HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987 01-28 CHCA Q TY-,- C,7,T,-"ED r,; T MT?Q OT� I( T
BRCCK�,
J &3 0.23 22 1
Citi TT
r P11
,7
AIINTIIJAL 2=22 CT A Ir']',T-
1. Call to Order
2. 2011 Call
3. Approval of 1',ovember 1 1//§, minutes
Approval of Annual 7eport
A *t Report jean Schiebel
ud-L
C IqrrI 4 -?eport jean Schinbel Chair
7. I.,omina tine, -L ttee 7 1
Election of Cfficers for 19F?
(a. Chair
(b) Vice-Chair
(c) Secretary
S. Committee Al. by Chair
(a) Audit
(b Public
-1 P-!7,/Pa rl i a me n ta r i a. n
9. Old Business
(a) Status of Elections Amenlrl,ment Amendin- Sections 2.0? and.
4. 0- of' the City Charter
10. Sew Dusiness
(a) 1987 Salary for Secretarial Assistant
b View Charter Copies
)ate
11. Next D
12. Ad iourni,,ient
BRCCtiLYT`y CENTER CHARTER CO iP ?ISSIGPv
"N1 REPCRT
1986
The 3rooklyn Center Charter Commission met five times during 1986.
The annual meeting was held on January 22, 1986, with the following
officers elected.:
Chair: Dennis Kueng
Vice Chair: Ernest Erickson
Secretary: Barbara Sexton
The following committee appointments were made by the Chair:
Public Relations: Ernest Erickson
Audit Jean Schiebel
Rules /Parliamentarian: Neil Smeaton
During the year, there was one (1) resignation: Barbara Swart. Three
new appointments were made: Benjamin Chatelle (1 -14 -86 to 2- 3 -87);
Everett Lindh (1 -14 -86 to 1- 14 -90); and Tony K_uefler (11 -10 -86 to 9- 18 -88)
Dennis K.ueng and Neil Smeaton were reappointed to a second full four-
year term, with their terms expiring 3 -4 -9C and 1 -27 -90 respectively.
The Charter Commission currently has a full complement of fifteen members.
During calendar year 1986, the following business was accomplished.
The Charter Commission continued its efforts begun in late 1984 persuant
to changing sections 2.03 and 4.01 of the city charter. This change
will provide for even year city elections and will lengthen the terms
of office for both the mayor and city council. The mayor's term would
be extended from two to four years and the city council's terms from
three to four years. This was noted upon by a 10 to 2 favorable vote
by commission resolution on October 23, 1985. This resolution was then
forwarded to the City Clerk on June 4, 1986, for proper wording and action
by the City Council. adequate time was given for council action prior to
the November General Election.
The resolution, in its proper form, was presented to the City Council
on August 25, 1986. At that time, action on the resolution was tabled
by the city council. After one other delay, the City Council approved
the resolution for inclusion on the general election ballot in November.
The resolution was approved by a majority of the voters at the November
4, 1986, 'general ;election.
The Elections Amendment Sub- Committee met three times during 1986 to
prepare and implement voter information regardinE the proposed charter
change. Charter Commission funds were used for informational advertising.
in the Brooklyn Center Post and the !inneapolis Star. Additional informa-
tion regarding; the change was made available to Brooklyn Center voters
via cable television Channel 7.
?es ectfu11 submitted,
Dennis B. Kueng, Chair,
3RCCKLYN Cr. ?TER CHARTER CC jU +iISSIOid
cb
CITY r 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY
OF BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430
ROOKLYN TELEPHONE 561 -5440
C E�j�j' EMERGENCY POLICE FIRE
E NTE R LL 911
January 9, 1987
Mrs. Jean Schiebel
2120 70th Avenue North
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
Dear Mrs. Schiebel:
At your request as Audit Chairman of the Brooklyn Center Charter Commission,
I have Listed below the expenditures charged to the Charter Commission budget
appropriation in 1986:
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES:
DATE PAYEE AMOUNT PURPOSE
2 -5 -86 Ernest Erickson 27.99 Michael Beauchane Plaque
2 -20 -86 Carole Blowers 66.64 Secretarial Services
4 -23 -86 Carole Blowers 60.24 Secretarial Services
6 -18 -86 Carole Blowers 65.26 Secretarial Services
9 -17 -86 Carole Blowers 62.75 Secretarial Services
10 -8 -86 Carole Blowers 100.40 Secretarial Services
11 -24 -86 Carole Blowers 110.44 Secretarial Services
1 -12 -87 Carole Blowers 47.53 Secretarial Services
10 -23 -86 Mpls. Star and Tribune 436.53 Charter Change Vote
11 -10 -86 Post Publishing 265.00 Charter Change Ad
$1,242.78
The Commission expended $1,242.78 of its 1986 appropriation of $1,500, leaving
an unexpended balance of $257.22.
