Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986 04-23 CHCA BROOKLYN CENTER CHARTER COMMISSION AGENDA APRIL 23, 1986 8 :00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of January 22, 1986, minutes 4. Correspondence 5. Old Business A) Sub Committee Report Elections Amendment Publicity Plan B) Charter Amendment Procedures 6. New Business 7. Next Meeting Date 8. Adjournment ELECOTIONS CEN CHARTER FEBRUARY 18, 1986 DISCUSSION ROOM 7:30 P.M. Members present: Edward Commers (Chair), Mary Heitzig, Ernest Erickson, Jean Schiebel, Allen Anderson, Barbara Swart, Barbara Sexton, and Dennis Kueng Members absent: None The meeting was called to order by Chairman Edward Commers. Mr. Commers stated that the purpose of this sub committee meeting was to establish strategies to publicize the proposed Charter Amendment. Forms of media that could be used to publicize the amendment were dis- cussed: The Community Section of the Minneapolis Tribune The City Manager's Newsletter The Brooklyn Center Post Channel 7 Cable TV Station Candidates' Forum in the fall Possibly Using the Radio Various groups such as: League of Women Voters, Chamber of Commerce, Knights of Columbus, Citizens for Better Government, the Republican and Democratic parties. Mr. Commers will get more info on this item. There was discussion on what the commission can and cannot do as a group or individually. Barbara Swart will check on the state statutes regard- ing this topic so we know what our limitations are. The City of Anoka recently passed an election change. Mary Heitzig will find the newspaper article on it so the committee will gain information on how they handled it and whether or not the change was passed by the City Council or by referendum. Ernest Erickson briefly summarized the history on our elections amendment. He will prepare a written history giving informational background and the reasons for our proposed change. We hope to have this article pub lished in the Brooklyn Center Post early in the spring (April or May). Dennis Kueng will check with the City Manager regarding the June 1, 1986, deadline on providing the wording for this charter change. Chairman Commers felt that this sub committee need not meet again until early August, unless anyone on the committee felt there was a need to meet before then. Other questions that arose during the meeting dealt with what exactly will go on the ballot and when; and can the Charter Commission change what the City Attorney will be putting together if we do not like the way it is worded? Also, it was discussed how and when the change will be implemented if it is passed. The information to be gathered by Barbara Swart, Mary Heitzig, Ernest Erickson, and Dennis Kueng will be presented to the full commission at its next regular meeting scheduled for April 23, 1986, at 8 :00 P.M. The meeting adjourned at 8:40 P.M. pec�lly ub 'tted. C� -tee "role J. BYefwers, C.P.S. Secretarial Assistant MIT CITY OF 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY B ROOKLYN BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430 TELEPHONE 561 -5440 C ENTER March 13, 1986 Mr. Donn Escher, Chairman Charter Commission 3107 65th Avenue North Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55429 Dear Donn: Attached please find copies of two letters I received from Dave Kennedy of our law firm (dated March 3 6 1986) I asked him to review some of the procedures for a Charter amendment for Brooklyn Center. Earlier this year I had a discussion with Mr Commers of the Charter Commission in which he asked some questions, and I believe those questions and more are addressed in the letters from Dave Kennedy. On the last pages of the letter attached to Mr. Kennedy's March 6, 1986 letter he recites guidelines for "promoting" or "selling" the 1980 park bond issue election. While a Charter election amendment is not a bond issue election, I am informed by the City Attorney's office that the same rules of thumb should apply to both the City Council and /or the Charter Commission in a charter amendment election. If you or any members of the Charter Commission have any further questions in this regard, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, JC� 4 -1 4 G. plinter Man er encs. "7lce Sosxet nZ oce Lefevere Lefler Kennedy O'Brien k Dra vvz ,I Prolessional lssw iaiion 2000 First Bank Place West March 3, 1986 Minneapolis Minnesota 55402 Telephone (612) 333 -0543 Telecopier (612) 333 -0540 Clayton L. LeFevere Mr. Gerald Splinter Herbert P. Lefler City Manager J. Dennis O'Brien John E. Drawz City of Brooklyn Center David J. Kennedy 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway John B. Dean Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 Glenn E. Purdue Richard J. Schieffer Charles L. LeFevere RE: Charter Amendment Herbert P. Lefler III James J. Thomson, Jr. Thomas R. Galt Dear Jerry, Dayle Nolan Brian F. Rice In our phone conversation