Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-21-1979 • 111MOUNDS VIEW CHARTER COMMISSION MINUTES General Plans & Purposes Committee WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1979 I. Meeting called to order by Chairman, Curt Schmidt, at 8:15 P.M. II. ABSENT MEMBERS: Milan Illig Lowell Nygaard Ruth White III. Minutes of the General Plans & Purposes Committee of February 7, 1979, read by Chairman Schmidt. The Chairman requested that a correction be made in the minutes; i.e. , removing the name of Bill Doty as a member of the General Plans & Purposes Committee. • Motion made by J. Wills and seconded by D. Lykke that the minutes be approved, as amended. Vote: Unanimous. IV. Motion made by J. Wills and seconded by W. Skiba that the meeting be adjourned. Vote: Unanimous Meeting adjourned at 8:20 P.M. SUBMITTED: Dave Notaro Acting Secretary BY: Ruth White Secretary 111 DN:rw MOUNDS VIEW CHARTER COMMISSION MINUTES WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1979 I. Meeting called to order by Chairman, Bill Doty, at 7:37 P.M. II. ABSENT MEMBERS: Don Hodges Lowell Nygaard Milan I7lig Ruth White III. Minutes of January 31, 1979, meeting read by Chairman Doty. Motion by Curt Schmidt and seconded by Bill Werner that the minutes be approved as read. Carried unanimously. IV. Introduction of new Charter Commission members by Chairman Doty: Donald C. Hodges Howard J. Neisen 5086 Eastwood Rd. 5150 Irondale Rd. Chairman Doty brought the new members up-to-date on the work of the • Commission, indicating that the future work of the Commission was to draft a Charter for the City of Mounds View. V. Report of General Plans & Purposes Committee Chairman Schmidt reviewed the Minutes of the January 31st meeting, indicating that it was the recommendation of the Committee that a Charter be drafted for the City. Chairman Schmidt read the Minutes of the Committee meeting held on February 7, 1979. VI. Motion made by H. Neisen and seconded by J. Wills that the Commission recess in favor of the General Plans and Purposes Committee. Carried unanimously. Recessed 8:15 P.M. VII. Charter Commission reconvened by Chairman Doty at 8:20 P.M. VIII. Motion made by C. Schmidt and seconded by C. Ziebarth that the recom- mendations of the General Plans and Purposes Committee as outlined in their minutes of February 7, 1979, be accepted. Carried unanimously. Mounds View Charter Commission - Minutes - (continued) Page (2) • IX. Motion made by B. Werner and seconded by H. Neisen that the • General Plans and Purposes Committee be put on "inactive status" until further notice. Carried unanimously. X. Motion made by N. Loeding and seconded by J. Wills that the title of Clerk Administrator position be changed to "Clerk-Coordinator", and that the position of Treasurer be separate from that of the Clerk- Coordinator. Motion carried. Vote: 9 Ayes - 2 Nays XI. Motion made by N. Loeding and seconded by H. Neisen that recommendations #2 and,#3 of the "Present and Alternative Local Government Organization" Subcommittee be accepted as written: (2) That the Charter Commission consider a provision to require payment of all "front-end" costs by a developer. (3) That the appropriate committee of the Charter Commission look into what controls and restrictions can and should be placed on the authorization and financing of improvement projects. Motion carried unanimously. XII. Curt Schmidt gave a report on Initiative and Referendum, and presented a 10-page document on the subject. Motion made by J. Wills and seconded by H. Neisen that the multi-page document consisting of 10 pages entitled "Initiative & Referendum " be accepted as part of the minutes and be incorporated therein. (Copy attached. ) Carried unanimously. XIII. NEW BUSINESS 1. Motion made by N. Loeding and seconded by H. Neisen that the ' practice of having a Councilmember as Liaison to each Staff • Department, which has recently been adopted by the City Council, be accepted as part of the Charter, and that it be a duty of each Department Head to report periodically (at least monthly) to the Council and Public at regular meetings of the City Council. Carried unanimously. 2. C. Schmidt suggested that members of Charter Commissions of surrounding cities be invited to speak to our Commission. The cities should be comparable in size and population. Duane McCarty volunteered to check on cities comparable in size to Mounds View and invite organizing members of their Charters • to sit on a panel at the next Charter Commission meeting. Mounds View Charter Commission - Minutes - (continued) Page (3) • XIII. NEW BUSINESS - (cont'd) 3. New Sub-Committees Chairpersons appointed by Charter Commission Chairman Doty. Commission members volunteered for the various sub-con ittees. Committees established as follows: a) General Provisions, the Plan of Government, the Council, and Legislation. Chairman: Don Hodges Members: Howard Neisen - - Neil Loeding b) Nominations, Elections, Initiative, Referendum and Recall. Chairman: Duane McCarty Members: Curt Schmidt . • c) Administration, Taxation, and Finance. Chairman: Milan Illig Members: Bill Doty -- Neil Loeding - - Dick Lykke d) Local Improvements, Special Assessments, and Eminent Domain. Chairman: Curt Schmidt • Members: Jim Wills - - Dave Notaro - - Bill Werner - N. Loeding e) Franchises, Public Utilities, & Miscellaneous Matters. Chairman: Jim Wills Members: Duane McCarty - - Curt Schmidt Motion made by H. Neisen and seconded by N. Loeding that the proposed committees and members be accepted as firm. Carried unanimously. 