the candidate 1..;.1.(..,:. • '); on the official ballot without partisan designation.The filing dates contained in this sub- . division do not apply to any home rule charter city whose charter provides for earlier filing dates. ;. {` Subd. 2.Notice of filing dates.At least two weeks before the first day to file affida- , of the municipal clerk shall publish a notice stating the first and last wits candidacy, itt"` dates on which affidavits of candidacy may be filed in the clerk's office and the closing , time for filing on the last day for filing.The clerk shall post a similar notice at least ten { 1., • days before the first day to file affidavits of candidacy. • Subd. 3.Filing fees.Unless the charter of a city provides the amount of the fee for f`:' `I filing an application or affidavit of candidacy for city office,the filing fee for a municipal ,, office is as follows: Pf t (a) In first class cities, $20; y- ' a;,._ -3 (b) In second and third class cities, $5; and 4 (c) In fourth class cities and towns, $2. • r:;.. " ' Subd. 4. Petition in place of fees.A candidate for municipal office may file a peri- , �.:6," tion in place of the filing fees specified in subdivision 3. The petition shall meet the ; t: , = • requirements of section 204B.i i, subdivision 2. petition filed i._ • Subd. 5. Nominating petition,citiesnatng of the first class.A nomii`: ' _ on behalf of a candidate for municipal office in a city of the first class shall be signed ; - `":``'7 by eligible voters who reside in the election district from which the candidate is to be ;. . � .. ::., •,: ; elected.The number of signers shall be at least 500,or two percent of the total number • ' f-E:_ of individuals who voted in the municipality,ward,or other election district at the last '. ;;;. preceding municipal general election, whichever is greater. „_ "'ss;k - -. Subd. 6. Withdrawal. A candidate for a municipal elective office may withdraw s , • '•,;•+:-•-• , from the election by filing an affidavit of withdrawal with the municipal clerk by 12 .i J.. 453 CLASSIFICATION;CHATZ'I'E$$41030 ` , • ity, and duties in any such city shall be distributed into and among departments and may provide that the council may determine the powers and duties to be performed by and assign them to the appropriate department and determine who shall be the head of each department and prescribe the powers and duties of all officers and employees thereof, and may assign particular officers or employees to perform duties in two or more departments,and make such other rules and regulations as may be necessary or . proper for the efficient and economical conduct of the business of the city. History: (1292) 1909 c 170 s 3; 1959 c 305 s 5 } 410.19 POWERS OF MAYOR AND COUNCIL. The charter commission may incorporate in such charter provisions defining the powers and duties of the mayor and each member of the.council,and may provide that each member of the council shall perform such administrative duties as may be desig- nated in such charter. History: (1293) 1909 c 170 s 4; 1959 c 305 s 5 410.20 RECALL AND REMOVAL OF OFFICERS; ORDINANCES. - ' Such commission may also provide for the recall of any elective municipal officer and for removal of the officer by vote of the electors of such city,and may also provide , for submitting ordinances to the council by petition of the electors of such city and for the repeal of ordinances in like manner;and may also provide that no ordinance passed by the council, except an emergency ordinance, shall take effect within a certain time after its passage,and that if,during such time,a petition be made by a certain percent- age of the electors of the city protestingagainstor : nance until the :. li same be voted on at an election held for such purpose,and then such ordinance to take effect or not as determined by such vote. f:.r '. History: (1294) 1909 c 170 s 5; 1959 c 305 s 5;1986 c 444. • . i. 410.21 APPLICATION OF GENERAL F.J.ECTION LAWS. The provisions of any charter of any such city adopted pursuant to this chapter .4,f shall be valid and shall control as to nominations, primary elections,and elections for municipal offices, notwithstanding that such charter provisions may be inconsistent �' ! with any general law relating thereto,.and such general laws shall apply only in so far t ' as consistent with such charter. '!• History:(1295) 1909 c 170 s 6 it .1 410.22 [Repealed, 1973 c 503 s 6] :';:iiii 410.23 [Repealed, 1959 c 305 s 6] I' 1 410.24 NEW OR REVISED CHARTER. . t r ?. Any city having a home rule charter may submit and adopt a new or revised charter in the manner provided by law for the original adoption of such home rule charter. 1:; i History: (1298) 1909 c 136 s 2; 1961 c 608 s 8 410.25 [Repealed, 1959 c 305 s 6] 410.26 [Repealed, 1961 c 608 s 10] 410.27 [Repealed, 1973 c 503 s 6] ; p a. 410.30 ABANDONMENT OF HOME RULE CHARTERS BY CITIES;ASSUMP- p TION OF STATUTORY CITY STATUS. i' Any city of any class having,a home rule charter may abandon such charter and become a statutory city.A proposal to abandon the charter shall be presented,adopted, F and become effective in the same manner as a charter amendment, and all statutory provisions relating to home rule charter amendments shall apply to a proposal to aban- - • • f CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM TO: Councilmembers & Mayor, Samantha Orduno� J FM: Julie Trude DATE: Dec. 8, 19 4 RE: Charter Commission Meeting on Dec. 6, 1994 As Secretary of the Charter Commission I wished to share more specific notes with you than the simple Minutes of this meeting (which are not prepared yet). I think it might be prudent for the entire Council to be at any future special meeting called by Duane. Samantha would need to post notice for the Council. Duane McCarty & Ruth White called a Special Meeting of the Charter Commission pursuant to by-laws. Eleven members attended. (Absent: Laurie Schley, Len Burgers, Bob Toborg, Arlene Werdien; basically 1 pro-term limit person of those absent). Duane had invited Christopher J. Dietzen, Attorney at Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd. in Bloomington. Mr. Dietzen introduced himself as the lawyer representing the Minneapolis Coalition for Term Limits; the group which brought the lawsuit against the City of Minneapolis. Mr. Dietzen stated that he had prepared the brief for the Term Limit group that will be considered by the Minn. Supreme Court in the near future. Mr. Dietzen stated that when Mounds View's lawyer Jim Thompson told the council in his letter of 9/7 that the Charter Comm.'s ballot proposal on term limits "is not manifestly unconstitutional," and directed the Council to put the item on the ballot--that was the only "legal issue" for the Council. Now that the election is over the City Clerk has a duty to file the amendment (on term limits) with the County Recorder as directed in Minn. Stat. 410.11. Dietzen stated that the amendment became effective as a matter of law 30 days after the election. However, he stated "filings are required to become effective against elected officials regarding their own terms." "To be binding on councilmembers in the future the amendment must be filed." Further, state law says the City Clerk "shall file," so no discretion is allowed. Dietzen continued: If the amendment is not filed, an aggrieved citizen or the Charter Commission could go to court and obtain a writ of mandamus ordering the -2- City Clerk to do their duty. This lawsuit would be based on Minn. Stat. 410.11. Further, Dietzen claimed that under federal statute, 42 U.S. Code Sec. 1983, the city is exposed to paying the legal fees of the prevailing side. I asked him what constitutional right he would allege is violated and would then expose