Sincerely yours,
Paul W. Holmlund
Director of Finance
cb
CF
I t AA.
TO: BROOKLYN CENTER CITY MANAGER, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: FROM THE OFFICE OF LEFEVERE, LEFLER, KENNEDY, O'BRIEN DRAWZ
DATE: DECEMBER 30, 1986
RE: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 1986 CHARTER AMENDMENT
The Charter Change. On November 4, 1986, the voters of
Brooklyn Center approved a charter amendment requiring the
regular municipal election to- -occur in November of even numbered
years and requiring the term of the Mayor to be extended from two
years to four years and the term of council members to be
extended from three years to four years. The charter amendment
contained no details describing the method of implementing these
charter changes.
The Charter Should Be Self Executing. Before discussing the
implementation, it is important to note that a charter is a
fundamental document establishing the form of government of a
.city. A charter is a process by which local governments "can
s formulate and amend their own form of government. The charter is
to city government what the Minnesota Constitution is to state
government. It is the policy of both the Minnesota Constitution
and the Minnesota State Legislature that charter cities be self
governing to a very great extent. Several principles result from
the charter city's special status:
1. The legislature does not control the content of
charters or the details of their implementation;
2. The charter itself normally contains implementing
language;
3. We look first to the charter itself for direction in
implementing the charter or its amendments.
1 ,•'i ;e';yr
Scope Of This Memo. There are three different ways to
implement the charter amendment:
1. A second charter amendment prepared by the Charter
Commission and approved by the unanimous vote of the
City Council by ordinance.
2. An ordinance adopted by majority vote of the City
Council pursuant to Section 12.12 of the City Charter.
3. No action necessary; the charter and its amendment are
effective and self executing.
Each of _these -three methods is a reasonable legal
interpretation of the charter and existing law. Methods 2 and 3
carry some risk of challenge. It. is my opinion that any of the
three methods would survive a challenge.
1
IMPLEMENTATION BY CHARTER AMENDMENT
Implementation By Charter Is The Bulletnroof Method. Based
upon the three basic principles outlined in the previous section,
we have recommended that a charter amendment adopted by ordinance
be used to implement the details of the transition to the new
charter provisions. (We have assumed, for purposes of this
section, :that.. -the :charter amendment is.. not .self executing)
Although it is cumbersome, it is legally foolproof, and not
subject to any kind of rational challenge. It is, of course, the
most conservative viewpoint; it takes time and the cooperation of
the Charter Commission; but it gets the job done with no risk.
There is no risk because the charter controls the entire
procedure.
l
4. l;�r k J": i� zip' .�'1�j"•. 1` Pre :'ii' •+1311- ►.a.w�liy.��1�
2
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CHARTER PROVISIONS BY ORDINANCE
A Second Alternative; Implementation By Ordinance. As we
have indicated,. the charter amendment contained no details
describing...the method of implementing -the charter changes
However, looking to the body of the charter itself, the very last
paragraph contains the following language.
Section 12.12. ORDINANCES TO MAKE CHARTER EFFECTIVE
The council shall by ordinance make such regulations as may
necessary to carry out and make effective the provisions
of this charter. (Emphasis supplied)
For purposes of this discussion, we again assume that the
charter amendment is not self executing. Under any possible
scenario, one or more of the terms of office of members of the
City Council or the Mayor will 'end in an odd numbered year and
one or more such terms will need to be extended. Under Section
12.12 of the charter, the council, by ordinance, would extend the
terms of the council member or members which are necessary to
make all of the terms end in an even numbered year. Thus the
City Council would "carry out and make effective" the charter
amendment.