411 • 411 . Mounds View Charter Commission - Minutes - (continued) Page (4) XIII. NEW BUSINESS - (cont'd) • 3. New Sub-Committees - (cont'd) Motion made by H. Neisen and seconded by W. Skiba that the Chairman of each sub-committee set a meeting date at their earliest convenience with Wednesday being the preferred night. It was noted that the sub-committees would be subject to the open meeting law. Carried unanimously. It was the consensus of the Commission that monthly progress reports be submitted to the Commission by each sub-committee. XIV. Motion made by D. Notaro and seconded by Bill Werner that the meeting be adjourned. Carried unanimously. • Meeting adjourned at 9:55 P.M. SUBMITTED: Dave Notaro Acting Secretary BY: • Ruth White Secretary DN:rw • One of the most marked features of the evolution of government in the United States was popular dissatisfaction with state legislatures during the late 19th century. Many people felt that the legislatures were no longer representative of the people but- were instead. dominated by political bosses and special interests, such as the railroads. .This growing dissatisfaction coincided with the growth of the labor movement and several strong "people's parties." Populist ideas peaked between the Civil War and World War I, then subsided and may again be on the rise. • Adding to the surge in the populist or progressive reform movement was a series of articles which appeared in England on the use of direct legislation in Switzerland. By 1888 the Swiss system of direct legislation was well known to many groups in the United States and England, and there was wide discussion about the desirability of adopting it as a defense against unpopular legislation. Switzerland had used the referendum in some cantons, political divisions corresponding to states, since the 16th century. Measures of national importance have to be submitted to popular vote if the governments of eight of the twenty- five cantons or if 30,000 voters throughout the country should so petition. This unique power of the Swiss people is attributed to the unusual federation of cantons consisting of French, Italian, German, and Romansch speaking people who united to form the modern Swiss nation. It serves as a pressure release for minorities who can put their case to the people when at odds with the government. Several other countries use the referendum from time to time, but only their governments can initiate the action.2 The first large well-organized body in the United States to favor adoption of I and R at the state level was the American Federation of Labor, which publicly supported it in 1892. Various populist parties and labor organizations also adopted it and it 1898, South Dakota became the first state to add it to its constitution. Twenty-six states have since adopted some form of direct legislation. CHART OF STATES WITH DIRECT LEGISLATION Initiative and Referendum Alaska Arizona + Nevada + Idaho Arkansas + North Dakota + • Maine • California + Ohio Montana Colorado + Oklahoma + South Dakota' Massachusetts + Oregon + Utah Michigan + Washington Missouri + + includes constitutional Wyoming Nebraska + amendment also Initiative only Florida - to amend its constitution only Illinois - to amend only Article IV: The Legislature, of its state constitution Referendum only Kentucky - on certain tax measures only Maryland • New Mexico No state which has I and R has ever dropped it from its constitution and some states, such as California, Oregon and Washington, use it frequently. Even in states that have not adopted it, it is used at the county and municipal level. Hawaii, which has no I and R for state government, has made it optional at the county level. For example, Kauai and Hawaii counties provide I and R for charter amendments and ordinances; Honolulu county allows only direct initiative for charter amendments; Maui county provides advisory initia- tive for charter amendments and Iaand R for ordinances. In the study The Initiative and Referendum in California, it is stated that "Every type of group representing population interest -- commercial, industrial, financial reform, religious, political -- has made use of the initiative. However, it 'adds, ". . .suc- cessful initiatives have originated only with substantial interest groups. At thesame time the successful initiative must have widespread appeal and must not depart too drastically • from established patterns of activity."3 Generally, more people vote on initiative measures than on referenda. The . more controversial the issue, the more -voter interest is evinced on both types of legisla- tion. However, initiative measures are more likely to be turned down than referenda. It appears that decisions by the legislature are received more favorably than measures proposed by the citizenry. . Opponents feel that the constitution should be a short document with all the details put into the statutes. They cite the long constitution of the state of California as an outstanding bad example of what can happen when it is too easy to amend the state document. It