the city to paying these legal fees. Dietzen stated, "free speech, freedom of association, deprivation of due process." [Sue says there is a comparable state law which was amended last session and is quite onerous. We don't want to remind them but we need to have Thompson advise us on this.] I asked Dietzen if the City wouldn't then be entitled to seek a stay of execution pending the outcome of the Minn. Supreme Court ruling as is often done when Congress passes a law which is challenged as unconstitutional. He agreed that could happen. Dietzen concluded that the Council's opportunity to raise a constitutional issue on the term limits amendment was gone once it was decided that it should go on the ballot. Mr. Dietzen noted that the briefs before the Minn. Supreme Court on the term limits case are due at the end of December. He expected a ruling in 6 months. (There is only a certified question to the Minn. Supreme Court asking them to rule on the constitutionality of term limits under the Minn. Constitution; then the lawsuit in federal court will be concluded.) Dietzen mentioned that the U. S. Supreme Court also is going to be ruling on a federal term limits statute and that perhaps the Minn. Supreme Court would defer their own ruling until that ruling comes down before their term concludes in June. [Personally, I think the Minn. Supreme Court will rule on what the Minn. Constitution intends regarding local term limits without regard to the federal ruling. The federal ruling could later impact what our state constitution may or may not do but we still will need our own state court to decide what is meant by the Minn. constitution.] Sue Hankner chaired this meeting. Sue had to inform Mr. Dietzen that the term limit amendment was not presented to the City Council by petitioners in this city but came directly from the Charter Commission. Dietzen acknowledged he was not fully aware of the facts of our specific case. Sue commented to Dietzen that the Minn. Statute directs the clerk to file but does not direct a time frame. She asked Dietzen what the time frame was. Dietzen -3- agreed that the law did not state a time. He argued that since the amendment goes into effect 30 days after the election, that is the period in which the clerk shall file the amendment with the county recorder. In addition he added that elections are certified in 7 days so the appropriate time would be sometime soon after and before the amendment becomes law. [Sue, you made two critical points--this lawyer doesn't know the facts of our case and he's not sure about what the law means! Great job!] Jerry Linke asked Dietzen if he had read Jim Thompson's two letters to the Council on the ballot question and the issue of the clerk filing the amendment. Dietzen responded that he had only glanced at the letters. Jerry then stated that Mr. Thompson's opinion was that the City Council not direct the clerk to file the amendment until the issue is resolved by the Minn. Supreme Court. If term limits are found to not violate the Minn. Constitution, then the clerk would immediately file the amendment. Dietzen stated that the City Council could have taken one of two approaches: refuse to put term limits on the ballot claiming they are manifestly unconstitutional, or put it on the ballot and accept the outcome. Mr. Christopher Dietzen left the meeting at approximately 7:30 p.m. Then the Charter Commissioners began to discuss the City Council's action (directing the clerk not to file the amendment.) Russ Warren stated: "We understand the topic, why argue about it, let's move on with our action." Duane had circulated a 3 page memorandum at the meeting (attached). The last page listed several options for the commission. This is the "action" Duane was seeking from the commission. Duane referred to the City Council's actions as "illegal actions" thwarting the rights of the voters. He felt it mandatory the Charter Commission act in some way to force the Council to "listen to the voters." He stated it was too late for the City Council to claim the amendment was unconstitutional--that should have been decided before the amendment went to the voters on the ballot. He talked about "judicial notice." Refer to p. 2 of his memo. He did agree with Sue that the "time to file" was a gray area. He wanted the Charter Commission to authorize him to begin pursuing one of his suggested options (p. 3 of his memo). [Duane is trying to make people think the Council will never file this amendment and that the clock might not start ticking on the current councilmembers' -4- terms terms until the amendment is filed.] I obtained the floor to discuss some of the issues. First, I stated that the Council has never said it is refusing to file the amendment. Rather the Council is only delaying the filing until the Minn. Supreme Court rules on the state constitutionality of term limits for local officials. I reminded the commission that the whole Charter review process was started to remove an unconstitutional provision from the Charter (petitioning to challenge resolutions of the Council). It is not quick and easy to remove unconstitutional laws. I showed the Campaign Finance Law handout given to candidates who file and noted that a law ruled unconstitutional in about 1988 was still being given to candidates for office. I personally feel my oath of office to uphold the U.S. & state constitutions directs me to avoid putting another unconstitutional law in the city code when a matter of a few short weeks or months will decide the issue. I think it is a disservice to citizens to put illegal laws on the books, then it takes a lawyer and lots of reading of footnotes to determine if what appears as the law, is really the law. I thought the commissioners should understand why Jim Thompson direct-tow the council as he did. He wanted to keep us out of lawsuits to save our tax dollars and he did not feel we had a "ripe" legal issue for any court until term limits were voted into effect and the city was put in the position of defending a law that might be unconstitutional. After the election we learned the state constitutionality would soon be ruled on and by delaying filing of the amendment a short while (January - possibly June), we would be able to avoid putting an unconstitutional law in the city ordinance books. There was additional discussion by Russ Warren and Jerry Linke. Both Jerry and Sue challenged Duane's list of options as lacking legal authority. Sue stated that there was no provision in Chapter 410 on Charter Commissions allowing them to sue the City Council or act on behalf of the Council to file the amendment. Jerry Linke stated that no funds would be available for this purpose. Although state law authorizes the Charter Commission to spend $1500 per year on legal and related expenses on amending and writing the Charter, there seems to be nothing in the list of expenses that allows commencing commission lawsuits. Duane said he could just get advice from the Judge who appoints the commissioners. I noted that would be a violation of the Judicial Code of Ethics--providing legal advise to potential litigants -5- before his court. Duane moved that he be authorized by the Charter Commission to pursue legal counsel to determine the rights of the Charter Commission to sue the City Council for failure to file the term limits amendment adopted by the voters November 8, 1994. Second by Ruth White. Duane called the question to end debate but the motion failed. After further discussion, such as Sue stating "I don't want to get sued by the City Council in return and have my name listed on a lawsuit and worry about personal liability if this commission votes to take an illegal act." (paraphrased). This caused Russ Warren