This procedure is subject to challenge. In my opinion, the
challenge would not be successful, based largely on the further
discussion in Section 3 of this memo. However, there is an
argument to be made and it goes like this:
1. There is no Minnesota case specifically stating that a
City Council can extend the terms of office by
ordinance;
2. Cases from other jurisdictions (see McQuillan,
§12.114, N.10) state that a city council does not have
i
the authority to alter the terms of office unless
authorized by the charter.
3. The is no specific authority in the charter for the
extension of terms of- office;
4. The making of "regulations" authorized by Section 12.12
of the charter cannot be used to alter a term of office
which is specifically determined in the.charter;
5. _The making of "regulations" under Section 12.12 refers
to such matters as setting up departments of
administration pursuant to Section 6.03 of the charter,
and similar matters,
While it is unlikely that such an argument would ultimately
be successful. in the court room, the argument is available to
someone who might disagree with the Council's decision so there
is some risk that a legal challenge would be commenced.
3
NO ACTION NECESSARY: THE CHARTER IS SELF EXECUTING
Charter Amendment Took Effect December 4, 1986. The first
legal principal to determine and apply is the rule establishing
the effective date of new charter provisions approved by the
voters. Neither the charter nor the amendment sets an effective
date. We look next to the statute and find that Minn. Stat.
§410.12, Subd. 4 provides that "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." Looking further in the statute we
find that Minn. Stat. §410.11 provides "The charter shall take
effect 30 days after election, or at such other time as is fixed
in the charter. Therefore, the new charter amendments
clearly took effect on December 4, 1986.
Existinq Terms Of Office Are Automatically Extended. The
second legal question is: What legal effect does the amended
4
charter have on existing terms of office for the Mayor and
council members Looking first to the charter and the amendment,
we find that neither contains any language which is of assistance
on this question. The statute, however, in Minn. Stat. 5410.11
provides "The charter shall take effect 30 days after the
election, or at other time as is fixed in the charter, and
shall then supersede all other charter provisions relating to
such city." (emphasis supplied) While this particular section
of the statute appears to apply to the adoption of a new charter,
it is equally applicable to charter amendments and is obviously
designed, by its language, "supersede all other charter
provisions to be used in cases where an existing charter
provision is being supplanted by new charter provision.
While there` are no Minnesota cases deciding this question,
it has come up in several cases in half a dozen other states and
these courts have held that the existing terms of council members
f are adjusted by the new charter provisions. McQuillan, Municipal
Corporations, 512.113 and the cases cited at Note 5. There is
support in Minnesota cases for the proposition that exi`sfing
terms of office may be altered by charter amendments. See
Woodbridge v. Citv of Duluth, 140 N.W. 182 (1913) and Van Cleve
v. Wallace, 13 N.W.2d 467 (1944). There is also support for this
proposition in the Brooklyn Center Charter itself, at section
12.08 which provides that present officers of the City continue
in office until their successors are chosen and qualify.
In the Woodbridqe case a new charter abolished the entire 16
member city council of Duluth and replaced it with a 5 member
5
i
commission but provided for the election of the 5 commissioners
several months after the new charter took effect. The Minnesota
Supreme Court held:
1. That the new charter indeed took effect 30 days after
the election;
2. That the 16 member council would hold over in their
terms until the 5 commissioners had been elected and
qualified for office.
I am attaching a copy of the Woodbridge case for its instructive
discussion of some very basic principles of charter law which are
found on page 183 of that case. Summarized, these principles are
as follows:
1. The legislature favors placing all questions concerning
self government in the hands of the municipalities;
2. On the date the charter amendments become effective,
the old charter provisions become functus officio and
have no further effect;
3. A charter should be construed so that no gap in
governmental functions occurs;
4. Questions involving fundamental governmental forms
should be decided on practical and broad considerations
rather than technicalities;
5. The charter is an expression of the will of the voters
and, (unless specifically prohibited by the legislature)
the charter itself should be looked to for the
expression of the will of the people.
Based on these principles, we conclude that: On December 4,
1986, the present term of Mayor was extended from 2 years to 4
years, therefore ending in 1989; the term of Council Member Hawes
was extended from 3 years to 4 years ending in 1988; the term of
Council Member Lhotka was extended from 3 years to 4 years ending
in 1989; the term of Council Member Scott was extended from 3
i
6
years to 4 years ending in 1990; and the term -of Council Member
Theis was extended from 3 years to 4 years ending in 1988.