is true that many times proponents of initiatives prefer to put them in the constitution, but whether a lengthy constitution is the result of initiative power or if it is due to the • structure of the constitution is hard to say because other states with no constitutional initi- ative have even lengthier, more detailed documents. Legislating by Initiative The statutory initiative is used to proposed measures that a legislative body will not enact. Of the states that provide for use of the initiative to propose legislation, Ohio, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, and South Dakota have the indirect initiative only. Washington uses a combination: if a measure is submitted more than four months before an election it goes directly on the ballot; if submitted not less than ten days before the legislature convenes the initiative is considered by the legislature. Sometimes initiatives are supported by a majority of voters but unlike consti- tutional initiatives which usually reflect the concern of broad segments of the public, statu- tory initiatives are more likely to be supported by a special interest.8 The subject of initia- tives varies greatly, reflecting the interests of the people of a state, such as fish, fores- try, agriculture, environment, antivivisectionist, etc. Many times the proposals are regu- latory in nature. Initiatives proposed reflect a change of attitude. Following World War II there were many proposed concerning veterans.. In earlier days, prohibition and like matters were •subjects of concern. Now marijuana is a major topic, and taxation has always been a popular subject with initiative users. Depending on the constitution; a statutory initiative in one state may bea constitutional initiative in another, or vice-versa. The basic argument against the use of the statutory initiative is that it is frequently used by minority or special interest groups to circumvent the legislature or governor. Those for its use, however, feel it insures that special interests or minorities • will have an opportunity to state their cases and let the public decide on the merits of their proposals. TYPES OF REFERENDUM AND USAGE Petition -- Supporters of the referendum by citizen petition point out that though it is generally easier to use than the initiative, it is not used as often. Twenty- four states use this referendum and the citizens of these states feel that although there are drawbacks, it is for the most part regarded as a valuable safeguard. The people can accept, reject, or amend laws enacted by the legislature. This type of referendum is successful only when there is substantial negative feeling and .is not used frivolously to challenge every legislative decision. Perhaps the most frequently cited argument against this type of referendum is that if enough signatures are collected to qualify the petition for the ballot, the law is suspended until after the election. Legislation that would most likely be approved by the voters could be held up by a small organized group. If the referendum is voted on at the next regularly scheduled election it could be delayed as long as a year and a half. If a special election is held, the cost rises accordingly. Butproponents feel it is worth the delay and possible extra cost to keep the legislature from enacting undesirable laws and point out-that provisions can be made so that if legislation is truly urgent, it .can be exempted from the referendum procedure by an over- whelming vote of the legislature. Optional -- In some states the legislature may refer legislation to the_people for judgement. The voluntary use of the referendum by the legislature is quite controversial. • Some state constitutions specifically give their legislature this option. However, it has been used in New York and Illinois whose constitutions did not provide for it, and this use has been successfully challenged in the courts. Based on these decisions, the Attorney General of Hawaii has given the opinion that our state legislature may not use the optional referendum.9 4 • insure that this cannot happen except in the case where legislation is indeed urgent. Some states require measures identified as emergency be passed by a two-thirds majority of the legislature. • Enabling Legislation -- Constitution or Statute? Constitutions vary considerably in the level of detail with which I and R pro-- cedures are specified. Utah, Idaho, South Dakota, and Maryland merely provided for initiative - and referendum and left the details of its mechanism to their legislatures. Utah and Idaho had to wait nearly 50 years for their legislatures to pass the enabling legislation. On the other hand, some states outline every procedural detail in the constitution. According to the 1968 Constitutional Convention study prepared by the Legis- lative Reference Bureau of the State of Hawaii: "Most constitutional previsions are more lengthy and detailed. The problem of detail is important for two reasons. The extent to which the provision can be implemented without enabling legislation affects the extent to which the legislature can adversely or favor- ably affgct the ability of the people to utilize the provision. In . addition, the procedural requirements determine the real availability of the Initiative. Where requirements are