to amend the motion to add: "at no cost or liability on the part of the Charter Commission." This was seconded by Virgil Beyer. The amendment passed but then Duane asked to withdraw his motion because he couldn't guarantee no cost and no liability. Ruth White would not agree to withdrawing the motion she had seconded. Now Russ offered an amendment to replace the above one: "at a cost of not more than $100 to the Charter Commission." This amendment passed. Jerry Linke challenged the spending of any funds and noted that the $1500 had easily been spent this year on the lawyer's reviews of the redraft. Duane and Ruth White offered to pay the fees if the Charter Commission is not able to incur the costs of the motion. The vote on the main motion passed. It was close--possibly 7:4. The meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m. Duane said that after he gets his lawyer's opinion on the authority of the commission to sue the council or take some action, he will immediately call another special meeting to report to the commission and seek their approval to begin an action. At one point during the discussions, Sue Hankner asked Duane why didn't he go to the Council at a televised meeting and have them address his grievances. He didn't really answer that. He did say that if the three councilmembers present in the room (Diane Wuori was observing and kept silent the whole time, tough wasn't it Diane?), could reach a decision to direct the clerk to file the amendment no further action would be required by the Charter Commission. (Trying to force a violation of that Open Meeting Law it seems.) Later that evening Duane called and asked me to read the motion that passed -6- back to him so he would have it straight. I told him that no one else in this city really seemed bothered by the council's action--he was the only one who had called me on this and there was plenty of press on it. I had many more calls on the EQC and budget than on this. He reminded me that 75% of the voters would be upset w/ the council and that the council shouldn't ignore the wishes of the people. I asked him to come to the Council at one of the next meetings when Jim Thompson could be there so his concerns could be addressed by the Council w/their lawyer present. He said he would Adflratheg confront us in such a direct manner and force a show down (my paraphrasing). I know that if the entire 15 members were present, and the same lines were drawn as on the term limit issue, the vote would support Duane (8 to 7). Arlene was absent and she favors term limits although she is a cautious taxpayer so I'm not sure of her vote on a lawsuit. Len Burgers, Laurie Schley and Bob Toborg were also absent and would have joined Jerry, Sue, Dave Long & myself. The new expected appointments are Jean Miller, Rhonda Smieja, Diane Wuori and Roger Stigney. We will lose Arlene Werdien, Lloyd Bardwell, Sue & Bob Toborg. CHARTER COMMISSION LEGAL EXPENSES I 4,;," Baran, Guzy, & Steffen, Ltd. 5/31/94 Baran, Guzy, & Steffen, Ltd. 6/30/94 Baran, Guzy, & Steffen, Ltd. 7/31/94 $316.16 Baran, Guzy, & Steffen, Ltd. 8/31/94 $1,148.50 Baran, Guzy, & Steffen, Ltd. 9/30/94 $850.00 $3,364.66 fJ / a- 7 ,/ i i / • LI 1 3490 Lexington Avenue North League of Minnesota Cities St. Paul, MN 55126-8044 September 9, 1994 Please contact LMC ifyour city considers taking action. LMC has a packet to aid cities to obtain court decision. TO: Mayor, Manager, Clerk, Home Rule Charter Cities FROM: Ann Higgins, IGR Representative Kent Sulem, Codification Attorney RR: Options for response to petitions proposing a ballot question to amend the city charter to impose local term limits Numbers of home rule charter cities have reported to the League that they are receiving petitions calling for chatter amendments imposing local term limits to be placed on the ballot in November. The League urges city officials to contact.the city attorney immediately upon receiving a petition. The city has three options to consider in this situation: 1. Accent petition and place on ballot, Cities may let voters decide whether or not to support term limits at the local level. Local officials need to be aware, however, that city attorneys generally have viewed imposition of local term limits by charter as unconstitutional since Article VII, Section 6 of the State Constitution clearly sets out requirements for holding elective offices, including those at the local level, providing that any person meeting qualifications set forth there shall be eligible to hold public elective office. The constitution contains no term limit authority for cities to adopt more restrictive requirements. If the charter amendment were adopted by voters, a legal challenge could be anticipated by any person adversely affected. The charter provision would almost certainly be held unconstitutional and therefore unenforceable. Resolution of the issue under this option could take several years and could also give the appearance of city support of term limits. 2. Declaratory lodgment. Cities may seek to have the court order the issue declared unconstitutional and improper to be placed on the ballot. The city has to accept the financial burden. There is a possibility that the court may not grant standing to the city itself unless the judge accepts the argument that the city is harmed by being required to expend funds and voter actions in a meaningless election. This option would be a reasonable action, however, to have the court order the matter off the ballot. Cities may want to consider providing assistance to one another to support this approach. The League understands several cities may consider this option if other cities would also support such efforts. (Attached is a list of all home rule charter cities. The League encourages cities to contact us and to communicate on the matter to coordinate responses.) 3. Deny the petition and keep the issue off the ballot. The city may, on the advice of the city attorney, decide to reject the petition as invalid, either because of reasons stated above, or because the petition may also include a requirement that is improperly put before the voters. The language of at least one of the petitions presented to date, for example, also would require the city council to vote on a resolution calling for a state constitutional amendment to impose term limits at the state and federal level. This is an advisory petition which is not authorized under current law and can be rejected on that basis. Attachment AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER (612)490-6600 1-800-925.1122 plus yourcitycode TDD(612)490-9038 Fax(612)400-0072 ZO ° d OO ' 1 OZ: 2I - ► . 