Extended Terms Ending In Odd Numbered Years Hold Over Until
The Next Election. The third question is when do we hold an
election for the seats of the Mayor and Council Member Lhotka,
which end in an odd numbered year We have seen that the new
charter provisions took effect on December 4, 1986 and that they
supersede the pre- existing charter provisions. Therefore,
elections must be held in even numbered years. The terms of the
Mayor and one Council Member end in an odd numbered year.
Looking first to the charter, we find language which
suggests that the election for a particular office must occur in
the final year of the term of that office.
Section 3.01. COUNCIL MEETINGS. On the first business day
of January following a regular municipal election, the
Council shall meet at the usual place and time for the
holding of Council meetings. At this time, the newly
elected members of the Council shall assume their duties.
(Emphasis supplied).
It could be argued that "newly elected simply means "previously
elected" and the election for a term beginning in 1990 could
occur at the regular election in the fall of 1988. Such a
procedure, however, would be overly technical, illogical and
impractical, and therefore in violation of the common sense rules
laid out in Woodbridge vs. Citv of Duluth, supra. It would also
be in violation of the universal election practices of the State
of Minnesota. Finally, it would violate the principle
established through 20 years of existing practice under the
present City charter.
7
Council Members Hold Office Until Successors Are Chosen.
Looking further through the charter document itself, we find at
Section 12.08 the provision which requires that "The present
officers of the City shall continue in their respective offices
and functions until their successors are chosen and qualify, and
shall continue to govern the City in the usual manner." Thus, it
is clear that the voters, through the charter, have determined
that terms of office which end in an odd numbered year shall be
extended to include the following even numbered year during which
an election can be held to fill that office for the subsequent
term. This provision is in accord with the Woodbridge case, with
Van Cleve vs. Wallace, and with dozens of other states that have
considered the question. See McQuillan, Municipal Corporations,
§12.110.
Based upon these considerations, the transition to even year
elections and the lengthening of the terms of the members of the
City Council and the Mayor was complete upon adoption of the
charter amendments by the voters and the passage of 30 days
thereafter. No further action by the City Council would be
required.
We have stated that all three of these methods is a
reasonable interpretation of the charter and applicable law.
Method 2 and, to a slightly greater extent, method 3, carry some
risk that they will be challenged because they are based on
principles of legal interpretation gleaned from the charter, the
statutes, and cases from the Supreme Court while method 1 is
entirely controlled by the charter. However, it is unlikely that
8
a challenge to method 2 or 3 would be successful. The risk is
that of nuisance litigation. The City Council is in the best
position to know if any citizen or group of voters is interested
in making such a challenge.
9
182 140 NORTHWESTERN REPORTER (Min
ownership necessarily follows. The term brought by him as a taxpayer of Duluth, fc
"indorse" has a well- defined meaning, and a an Wunction restraining the city officers fro:
finding of indorsement imports everything (1) issuing $100,000 of water and light bond:
necessary to pass the legal title from the (2) from extending a certain sewer; and f:
Indorser to the indorsee. 14 Enc. of Plead. from purchasing as automobile for the fir
and Pr. 520; Snelgrove v. Branch Bank of department
Mobile, 5 Ala. 295; Pryce v. Jordan, 69 Cal. On December 1912, the city of Dulut
569, 11 Pax 185; Higgins v. Bullock, 66 Ill which theretofore had been operating undo
37; Rubelman v. McNichol, 13 Mo. App. 584; a home rule charter, with a mayor and
2 Brooks v. Edson, 7 Vt 351; Perkins Doe city council of 16 aldermen, having the user
h Co. v. Bradley, 24 VL 66; Myers v. Farm powers, adopted a charter for a commissic
ers' State Bank, 53 Neb. 824, 74 N. W. 252; form of government, whereby its powers wer
i Downer v. Read, 17 Minn. 493 ((Nil. 470). vested in a mayor and four commissioner
t [91 9. The question whether the plaintiff who were to constitute the city council. Ur