rigid, initiated legisla- tion is more theoretical than real and where requirements are loose, - almost any motivated group can get its proposition on the ballot." The case for not putting too much detail in the constitution is that when changes in -procedure are needed (and in'many cases they are) it takes a constitutional amend- ment. This argument states that only the most important features of the legislation should go into the constitution and the details into the statutes. • Circulation of Petition • Some constitutions go into considerable detail as to who may circulate and sign petitions Most states say that any "eligible voter" may sign but there is a problem in interpretation as to who is an eligible\voter.. This is_an .impDrtant issue because if:signatures must be from registered voters, as opposed to all who are over 18 years of age, the difficulty obtaining the required number is increased. Some states prohibit paid circulators, hoping-to lessen the advantage-of monied interests but this is hard to enforce as some organizations have access to member-workers who are not always volunteers. It also makes it extremely difficult for small or less-organized groups to mount a campaign. Filing and Review of Petition Most state constitutions specify with whom petitions are to be filed and the minimum time prior to the election in which this must be done. The most common requirement' is a period not less than four months before the election. At that time the petitions are checked for number and validity. In some states, when the petitions have been found valid, the proposed legisla- tion is subject to review to see if it is in proper legal form to avoid future litigation. If somechangeis necessary, the originators of the petitions have the power to approve it. Massachusetts- and -California require a preliminary review by the State Attorney General before circulation of the petition. The wording of ballot measures is very important. All too often a proposition has been worded in such a way that a "yes" vote meant opposition and vice-versa, so care must be taken to insure that the wording clearly reflects the intent of the proposal. The agents in charge of these procedures are usually the secretary of state and the attorney general. California has .a legislative analyst who reviews each proposal and estimates its cost, and this figure is included on the ballot. 6 regressive. Prior to 1965 school bond and tax referenda passed almost automatically over the entire country and in fact, in many cases the people put them on the ballot to counteract un- . . willing legislatures and local governments.10 This was viewed by many as being progressive. - Now, however, the trend to defeat these measures has been growing. This is seen as regressive. Oregonians voted down a cigarette tax three times and then later switched and voted twice to - ax- their- sale. MostII people would agree that the legislature was ahead of. the .people - - - • Minority or Majority Rule • Another controversy concerns whether I and R lets a minority of the citizenry legislate for the rest. • One studyll indicates that there is usually a drop in the number of people who vote on either initiative or referendum measures when compared to the number of people who v'bte for candidates for high office, such as governor or president. The study did not state how these percentages compare to the vote for candidates for other state office, such as secretary of state, attorney general, treasurer, etc. The trend is that voter interest declines with the importance of the office. , It is possible that because of apathy a very small minority can legislate for the majority. This is particularly true in special elections called to vote on one referendum and frequently happens at the county and municipal levels. Enforcing and Financing If there is insufficient popular support or if there is opposition from the legislature or executive, will a law passed by direct legislation be enforceable? • None of the studies indicated any evidence of overt effort by government to subvert laws enacted by the people nor did they indicate that enforcement is a problem, or at least no moreso than with laws passed by legislatures. The various laws against gambling, prostitution; drinking, etc. , whether passed by the people or by governmental bodies, have- all - -- run -into problems of enforcement when a large percentage of people disagree with them, - 4111 • . - When measures involving substantial appropriations are proposed, problems can - -ariseas to where the money will come from. In extreme- cases,-initiatives could- have:spelled financial disaster for the state if they had not been rejected by the people, ruled unconsti- tutional, or overturned by an overwhelming vote of the legislature. - • In most states, financing is handled as it would be for a bill passed by the legislature. Another method is that used by Nevada, which requires that any initiative which calls for appropriation or otherwise spends money must also provide for raising-the money by tax or other means. - Complexity of Issues 0 Proponents of I and R feel that the groups proposing or opposing- direct legis- lation may be as well informed, and perhaps more so, than the legislature. They point out .