60 d S ZZOO-0617-Z I9: 131 S3I1I3 NW JO 3f9d31 Home Rule Charter Cities Cit- County City County Ma Norman Little Falls Albert Lea Freeborn Morrison Alexandria Luverne Rock Douglas Madison Lac Qui Park Anoka Anoka Mankato Blue Ea Arlington Sibley Marshall rth/1Vicollat Austin Mower MinneapolisLyon Barneville Hennepin Clay Minnetonka Hennepin Bemidji Beltrami Minnetonka Beach Swift Hennepin Pln Benno ilc Montevideo Chippewa St. Louis Moorhead Clay Blaine Anoka/Rarnsey Morris s Bloomington Hennepin Mounds in View Ramsey Faribault Earthamey New Prague LeSueur/Scott Brainerd Crow Wing New Ulm Breckenridge Wilkin Brown Brooklyn Center Hennepin Northfield Rice/Dakota p Ortonville Big Stone Brooklyn Park Hennepin Owatonna Steele Broworviile Todd Fipestone Pi tone Canby Yel.Med. Plymouth Cannon Falls Goodhue Ramsey Anoka Hennepin noka Chatfield Fillmore/Olmsted Red Wing Goodhue Chisholm St. Louis Redwood Falls Redwood Columbia Heights Anoka Renville Renville Coon Rapids Anoka Richfield Hennepin nCrookston Polk Robbinsdale Hennepin stat Hennepin Rochester Olmsted Dawson Lac qui Park Rushford Fillmore Detroit Lakes Becker Sleepy Eye Brown Duluth St. Louis South St. Paul Dakota East Grand Forks Polk Springfield Brown Ely St. Louis St. Charles Winona Eveleth St. Louis St. Cloud Stearns/Benton/Sherburne Excelsior Hennepin St. Francis Anoka Fairmont Martin St.James Watonwan Faribault Rice St. Louis Park Hennepin Fergus Palls Otter Tail St. Paul Ramsey Fridley Anoka Staples Todd/Wadena Gaylord Sibley Stillwater Washington Gilbert St. Louis Tower St. Lou st Glencoe McLeod Tracy Lyon Glenwood Pope Two Harbors Lake Granite Falls Yet. Med./Chippewa Virginia St. Louis Ham Lake Anoka Wabasha Wabasha Hastings Dakota/Chippewa Warren Hopkins Marshall P Hennepin Waseca Waseca Hutchinson McLeod Wayzata Hennepin International Falls Koochiching West St. Paul Dakota Isanti isanti White Bear Lake Ramsey/Washington Jackson Jackson Willmar Kandlyohi Lake City Wabasha/Goodhue Windom Cottonwood Lake Crystal Blue Earth Winona Winona Le Sueur LeSueur Winthrop Sibley Lino Lakes Anoka Worthington Nobles Litchfield Meeker September 9, 1994 20' d 00 °N TZ: 2T b6 60 d2S ZOO—06b—ZT9: 131 S3IlI3 NW JO 3f19d31 HOLMES & GRAVEN CHARTERED Attorneys at Law 470 Pillsbury Center,Minneapolis,Minnesota 55402 ROBERT A.ALSOP (612)337-9300 ROBERT C.LONG RONALD H.BATTY LAURA K.MOLLET STEPHEN J.BUBUL Facsimile(612)337-9310 BARBARA L.PORTWOOD JOHN B.DEAN JAMES M.STROMMEN MARY G.DOBBINS JAMES J.THOMSON,JR. STEFANIE N.GALEY LARRY M.WERTHEIM CORRINE A.HEINE BONNIE L.WILKINS JAMES S.HOLMES WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL GARY P.WINTER DAVID J.KENNEDY 337-9209 DAVID L.GRAVEN(1929.1991) JOHN R.LARSON - WELLINGTON H.LAW OF COUNSEL CHARLES L.LEFEVERE ROBERT C.CARLSON JOHN M.LEFEVRE,JR. ROBERT L DAVIDSON ROBERT J.LINDALL T.JAY SALMEN September 7, 1994 Mayor Jerry Linke and City Councilmembers City of Mounds View 2401 Highway 10 Mounds View, MN 55112-1499 RE: Proposed Charter Amendment Re Term Limits Dear Mayor Linke and Councilmembers: It is my understanding the Mounds View Charter Commission has proposed an amendment to the city charter to read as follows: Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, no person may file to be a candidate for election to a term that would cause the person to serve more than eight total years in the office of Mayor or eight total years in the office of City Council. You have inquired as to what the City Council's role is in the proposed charter amendment. Minnesota Statutes, Section 410.12 allows the Charter Commission to propose amendments to the charter. Any such amendments shall be submitted at the next general election occurring within six months after delivery to the City Council of the draft amendment. The form of the ballot must be fixed by the City Council. In a typical situation, the City Council's sole role regarding a proposed amendment submitted by the Charter Commission is to fix the form of the ballot. (There is another procedure for amending the charter under which the City Council would propose an amendment by ordinance, but that option does not apply in this situation because the Charter Commission has chosen to propose the amendment itself.) The second question that has been asked is whether the city should place the matter on the ballot in light of a 1981 attorney general's opinion that a charter provision imposing a limitation on consecutive terms would not be valid. In addition, in an opinion dated June 28, 1994, the attorney for the Mounds View Charter Commission concluded that he could find no authority for a charter amendment creating term limits. JJT75668 14U125-11 Mayor Jerry Linke and City Councilmembers September 7, 1994 Page 2 The Minnesota Supreme Court has held that where a proposed charter amendment is "manifestly unconstitutional" the amendment does not need to be placed before the electorate. Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Minneapolis v. City of Minneapolis, 198 N.W.2d 531 (Minn. 1972). No Minnesota appellate court has ruled on the question of whether a charter city can impose term limits for mayor and councilmembers. In the 1981 opinion, the Minnesota attorney general concluded that a city charter cannot impose a limitation upon the number of consecutive terms that a person may serve as an elected member of the city's governing body. The rationale for the attorney general's opinion was that Minnesota Constitution, Article VII, Section 6, states that any person who is entitled to vote at any election and is 21 years old is eligible to hold an elective office in the district where that person has resided for 30 days previous to the election, except as otherwise provided in the Minnesota Constitution, or in the Constitution and laws of the United States. The attorney general concluded that absent another constitutional provision allowing cities to establish additional eligibility requirements for holding elective office, Article VII, Section 6 precluded a municipality from adopting such restrictions. Article XII, Section 3 of the Minnesota Constitution, which was adopted in 1958, states in part: The legislature may provide by law for the creation, organization, administration, consolidation, division and dissolution of local government units and their functions, for the change of boundaries thereof, for their elective and appointive offices including qualification for office and for the transfer of county seats. (Emphasis added) The attorney general concluded that because the legislature has not provided any additional qualifications for elective office in local governmental units (other than the ones set forth in Article VII, Section 6), a charter city cannot do so in its charter. In that opinion, however, the attorney general noted that the issue has not been addressed in Minnesota courts. The general rule is that in matters of municipal concern, home rule cities have all the legislative power possessed by the legislature, except those powers that are expressly or impliedly withheld. State ex rel Town of Lowell v. City of Crookston, 91 N.W.2d 81 (1958) . In a 1993 decision, Elbers v. Growe, 502 N.W.2d 810 (Minn. App. 1993), the Court of Appeals held that Article XII, Section 3 authorized the legislature to provide additional qualifications for the office of sheriff. In this case, an argument can be made that because the Minnesota Constitution gives the legislature the power to impose additional qualifications for office of local government units, charter cities may do likewise. (See Minnesota Statutes, Section 412.21, which states that the "provisions of any charter . . . shall be valid and shall control as to . . . elections for municipal offices . . .") JJT75668 MU125-11 Mayor Jerry Linke and City Councilmembers September 7, 1994 Page 3 Because this issue has not yet been addressed by any Minnesota appellate court, it is my opinion that the question of whether a charter city can impose term limits for members of its elective body is not "manifestly" unconstitutional. The options that are available to the City Council are as follows: 1. Choose not to fix the form of the ballot for the proposed charter amendment on the grounds that the attorney general and the Charter Commission's attorney have concluded that such an amendment is invalid; or 2. Fix the form of the ballot for the proposed charter amendment. If the proposed amendment fails, the issue as to its constitutionality becomes moot. If the City Council chooses to fix the form of the ballot for the proposed charter amendment, I recommend that the City Council ask the Charter Commission to address the following issues to clarify the proposed amendment: 1. The proposed charter amendment states that "no person may file to be a candidate." On its face, the amendment would not prevent a person from conducting a write-in candidacy. The question I have is why did the Charter Commission use the phrase "file to be a candidate" as opposed to the phrase "serve a term"? 