is an indorsee for value within the law mer- der this charter, however, these officers wer
chant is not important in this case. The de- not to be elected until April 1, 1913, an
i i f fense in this case is predicated on a settle- were not to take office until April 14th;
ment made after the indorsement of the pa- being provided that "until April 14, 1913, L
r i per. Had plaintiff been a mere assignee 12 o'clock noon, and no longer, the officer
1 without indorsement its rights could not be holding office at the time this charter take
prejudiced by any acts of defendants done effect shall continue in office." On Januar
after plaintiff's rights had accrued. It is 6, 1913, the new charter having come into o-
i only where a defense arises before the in- eration, the said council of 16, assuming t
i dorsement that the question whether the act under the same, 13 members being pre:
plaintiff is an indorsee for value within the ent and all voting therefor, resolved:
law merchant becomes material To issue $100,000 of water and light bond-
Judgment affirmed. which had previously been duly authorize
j under the old charter, and which, by tt
terms of their authorization, were require
c f to be sold before April 1, 1913; (2) to e
I i WOODBRIDGE v. CITY OF DULUTH et al. tend a sewer, the cost thereof to be assesse
(Supreme Court of Minnesota. March 7, 1913.) against the property specially benefited therF
by; and on the same date an ordinance we
(Syllabus by the Court.) presented for its first reading, providing fc
t
MUNICIPAL CoxPOaeTZOxe 149•)—Commis- the purchase of an automobile for the fl.*
SION CHARTER ADOPTION POWERS OF OLD
COUNCIL. department Thereafter the council pr OCee
i Under the provision of the commission ed to take the steps necessary to the actor:
charter�of the city of Duluth, adopted December plishment of these purposes, whereupon ti
S, 191:., and going into effect 30 days there- plaintiff instituted this action, setting up, t
after, that the officers of the city, holding office
i at the time such charter takes effect, shall con- appropriate allegations, in his complaint tl
flans is office until the commission thereby facts substantially as above stated, togeth
P
rovided for shall be elected and take office, the with the formal allegations usually incorp
city council chosen under the former charter, rated in the complaint in sa action for i
and holding over under the new by virtue of
such provision, had the power to order the is- )unction. The parties stipulated that a col
j I t sue of city bonds authorized under the former of the commission charter should be eertifls
charter, and likewise to order the extension of n
a sewer, and to provide for the purchase of as p a s a part of the record, to be considers
automobile for the fire department; there being by this court; and we will treat it as thou€
c involved in such matters only the ordinary re- it were incorporated in the complaint. Tl
sponsibilities incident to the administration of material provisions of this charter are,
municipal affairs.
�q [Ed. Note. —For other cases, see Municipal substance, as follows: The city council she
Corporations, Cent. Dig. if 327 -332; Dec. Dig. consist of a mayor and four commissioner
4 1 149. who shall be vested with all the legislati
and executive authority of the city; th.
Appeal from District Court, SL Louis being required to devote their entire tir
G
County; Homer B. Dibell, Judge. to the city during business hours, and to r
i Action by Dwight E. Woodbridge against ceive $4,000 per year for their services. T'
r� the City of Duluth and others. From an or-
mayor shall be a member of the council, a:
der sustaining a demurrer to the complaint,
may vote as such, and is to be the preside
t
plaintiff appeals. Affirmed. thereof, but is to have no veto. He is toe
Charles E. Adams, of Duluth, for appel- the chief executive of the city; but the e
lant H. A. Carmichael and William P. Har- ecutive and administrative powers of t
rison, both of Duluth, for respondents. city are distributed among the members
the commission in a certain manner not ns
j PHILIP E. BROWN, J. Appeal by the essary here to detail The manner of ma
plaintiff from an order sustaining
g general ing local improvements is provided for; t
demurrer W his tom lain
in as action authorized, r P commission bean an o ft
t. is b s lour II
,z. S ed. Y
•Foe other cases see same topic and section NUMBER is Dec. Dig. a Am. Dig. Key -No. Series a Rep's Leda
.fi
(Minn. KIM) WOODBRIDGE Y. CITY OF DULUTH 183 W.