- that in most- cases the legislature enacts laws that have been studied thoroughly by only a - - few people'-and that legislators, often rushed and tired, can -rarely- devote- -the time-and :energy- --- -- . - required to study every issue in depth. Special interest groups, -they say, can and do devote - themselves to one issue and be expert on it. . - - Even though sponsors. o.f a measure offer a take it br leave it package, I and R - supporters-.feel' that modifications and compromises have usually already- been made by the ini- _• tiating group. They believe that the campaign itself will educate voters on the issue and stimulate debate and public interest. Minority opinion, they say, will have an opportunity • to state its case and take it to the public. They also point out that voters are usually - consistent even when faced with similar or conflicting measures on the same ballot, although opponents of I and R disagree and say that in some cases--voters have been- inconsistent,4 Proponents say there is no evidence to support the charge that voters tire or I become confused when faced with a long ballot because initiative measures receive great voter response although they are usually placed. at -the bottom of the ballot. They feel that though - -- a-majority •of initiatives fail, it is not because the voters became-tired- or--confused-but --- -- - because they doubted the merits of the measure. $ 'a • s efficient. Strong arguments for it state that it makes the voice of the people more efficient and serves as a last resort when government is or seems to be unresponsive. It lets people who are interested have an opportunity to directly influence the laws which govern them. How one-feels about the subject seems to depend more on one's philosophy of government rather than any merits or deficiencies inherent to I and R. Those who see it as a 4110 panacea for the ills of government will most likely be disappointed. Those who see it as a threat to sound government will find that no state which espouses it has yet to succumb to the foibles of its citizenry. BIBLIOGRAPHY . (The numbered references correspond-to cited references throughout the text. Unnumbered lis- tings were used as general reference material 2,nd are b no .means inclusive. ) 1. Encyclopedia Americana. New York: AmericanaBook-Stratford Press, 1952. 2. Braham, Colin, and Burton, Jim. The Referendum Reconsidered. Loi:;)on: Fabian Society, 1975. 3. Crouch, Winston. The Initiative and Referendum in California. revist' edition. Los An- geles: The Hayes Foundation, 1950. 4. National Initiative and Vote of Confidence (Recall) . Ed. Joyce Koupal and Edwoupal. Los Angeles: People's Lobby Press, 1974. 5. Price, Charles M. "The Initiative: A Comparative State Analysis and Reassessment of a Western Phenomenon." Western Political Quarterly. v. XXVIII (June 1975), 243-62. 6. Oregon. Oregon Blue Book 1975-76. Secretary of State Clay Myers. Ed. Berylalee Winning- ham. Salem: 1974. 7. National Municipal League. "Model State Constitution. " 6th edition. New York: 1963. 8. California Assembly, Interim Committee on Constitutional Amendments. The Initiative Part I and Part II. Ch. Edward F. Elliott. Sacramento: 1965. - 9. Hawaii. "Opinions of the Attorney General 1963-1967. " Honolulu: 1967. 10. Hamilton, Howard D. and Cohen, Sylvan H. Policy Making by Plebiscite: School Referenda. Lexington: D. C. Heath and Company, 1974. 11. Scott, Stanley-and Nathan, Harriet. Public Referenda: A Critical Reappraisal. Berkeley: -- ' Institute of Governmental Studies, University of California, 1970. 12. Williams, Roger M. "Massing at 'he Grass Roots. " Saturday Review, 22 January 1977, p. 14. 41013. La Palombara, Joseph G. and Hagan, Charier 3_ "Direct Legislation: An Appraisal and a Suggestion. " American Political Science Revzew,-73-.- ;17 11cTar.-S ?°�1-', 400. Hawaii. "The Initiative and Referendum. " +Ianual on State Constitutional Provisions. ---- Prepared by the Legislative Reference Bureau. Honolulu: University of Hawaii, 1950. Hawaii. Hawaii Constitutional Convention Studies, Article II: Suffrage and Elections. Prepared by the Legislative Reference Bureau. . Honolulu: 1968. _ Hawaii. Statutory Initiative. Prepared by the Joint Tax Committee, Legislative Reference Bureau. Hon6lulu: 1950. , Corry, J. A. and Abraham, Henry J. Elements of Democratic Government. 4th edition. New York: Oxford University Press, 1964. Bacon, Edwin M. and Wyman, Morrill. Direct Elections and Law-Making by Popular Vote. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1912. King, Judson. The American Voter as a Lawmaker. Washington: National Popular Govern- ment League, 1922. La Palombara, Joseph G. The Initiative and Refermdum in Oregon la38-48. Corvallis: Oregon University Press, 1950. Maine. Report of the Judiciary Committee on the Initiative and Referendum Process. 1974. Oberholtzer, Ellis P. The Referendum in America New York: Charles Scribner, Sons, 1912. General correspondence and reference notes from ,he League of Women Voters of the following state leagues: North Dakota, South Dakota, California, Arizona, Oklahoma, Nebraska. /I . / • ' FACTS AND ISSUES. Published by the League of Women Voters of Hawaii, 1232 Waimanu Street, Honolulu, Hawaii 96814. 50¢ each copy, This publication may not be reproduced without permission of the.League of Women Voters of Hawaii. March 1977 10 •