2. The proposed charter amendment deals with total terms, not consecutive terms. Was this the Charter Commission's intent? 3. The proposed charter amendment states that a person cannot serve "more than eight total years in the office of Mayor or eight total years in the office of City Council." Was the intent of this provision to allow a person to serve eight years as mayor and eight years as a councilmember? 4. Does the eight-year limitation include time that a person might have served as an appointed member of the City Council? I would be happy to address any additional questions you have on this issue. Sincerely, • J es Thomson JJT:jes cc: Samantha Orduno JJT75668 MU125-11 1,tint'lecL o ti 5--i1L( it LLV SST I'D , ►LtLi `t Term limit/ F Term—limit Continued from page 1B r"eferen um Both relied onrn a legaloopinionifromt the city attorney's office saying that restrictions on holding public office require a constitutional amendment. The opinion, written by. Assistant sent to court City Attorney Joseph Labat, said any city charter amendment setting term limits would be "manifestly r r uncon- stitutional,"and therefore not appro- priate fortheballot. Although recent polls have shown nearly 80 percent favoring term lim- s,4 funcil decision its in Minnesota,state legislators,led ,oby a DFL majority, rebuffed efforts Klin earlier this year to force a statewide Kelvin Diaz referendum on the topic. • niter The term-limit suit alleges breaches ttle.over term limits in Minneapolis landed in of constitutional and democratic cert ednesday with a federal lawsuit trying to force a processes in the city's failure to stib- te 'm-limit referendum into the general election in No- mit the initiative to a vote after it vimber. was brought forward by a valid pe- tition. e suit;came two days after the Minneapolis City - uncil voted without debate to block a referendum that "We have followed the process, h d been sought in a citizen petition signed by nearly played by the rules, and the City 2 ,000 people. Council has refused to put the issue on the ballot,"said Christopher Diet- l' titian organizers had vowed to file the suit by 2 p.m. zen, an attorney representing the Wednesday if Mayor Sharon Sayles Belton failed to veto term-limit coalition. "Preemptively t ' council action. At about 1 p.m.,the mayor released a taking it off the ballot and preventing I ter addressed to Council President Jackie Cherryhomes the people from voting on it is un- i icating that although her "personal sympathies lie constitutional. It ought to be voted th those who advocate term limits,"she would issue no on." v O. City officials counter that Minnesota e suit was filed in U.S. District Court by the Minne- Supreme Court rulings allow them to a lis Term Limits Coalition, which seeks a referendum withhold public votes on proposed o whether to limit elected officials in Minneapolis to city charter changes that are deemed e ht years in office. "manifestly unconstitutional." The f Minnesota Constitution provides m really disappointed," said Patrick Burns, a spokes- only age and residency requirements n for the coalition. "I was really hoping the mayor for holding public office. uld take a courageous stand. She said she supported t m limits. But if it's going to take.a court of law to The proposed referendum, by cir- d. cide it;then so be it." cumventing a change in the state :, constitution, is clearly invalid, said Floyd Olson, the No. 2 official in the e proposed amendment1 would apply only to the City uncil and mayor. The council voted 9-2, with one city attorney's office. "There's no aiistention,to keep the measure off the ballot.The mayor T_ incurred in that decision Wednesday. RESOLUTION NO. 4656 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION CANVASSING ELECTION RESULTS OF NOVEMBER 8, 1994 GENERAL ELECTION Whereas, a general election was held on November 8, 1994; and Whereas, the results of this election are as follows: MAYOR PRECINCT 1 TOTAL Jerry Linke 1991 Sherie Roder 477 Phyllis Blanchard 638 Richard Oman 970 COUNCILMEMBER Sue Hankner 1547 Diane Wuori 782 Dan Nelson 1118 Lee Trotta 831 Julie Trude 1960 Leon Burton 900 CITY CHARTER AMENDMENT Yes 2927 No 1016 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Jerry Linke is certified as being elected Mayor of the City of Mounds View and Sue Hankner and Julie Trude have been elected Councilmembers of the City of Mounds View. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED section 4. 02 of the Mounds View City Charter has been Amended to add the following provisions . Subdivision 2 . Term Limits . Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, no person may file to be a candidate for election to a termthat would cause the person to serve more than eight total years in the office of Mayor or in the offices of City Councilmember combined. Subdivision 3 . Service before January 1, 1995 shall not could toward determining total length of services . Subdivision 4 . Severability. If any part of this section shall be declared unconstitutional by court, all other shall remain in full force and effect. Page Two Resolution No. 4656 Adopted this 9th day of November, 1994 ATTEST: Mayor (SEAL) City Administrator DEC 07 '94 09:43AM KRAUS ANDERSON P. 1/1 00767-104/ 41t#E44 , artml(-4-of tiv41i41/1)4,'-g-e4 Df C.� 71(e , /-/t r vo g, (17r /t49a. .e). zfr 4T:44.4.4„,A, fr;t- c - Aa-t CX. ;Z4 /L0L4j at-4i`- c?) ci4ea CX.442-A.-.-6--e5*6 -0 - Mounds View Charter Commission Meeting December 6, 1994 Discussion Items submitted by D. McCarty: ,z ) 1 . Constitutional authority for charter government Article 12 Sec. 5. ARTICLE XII SPECIAL LEGISLATION;LOCAL GOVERNMENT Sec. 5. Charter commissions. The legislature shall provide by law for charter commissions. Notwithstanding any other constitutional limitations the legislature may require that commission members be freeholders, provide for their appointment by judges of the district court, and permit any member to hold any other elective or appointive office other than judicial. Home rule charter amendments may be proposed by a charter commission or by a petition of five percent of the voters of the local government unit as determined by law and shall not become effective until approved by the voters by the majority required by law. Amendments may be proposed and adopted in any other manner provided by law. A local government unit may repeal its home rule charter and adopt a statutory form of government or a new charter upon the same majority vote as is required by law for the adoption of a charter in the first instance. 2. Constitutional eligibility to hold office Article 7 Sec. 6. ARTICLE VII Sec. 6. Eligibility to hold office. Every person who by the provisions of this article is entitled to vote at any election and is 21 years of age is eligible for any office elective by the people in the district wherein he has resided 30 days previous to the election except as otherwise provided in this constitution, or the constitution and law of the united states. 3. Charter Law. MSA 410.21 APPLICATION OF GENERAL ELECTION LAWS. The provisions of any charter of any such city adopted pursuant to this chapter shall be valid and shall control as to nominations, primary elections, and elections for municipal offices, notwithstanding that such charter provisions may be inconsistent with any general law relating thereto, and such general laws shall apply only in so far as consistent with such charter. 