axpayer of Duluth, for vote, to order the construction of any side- meat; witness the legislation to that end:
ng the city officers from walk or sewer, etc., which it deems necessary Furthermore, it Is undesirable and out of
water and light bonds; for public convenience or safety, and may accord with judicial determination, from -the
certain sewer; and (3) cause the cost thereof to be assessed against earliest times, that x
automobile for the fire the property specially benefited thereby. be allowed to exist orms
Finally it is provided, as noted above; that of government or chan of era= s.. It Is
42, the city of Duluth, the officers of the city, holding office at the tru nst.: art. 4, 36, provides that
d been operating under time of the taking effect of the new charter, a ebarter,- ratified. by the electors of a mu-
with a mayor and a shall hold office until April 14th, the date of nielpality, becomes effective "at the end `of` t
ermen, having the usual the incoming of the commission.' thirty days thereafter," and that, by virtue
carter for a commission The old charter, which we have designated of this provision, the home rule charter had
thereby its powers were as the home rule charter, was different from become functus officio on January 6th, when
and four commissioners, the new charter, which we have called the the coarse of action here complained of was 't;
rte the city council. Un commission charter, In many respects, the inaugurated; but it Is equally true that on c
:ever, these officers were salient points of difference, here material, that date there was no council or commis- 3
:ntil April 1, 1913, and belug that under the former the city was d1= sion or other constituted municipal officers
Jee until April 14th, it tided into eight wards; two aldermen being other than those, including the council of
"until April 14, 1913, at chosen from each ward, and these constitut- -16, chosen under the old charter, and holding
3 no longer, the officers ed the city council, of which the mayor was over under the express provision of the new. t
time this charter takes not a member, but over whose enactments It is unthinkable that the people of the city cn
s
In office." On January he bad the power of veto; the council had should be• without government from the time
rter having come into op- no executive powers, and, besides the mayor, when the commission charter took effect to
until of 16, assuming to there were a city clerk, a� city treasurer, and the time when, under its provisions, the coup•
13 members being pres- other officers; and, except in certain instanc- ell of five should take charge; and the char
therefor, resolved: (1) es not here material, a local improvement, ter in terms undertakes to provide against'
f er and
light bonds, such as the construction of a sewer, could this very contingency. Moreover, it Is un-
sly been duly authorized not be ordered, except upon a petition Sled reasonable to assume that officers must be e,
rter, and which, by the by a certain per cent. of the property owners. elected under a charter before it has gone'
hori7ation, were required No claim is made of any irregularity in into effect; especially where the charter ea-
e
April 1, 1913; (2) to ea- any of the proceedings complained of, other pressly provides otherwise. So we must con t.,
:ost thereof to be assessed than such as may inhere in the differences elude that the people of Duluth realized that
y specially benefited there- between the provisions of the two charters for a brief period Its affairs would have to
me date an ordinance was noted above; nor is it urged that any stet- be conducted by officers more or less differ-
irst reading, providing for utory provisions have been violated. Broad- ent, both in number and denomination, from
.n automobile for the fire ly stated, the plaintiff's sole claim is that the those to be chosen under the new charter,
eafter the council proceed council of 16 had no power over the matters and to whom the municipal affairs were ulti-
is necessary to the accom- with which they undertook to deal, and par- mately, to be committed. And as the Legisla-
purposes, whereupon the ticularly that, if it should be deemed that ture, who undoubtedly have power to regu-
this action, setting up, by power was granted to them to administer the late such a situation as the one here present
tions, in his complaint the ordinary affairs of the city until the incom ed, have failed to speak thereon, in whom
as above stated, together Ing of the commission, the matters in ques- should the power be deemed to be vested to
illegatious usually incorpo- tion did not come within this category, but provide the method of conducting the city
Plaint In an action for in- were matters extraordinary, which should government during the time intervening be.
rties stipulated that a copy have been left to be dealt with by the latter. fore the incoming of the new officers? We
charter should be certified This claim does not impress us as force- think the answer to this question must be:
he record, to be considered ful. We are of the opinion that the sev The electors of the municipality, to whom all
d we will treat it as though eral affirmative acts of the council, which ultimate powers in local affairs have been
1
.ted in the. complaint. The form the basis of the plaintiff's alleged griev- committed, subject only to limitations ex.