4. Pursuant to the above constitutional rights and laws, the voters of Mounds View have adopted a charter amendment imposing term limits on elected councilmembers. Page 2 5. City Clerks are required by state law to file adopted charters and charter amendments. MSA 410.12 Subd. 4. Election. Amendments shall be submitted to the qualified voters at a general or special election and published as in the case of the original charter. The form of the ballot shall be fixed by the governing body. The statement of the question on the ballot shall be sufficient to identify the amendment clearly and to distinguish the question from every other question on the ballot at the same time. If 51 percent of the votes cast on any amendment are in favor of its adoption, copies of the amendment and certificates shall be filed, as in the case of the original charter and the amendment shall take effect in 30 days from the date of the election or at such other time as is fixed in the amendment. MSA 410.11 Adoption; notice, effective date. If 51 percent of the votes cast on the proposition are in favor of the proposed charter, it shall be considered adopted; and, if any provisions thereof are submitted in the alternative, those ratified by a majority of the votes cast thereon shall prevail. If the charter is adopted, the city clerk shall file with the secretary of state, the county recorder of the county in which the city lies, and in the city clerk's office a copy of the charter accompanied by a certificate attesting to the accuracy of the copy and giving the date of the election and the vote by which the charter was adopted. The charter shall take effect 30 days after the election, or at such other time as is fixed in the charter, and shall then supersede all other charter provisions relating to such city. Thereupon the courts shall take judicial notice of the new charter and, upon the election of officers thereunder, the officials of the former corporation shall deliver to them the records, money and other public property in their control. HIST: (1285) RL s 755; 1959 c 305 s 2; 1969 c 1027 s 1; 1973 c 123 art 5 s 7; 1976 c 181 s 2; 1986 c 444 6. ACTIONS TAKEN BY CITY COUNCIL TO DATE: A. The City Council declared that term limit restrictions are not manifestly unconstitutional and ordered the amendment to be placed on the November 8, 1994 ballot. B. The City Council has declined to file the term limit amendment adopted November 8, 1994 in accordance with state law. Charter Commission Concern: Minnesota law 410.11 is not discretionary. This law requires filing. After the amendment is filed Thereupon the courts shall take judicial notice of the new charter....(In this case, the term limit amendment). Under state law, amendment procedures are addressed the same way as original charters regarding adoption and filing processes. "Judicial notice" takes place after filing, in the legal order of events. Failure to file amendments as legally required, or filing after the date set in the amendment, could impair the intent of the amendment as passed by the voters. .. . Page 3 Options: 1 . Authorize a Charter Commissioner to file the amendment on behalf of the Mounds View Charter Commission with explanation to receiving authority. 2. Petition District Court for an order directing the Council to act in compliance with state law regarding filing of the term limit amendment. 3. Ask Chief Judge Kirkpatrick for review and comment regarding the Council's actions. 4. Sue the City Council. 5. Start recall proceedings against the Council for nonfeasance. 0(?6k,' Ail CI CLVIAAJ / 1 L4-4- 'I oSt eak,i . ; (ok . JA,- t ,,, (i, „L.:,..,\ c , tj . ) A''- e' I l'C7714 i L 1(1 I ,,)A 0 V .;( A, --( --A- / # .t. C( il ( i 111,.,f.c• 6)n 1 6 L r t,- 1,..Q1--1---c_rit'- ) CITYvt^,_ L-teto tifj) AL.,444-- ,6--_ jle_e_t_c. e_te7 $ /al) -61 do ttAft.. NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING MOUNDS VIEW CHARTER COMMISSION To: MOUNDS VIEW CHARTER COMMISSIONERS From: COMMISSIONERS DUANE MCCARTY&RUTH WHITE Date: November 30, 1994 Subject: Special Charter Commission Meeting to be held on December 6, 1994 at the Mounds View City Hall at 7 PM. I Duane McCarty, and I Ruth White, Charter Commissioners for the City of Mounds View, by this no ' e hereby call a special meeting of the Mounds View Charter Commission pursuant to Charter ommmssion By7Las., , >-171 l-:e , Duane McCarty '\•:::??,,%C-- ,: ,'/ -_%',,-)_,&: Ruth'White AGENDA 1. Discuss City Council Resolution 4663 directing City Clerk not to file the term limit amendment adopted November 8, 1994 and take appropriate action. 2. Set future meeting dates. 3. Adjourn. 8/24/94 Michele, I need your help with 3 Charter Commission items: First, a mailing to the members. Please copy the items paperclipped together and send out to the Charter Commission. I'd like them in the following order: 1. Agenda 2. Memo 3. Proposals to go to voters 4. Memo from law firm on term limits 5. Minutes of 3/22/94 Would you also make sure the room was reserved for us and notice posted. Second, please also mail the Agenda, Proposals to voters, & Minutes of 3/22 to: Mr. Gregg Herrick Barna, Guzy & Steffen 400 Northtown Financial Center 200 Coon Rapids Blvd. Minneapolis, MN 55433-5489 Third, we need to advertise four vacancies on the Charter Commission. You can take the information from the letter from the Court Administrator. He would like us to advertise now so appointments can be made before October 31. I told him we could advertise in Sept. I'd suggest that interested applicants send a letter providing some background information and their interest in appointment to the Mounds View Charter Commission directly to Mr. Joseph Gockowski, Court Administrator, Ramsey County District Court, 600 Courthouse, St. Paul, MN 55102. If applicants have questions about the Charter Commission you could have them call City Hall. If you get any calls then either Sue Hankner (Vice Chair) or myself could tell people what the Charter does. I'd tell people we've been meeting regularly, up to twice a month during the redrafting of the Charter but when that is complete in the next six months, we will revert to meetings as needed but at least twice a year. THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP!(c) �- i f 7 MOUNDS VIEW VOTE YES CHARTER TERM LIMIT AMENDMENT NOVEMBER 8th Sample Ballot CITY CHARTER AMENDMENT Free our elected officials to govern in the INSTRUCTIONS TO VOTERS: To vote for a proposed amendment, best interests of Mounds View, not complete the arrow pointing to the themselves. Lessening the emphasis on re-election word "YES" at the right of the will deflate the power of money and influence and put amendment. To vote against a proposed amendment, complete the the focus back where it belongs: on leadership and arrow pointing to the right of the problem-solving. word "NO". CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY Lessen the power of special interests and STATE OF MINNESOTA PACs, which actively oppose term limits because of SHALL SECTION 4.02 OF THE their strong investment in incumbents. MOUNDS VIEW CITY CHARTER BE AMENDED TO ADD THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS? Reserve a place in government for fresh ideas SUBDIVISION 2. TERM LIMITS. and real-life experience, as our government's Notwithstanding any other founders intended. provision of law to the contrary, no person may file to be a candidate for election to a term Term Limits For Effective Leadership that would cause the person to History shows that our government can make a serve more than eight total years in the office of Mayor or in the '1 • ' I 1 . 1./i / • •.. 