ns of this charter are, in ance, involve merely the ordinary responsi- pressly declared, none of which are here ma-
ows: The city council shall billties incident to the administration of the terial —and the charter itself must be deemed
or and four commissioners, affairs of the municipality, and which call to be the due expression of the will of these
led with all the legislative for the exercise of discretion on the part of electors that the administration of all ordi
uthority of the city' they the duly constituted and acting authorities, nary affairs of the city government shall be
=o devote their entire time both as to the necessity of, and time for, committed to the old officers until the qual-
g business hours, and to re- taking action. �ncation o* rnP nnw_
year for their services. The The question to be determined Is thus re- Questions involving government must not
member of the council, and duced to this: Did the old council, proceed be determined along technical lines. Prac
h, and is to be the president in& in the manner, as regards mode of pro- t1cal and broad considerations should control.
o have no veto. He is made cedure and constitution of the council, as The matter of formal differences between the
Ire owe city; but the ex- they would have done under the old charter, administration of the city's affairs under the
ministrative powers of the except that there was no petition of the prop- two charters is not important, and the ques-
ited among the members of arty owners for the sewer, have the power to Lion presented, both to us and to the people
In a certain manner not nec- act In the premises? It requires no discus- of the city, is how to work out the adminis
lets 1. The manner of mak- don to demonstrate that in recent years the tration of Its public affairs during the short
:ements is provided for; the Legislature has favored placing. In the bands period intervening between the passing of the
ig authorized, by a four fifths Of municipalities, all questions, subject to old government and the full and complete !n-
few exceptions, concerning their self- govern- auguration of the new.
'it XeY -No. Series Rep't Indexes
3
r 't F :�rz y.. r ,g ;ltati+a.• a�+` ,1:± p si_
f 181 140 NORTHWESTERN BEPORTEN
We. &A no ground warranting us In de- him not to make fast time. There was ed.
t j I Blaring that the method adopted was illegal, Bence that at some time during the drive the
or that the acts complained of were nnau- driver was warned not to drive so near the
I j thorized. Commonwealth v. Wyman, 137 Pa, edge of the road. Further than that no one
y•;: -'508, 21 alt. 3S9, supports the views we have of the party. exercised any direction over
expressed to a very considerable extent him,' They drove to Osceola, Wis. On th
Order affirmed._ return trip the car ran over an embankment.
tt
and overturned, causing plaintiiT the Injury
it complained of. The jury found for plaintiM.
e'MEXERS v. TRI -STATE AUTOMOBILE CO Defendant appeals from an order denying an
9 :..:(Supreme Court of Minnesota. March 7, 1913.) alternative motion for judgment or for a
r (Syllabus by the Court.) new trial •tee
MAsTES AND SER VANT (6 330 NEora- Two questions are raised on this appeal
OZNCE OF SERVANT— EVIDENCE
Defendant contends: (1) There is no evi.
The driver of an automobile drove over an deuce that the driver was negligent (2) if
embankment on the left side of -the road. It he was negligent, defendant is not responal.'
was broad daylight The road was hard, dry, ble therefor.
and smooth, and wide enough for two vehicles. [1j 1, There was ample evidence of the
There was no obstruction, and no other vehicle v{
9 e on the road. The car was in good condition. negligence of the driver. He was traveling
There was evidence that he bad at times before at- a moderate rate of speed on a hard
been driving carelessly and too near the edge smooth, dry, road, wide enough for two auto
e the road. It was s hot day, and the driver mobiles to ass each other. It was broad 'I
e ezplaaation was that he was taken with a pea P
r riod of dizziness which came on suddenly, and daylight, on a bright, hot day. The car
lasted but a moment. Held, that the question and its machinery were in good condition.
f of
hi negligence was for the jury, and that The driver permitted the car to roll over an
I the evidence was sutficient to sustain their find-
1 ing that he was negligent embankment on the left side of the road.
[Ed. Note. —For other cases, see Master and There was evidence that he had been driving
Servant, Cent: Dig. 11 1270 -1272; Dec. Dig. I carelessly at times, that he had been ma-
1 s tioned before about going near the edge of
2. MASTER AND SERvANT (1 301 NEora- the road and also about going too fast The
OENCE OF SERVANT^-INJIIaz To T=RD PER- driver's explanation of the cause of the ac.
soNS.
Where a dealer la ''automobiles and owe- cadent 1s not very satisfactory. He said.
er of a garage lets a car for hire and furnishes It was a "sort of a period of dizziness
I i! a driver, and the hirer exercises no control or which I don't suppose I would ever realize
supervision over the driver, except to direct find out what it was if Mr. Walker hadn't
>I him where to go, and what route to take and to
to caution him against improper driving, the called my attention to it, but I don't remem-
owner is responsible for the negligence of the ber anything outside of the last. I remem.
j driver, and the hirer may recover from the ber I was looking ahead at the road, and
owner in damages for an injury caused by the
driver's negligence. from that time on until the accident occar-
[Ed. Note. —For other cases, see Master and red it was blank to me. I don't know how
Servant, Cent Dig. if 1210 1116; Dec- Dig. J far. It might have been 30 feet It might
301,`] have been five feet," He admitted that be
r l Appeal from District Court, Hennepin' had been all right immediately before and
County; Homer B. Dibell, Judge. that he was all right immediately after the
ll Action by J. Edward Meyers against the occurrence. Defendant contends that be
Tri-State Automobile Company. Verdict for must have been overcome by exhaustion and
plaintift From an order denying motion heat. Clearly the evidence did not establish
for judgment or for new trial, defendant ap. any such theory as a matter of law. Tait-
j s peals affirmed. ing all the evidence together, it was clearly
Edmund A. Prendergast, Henry C. Flan-
sufficient to sustain the finding of the jury
nery, and Brown Guesmer, all of Minneap- that the driver was 2. Defendant negligent
tenets that it !a not
olis, for appellant. Larrabee Davies and
Jay W. Crane, all of Minneapolis, for re- liable to plaintiff for the negligence of the
spondent. driver; that its only duty was to use reason.
able care in the selection of a driver. This
HALLAM, J. Plaintiff and one Walker is not the ordinary rule where one person
hired of defendant an automobile, with a is injured by the negligence of the servant
r driver, to take a country trip. Defendant of another. The general rule in tort actions
was a dealer in automobiles, and did not is that: "The rinc! al 19 liable for the acts
C ordinarily let its vehicles for hire. The car and negligence of the agent in the course of
used on this occasion was a two seated five his employment g
So ion as be
III. passenger car. It was in good condition. stands in the relation of principal or master
I The driver was a generally competent driv- to the wrongdoer, the owner is responsible
r f�:
en Plaintiff sat in the rear seat with some for his acts." Hunt, J., in Railroad Co. t
ladies- Walker sat in the front seat beside Banning, 15 Wall. 649, 657 (21 L. Ed. 2211).6
the driver. He directed the driver where to and that in any given case that person is
go, and what road to take, and cautioned undoubtedly liable who stood in the relatics'
Ib
*For othee case- see same topic and section NUMBER is Dee. Dig. Ic Am. Dig. Key -No. Bert" t Beg's Wesel
TRANSITION ELECTION ALTERNATIVES
a ALTERNATE I
1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Mayor l X i 4 0 I i 0 I I I 1 0 1 1 I 1 0
Hawes I X 0 I I 1 O I I l 1 0 I, i
Lhotka) I X 1 I I O I 1 F O
Scott I x 0 1 1 I i 0 I I 0
Theis I X 0 I I I l 0 I I 11 0 I
ALTERNATE II
1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Mayor I Y 1-, 1 I I 0 I I I 1 0
Hawes I X 1� 0 1 I I l 0 I I 4 O I
i1hotkal I X 1 I I O I I I l 0 1
Scott I I I X 0 I I I 1 0 1 I I I O
Theis i X 1 0 I l 1 0 I i I 1 0
ALTERNATE II
1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Mayor l X �->0 I I l 0 I I 1 0 1 1
Hawed ?X X 0 I I l 0 I I I 10 1 1
�Lhotka I X 0 I I 10 I 1 1 0
Scott I► I I x I I I I o I I 1
'r\Theisl I X i 0 I I I 10 1 I 1 0 I I
1986 CHARTER A4UiDMENT WITH TERMS SELF EXECUTING
1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998
Mayor 1 X ;3 O I I O I I 10
Hawes I X !>o I I 4 0 I 1 I t O
11hotkai 1 X O 1 1 0 I I 1 0
Scott I 1 I X O 1 I I I O 1 1 I 1 0
Theis I X �0 0 I I I 0 I I I 1 0 I I
X indicates term expiration under existing Charter provision
0 indicates term expiration under proposed Charter amendment
indicates extension of current term
A indicates a transitional two year term