'i 1 h: our office of City Councilmember people. That is the purpose of limiting the terms of combined. elected officials. Our nation's founders put their faith SUBDIVISION 3. Service before in the power of ordinary citizens to govern themselves. January 1, 1995 shall not count But many of our elected officials seem to have toward determining total length of service. forgotten [rejected?] this idea. Term limits are the SUBDIVISION 4. SEVERABILITY. first step in a return to Citizen Government. If any part of this section shall be declared unconstitutional by Complete The YES Arrow For Better court, all others shall remain in p full force and effect. Government! YES 41411 NO 1 Term Limits J'udaed Constitutional In Sixteen States! . Join The Call for Citizen Government-- • It's Time The People Decide! A majority vote by City Charter Commissioners has recommended a term limit amendment to Mounds View' s Charter — the City Constitution. Charter cities like Mounds View are given broad powers to regulate local elections under special state laws. Term limit constitutional questions will soon be heard by the Minnesota Supreme Court . Mounds View's Charter Amendment for term limits includes a provision for compliance with future supreme court decisions. Myth: Term limits will infringe upon democracy by determining who can and cannot serve in government. Reality: Term limits will actually. improve the democratic process by ensuring periodic competitive open-seat elections, nullifying special interest backed advantages incumbents have in a campaign. The current system controlled by entrenched incumbents often discourages qualified candidates with real life experience from participating. Open seat elections are traditionally the most competitive, and the most likely window of opportunity for citizens to influence government processes. If the people vote for term limits, they have made a democratic choice to return to a more citizen-based form of government. Myth: Term limits will force many experienced officials out of office prematurely, resulting in a less experienced legislative body. Reality: Term limits will inevitably remove a few good mayors or councilmembers. It will also remove many more who have become complacent . Eight years allows for substantial experience. Some of our most successful mayors and councilmembers have come -and gone in less than eight years. The new energy and ideas and the practical real-life experiences brought to the council by new members are as important as legislative experience. America' s founders were tradespeople, merchants and farmers — not professional politicians . Your YES vote for term limits is important to the largest grassroots movement in American history, dedicated to restoring citizen legislatures at every government level. Vote YES Charter Term Limit Amendment Nov. 8th! Prepared and Paid For By Mounds View Citizens For Term Limits 8060 Long Lake Road, Duane McCarty,Chairman ...., l44"41111 FYI- .- .. 6B C ` r......._. SAINT PAUL PIONEER PRESS SUNDAY,NOVEMBER 27, 1994 SUBURBAN EDITOR: Les Suzukamo FOR MORE NEIGHBORS NEWS: PHONE:228-5475 NEIGHBORS See the daily Metro section and Wednesday's .,,lEAX: 228-5500 Express section. 7r ii ierm its.. can voe on tem• at eve t o c :7, It's also hard to find reallygoodpeople willingto fund-raising,and both can lead to more votes.But if In most of the smaller cities,the jobs of mayor , - ev that Mounds View has and city council members are even less than part- sacrifice their golf games for the dubious perquisites everything's going to hell in a handbasket,incum- i ►b achieved national fame with ofpublic office,such as the thrill of applause from bency can be a detriment — witness the national re- ��-its new ordinance that limits time — they re spare time. p These people,who are usually paid less than what the Rotary.Indeed,lots of elected officials impose sults of our most recent election. rI terms of a local eighttces to a life- , - the job costs them for day care,mileage and Ro- term limits upon themselves,either because,.like Personally,I like to vote on term limits in every tune total of years,other laids,spend a lot of time doing their work at innu- Minnesota Sen.Paul Wellstone,they believe in the election,only on a case-by-case basis.I spend a lot suburbs may be thinking along 4 merable evening meetings and the occasional Satur- Mr.-Smith-Goes-to-Washington approach to public of time trying to figure out if someone has been ef- similornes. dayworkshop.Theycan't go ocer shoppingoffice,or because they get to missing their tee. fective,and therefore deserves to keep a position,or People. like Patricia naso witout getting butonholein grocery r o times,not to mention their spouses. if that official has fallen prey to any of the perils of .execuor Term Limits M who, .. . church without getting a little harangue with their Term limits in general are a cosmetic attempt to incumbency:laziness,corruption,a taste for free { � Bron for e who, DEBRA tackle a big problem —public officials'that oftep chicken dinners.I also try to give the challengers a coffee in the Friendship Hall. .:ironically,was just re-elected DEBRA aren't as good as they should be.But simply bringing fair shot,examining their resumes for the promise s.to the Eagan City Council — NEIGHBORS But they aren't full-time,in-the-office-every-day in fresh blood won't automatically cause effective of intelligent leadership. .,,.,,hope that Mounds View will COLUMNIST people,and it takes them awhile to get up to speed government,any more than havingofficial prayer in I figure it's mydutyas a citizen to research the ,5,,lead many Minnesota cities to with the issues confronting their communities,such , school will somehow make studentmore moral.In- candidates,chooe anmonitor their actions while TAIdopt restrictions on how long as,say,the sewer situation.Therefore,continuity is deed,without the carrot of another term,where's they're in office.In order to get them to do their =,people can hold office. particularly important,and if many of the elected the incentive for elected officials to do a great job in jobs,I have,to do mine - in the voting booth. l.,` officials are brand-new,they tend to act as little the current term,rather than grabbing all they can I hope notnsides of are limits andlarly susceptible more than a rubber stamp for the city administra- get? Debra O'Connor covers education and writes a Neighbors col- 'Io the down sides of term could suffer . tor. It's true that incumbents can have a strong advan- umn that runs every Sunday.She also can be reached by Inns-term harm from this kind of Short-term think- computer at pioneerdeb @aol.com. Ing. I get better at my job every year — don't"you? '': tage during an election — name recognition aids CPTV OF . (9444:4, UH L,CJ-' • Phone: (612) 784-3055 FEW Fax: (612) 784-3462 "Quite Simply the Best" July 19 , 1994 Mr. Len Burgers, Chair Mounds View Charter Commission 8470 Knollwood Mounds View, MN Dear Len; Councilmember Julie Trude received the attached legal opinion in the mail yesterday, July 18 , 1994 . She wanted you to have a copy as soon as possible. I have also attached a copy of a petition which came into my office on Friday, July 15, 1994 . It appears the Commission's request for a legal opinion was extremely timely. If you have any questions, please Contact Councilmember Trude or • myself. War est Personal Regards, , Samantha O' duno City Admin strator III PRINTED WITH ��^ SOYINK_ 2401 Highway 10 • Mounds View, MN 55112-1499 i(S) ecyaeo cane• ROBERT A.OUZY 7--. r PAMELA M.HARRIS BERNARD E.STEFFENCHARLES M.SEYKORA RICHARD A.MERRILL WILLIAM M.HANSEN DARRELL A.JENSEN \ JEFFREY S.JOHNSON V l BEVERLYL D. .DODGE JR. K.DODGE RUSSELL H.CRO\t'DER } } (( Ltd. CRAIG M.AYERS JrERICKSON Barna, �7t1Z�7 Steffen) L,�• GREGG V.HERRICK NCE R.JOHNSON JAMES D.I-IOEFT L,. .)A.COSSI ATTORNEYS AT LAW JOAN M.QUADE THOMAS P.MALONE SCOTT M.LEPAK MICHAEL F.HURLEY 400 Nortlltown Financial Plaza STEVEN L.MACKEY VIROIL C.HERRICK 200 Coon Rapids Boulevard ELIZABETI I A.SCFIADING HERMAN L.TALLE WILLIAM F.HUEFNER Minneapolis, MN 55433-5989 ROBERT C.HYNES (612) 780-8500 FAX (612) 780-1777 19354993 Writer's Direct Line: (612) 783-5123 MEMORANDUM TO: Mounds View Charter Commission FROM: Gregg Herrick (..: RE: Term Limits DATE: June 28, 1994 QUESTION DOES THE CITY HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO INSTITUTE TERM LIMITS THROUGH ITS CHARTER FOR THE CITY COUNCIL? • The Attorney General's Opinion of April 14 , 1981 has been questioned and I have been asked to give an independent opinion regarding the Charter Commission's ability to place term limits on elected municipal offices within the City. After conducting considerable research into this question, I have come to the conclusion that there is no direct case law interpreting this particular question. I have, therefore, reviewed the cases cited by the Attorney General, as well as a review of the cases since the 1981 Attorney General's Opinion. Since there was a movement in the State Legislature last Session to establish. term limits I also obtained information on their interpretation of the Question. I also contacted the League of Minnesota Cities to see if they had any prepared material on this topic. The research shows that one's eligibility to hold office is generally viewed as a fundamental right. It is also clear that prior to the 1958 Constitutional Amendment, the Court interpreted the Constitution as restricting any legislative body's ability to enact laws restricting individual's lright to hold office. The 1958 Amendment provides that the Legislature may provide for • 1The Constitution provides that to hold office an individual must be entitled to vote. An E 1.l Opp,m,d,5 Empinycr '4 • Mounds View Charter Commission June 28, 1994 Page Two qualifications for local government office. The language of Article XII, Section 3 on its face seems clear. The Amendment gives the State Legislature the right to provide qualifications for local office. While this Constitutional Amendment may give the Legislature the authority to grant to individual municipalities the right to set qualifications for local office, there is no statute, in my opinion, which could be interpreted as attempting to convey such authority. There is a recent case in which the Appellate Court reviewed the Legislature's authority to place limitations on eligibility for county sheriffs positions. In Elbers v. Grow, 502 N.W. 2d 810 (Minn. App. 1993) the Appellate Court was asked to rule on the ability of the State Legislature to place limitations on individuals for two separate county sheriffs positions. The Court held that the "plain language" of Minnesota's Constitution, Article XII, Section 3 , clearly authorizes the Legislature to change qualifications for local office. While the Elbers Court did not address the issue of local regulations of local offices, it very clearly concluded that the State Legislature under Article XII, Section 3 , was the body authorized to place • qualifications on local offices. In the State Legislature last year there was a proposed Bill which called for term limits. The Bill which would have sent the issue of term limits to the voters failed in a Senate Committee and was never acted upon. I am enclosing a copy of a portion of a House Research Department position paper on term limits for elected offices, dated November of 1993 . In that memo the House Research Department indicated that local government offices can be subject to statutory term limits. This Opinion is consistent with the Elbers Opinion, as well as the Attorney General's Opinion that the State Legislature is the body which has the authority to place limitations on holding local office. Based upon my research I find no authority for a charter amendment creating term limits. • ROBERT A.GUZYi G. PAMELA M.HARRIS BERNARD E.STEFFEN CHARLES M.SEYKORA RICHARD A.MERRILL WILLIAM M.HANSEN DARRELL A.JENSEN DANIEL D.GANTER,JR. EFFREY IOHNSON - BEVERLY K.DODGE 0 SELL H.CROWDER T CRAIG M.AYERS B ERICKSON Barna, Guzy & Steffen, Ltd. GREGG V.HERRICK RENCE K.JOHNSON JAMES D.HOEFT DAVID A.COSI ATTORNEYS AT LAW JOAN M.QUADE `HOMAS P.MALONE SCOTT M.LEBAK MICHAEL F.HURLEY 400 Northrown Financial Plaza STEVEN L.MACKEY V'IRGIL C.HERRICK 200 Coon Rapids Boulevard ELIZABETH A.SCHADING HERMAN L.-EALLE1 WILLIAM F.HUEFNER Minneapolis, MN 55433-5489 ROBERT C.HYNES (612) 780-8500 FAX (612) 780-1777 1935.1993 Writer's Direct Line: (612) 783-5123 July 19, 1994 Julie Trude, Secretary Charter Commission City of Mounds View Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10 Mounds View, MN 55112-1499 Re: Additional Work Estimate Dear Ms. Trude: You requested that I give you an estimate as to the fees necessary for the completion of the work requested to date. • In order for me to complete the tasks outlined in the June 2 , 1994 letter, I would estimate that after the payment of the initial $1, 000 . 00, there will be approximately $2 , 500 . 00 in , additional fees. This would cover review and reports on Chapters 1, 5, 8 , and 12 , as well as reviews and reports to the Commission on nonfeasance and malfeasance, the role of the Charter Commission in enforcement, and drafting proposed language for voter initiatives. This is just an estimate, and the actual cost will, of course, depend upon the time necessary to complete these reviews . If you have any questions with regard to this, please feel free to- .ontac t m e. Sincerely, / 2/2//---- Gregg 1 . Herrick vsl III :A❑Euual Ornnrrur.ite Emnt"- 918/34 IMPORTANT NOTICE �15:44.3' CHARTER i COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING SEPTEMBER 12, 1994 5:30 P.M . AGENDA Discuss legal issues raised by City Council attorney regarding term limit language proposed for ballot. Read attached memorandum, discussion will focus on questions posed on last page regarding proposed language. Also council needs commission's interpretation on applying language to councilmembers who have served partial terms due to vacancies/appointments. Receive information regarding costs of potential lawsuits and whether League of Minnesota Cities would defend Mounds View (preliminary attorney opinion is NO, the LMC will not defend or represent Mounds View in lawsuits on this issue). YOUR ATTENDANCE IS CRITICAL Please call City Hall if unable to attend 780-3055 CITY HALL 40 LOWER LEVEL �v "4:Qi-a=g>v/4124m) o T70rorx.J ,r,rrviv,‘ 1 eetz,vvA 1 , • ,2?1 • -t-t-,/°) ;41 • Ati4 I' 4,Jee,ita_ Yom- er- 61 9„74- e/L4,ae 1L0E.cZa. af-f,A-0-4 �) gc>7/ BARNA. GUZY & STEFFEN, LTD. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 445'?1 002 GVH 200 COON RAPIDS BLVD..Suite 400 DATE 7/31/94 MINNEAPOLIS.MN 55433-5891 CHARTER REVIEW TELEPHONE(612)780-8500 411 MOUNDS VIEW CHARTER COMMISSION 2401 HIGHWAY 10 Payments Due Upon Receipt Of Invoice HOUNDS VIEW MN 55112 1499 Unless Prior Arrangements Have Been Made. AMOUNT REMITTED $ Please Detach Here. Return This Portion With Your Payment.Thank You. WE ACCEPT VISA OR MASTERCARD PREVIOUS BALANCE 8 r ti"7.50 PROFESSIONAL, SERVICES 7/07/94 REVIEW CHAPTER 5_ INITIALS: GVH HOURS: 2.00 i i 1 , 94 TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH JULIE TRUDE_ INITIALS: GVH HOURS: _30 • CURRENT FEES: 287.50 CREDITS 7/27/94 PAYMENT ON ACCOUNT - THANK. YOU (GVH) 42143 837.50 CASH RECEIVED: 83 7_50 1 DISBURSEMENTS 6,`03/34 WESTLAW - COMPUTERIZED RESEARCH TIME BY LAW CLERK KELLY M MC SWEENEY - 7:02_ 28.66 CURRENT DISBURSEMENT:;: 28_66 BALANCE DUE: 316. 16 ATTORNEYS AT LAW DATE CLIENT MATTER 44521 002 GVH 7/31/94 CHARTER REVIEW Thank You For Your Valued Business. Barna, Guzy&Steffen, Ltd. •200 Coon Rapids Blvd. •Suite 400• Minneapolis. MN 55433-5894 •Telephone: (612)730-8500