of the other day, you asked John G. Kressel about the rocedures to be followed in the event an 0r1d S. Clugg P M. strommen amendment to the city charter is proposed by the charter H. Batty commission. William P. Jordan Susan Dickel Minsberg governed ov Kurt J. Erickson The adoption and amendment of city charters 1 's g William R. Skallerud D. Anderson by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 410, and the important Rodney Corrine A. Heine procedural points connected with a commission- initiated John R. McDonald, Jr. amendment are as follows. David D. Beaudoin Section 410.12, Subdivision 1 The charter commission is authorized to propose amendments. Section 410.12, Subdivision 4 (a) Amendments are submitted to the voters at a general or special election and published as in the case of an original charter. (b) The form of the ballot is fixed by the city council. (c) 51% of the votes cast on the amendment are required for its approval. (d) The amendment, if approved, is effective 30 days from the date of the election or at such other time as is fixed in the amendment. Section 410.10, Subdivision 1 (a) Upon receipt of the proposed amendment by the clerk, the city council must submit the question of approval of the amendment to the voters (i) at the next general election occurring in the city or (ii) if no such election is to be held within six Mr. Gerald Splinter March 3, 1986 Page 2 months the amendment must be submitted to the voters at a special election held within 90 days after receipt of the amendment by the clerk. (b) The charter commission may recall the proposed amendment at any time prior to the setting of the date for the election, and the city council may permit recall of the amendment at any time prior to publication of notice of the election. (c) Notice of the election is published once a week for two successive weeks in the official newspaper. (d) If the amendment is rejected by the voters the commission may probably propose the same amendment again although this is not really clear. It is clear, however, that a second proposal differing in any substantive way from the first could be resubmitted by the commission. The procedures for certification and filing the amendment with various officers is set out in Section 410.11. There are other ways in which a charter amendment may be proposed by petition and by the city council, but those are not discussed here. The procedure described is, however, the only way in which a charter commission may propose an amendment. I an enclosing, for your general information, a League of Cities publication on charter commission procedure which, while old, is not outdated and is accurate. Ve ruly yours W vid J. Kennedy DJK:jdn Enclosure CC: Mr. R. J. Schieffer I s -g- The charter commission may recall its proposed charter at any time before the council has fixed a date for the el i ection and °i the councl.. may authorize the commission i n to recall the charter at any time prior to the first publication of the proposed charter. The complete charter must be ccntained in the notice of election which must be published once a week for two successive weeks in the official newspaper land may be published in any other legal newspaper in the municipality. The charter campaign Charter commission members have differed in their views of the role of.the charter commission and its members in the charter campaign. There is nothing in the law which gives the commission any responsibility after the charter has left the commission's hands, nor is there any express restriction either. Some charter commissions have been the principal sponsoring organization for the charter; its mer:bers have been responsible for publicity and have made y public speeches in the charmer's iehalf. In other cities the commission as a whole has kept aloof from the campaign, though sometimes individual members have participated personally. Since there is no statutory provision on the subject, what is done by the commission members will depend on their own perception of their appropriate role. Surely no group is likely to be better informed about what the charter contains and why particular provisions have been included or omitted, and none is likely to be as interested in the charter election. No outsider can give much advice as to the campaign which should be conducted in favor of the adoption of the charter. Local conditions and the sort of opposition which develops will determine what needs to be done. Two points may be stressed, however. (1) Over-confidence of supporters frequently results in the defeat of a charter. The opposition may be more effective and noisy, and it is no easy task, especially at a general election, to get the necessary majority to vote in favor of the charter. (2) Absolute frankness and honesty about the contents of the charter go a long way toward disarming any opposition. Throughout its entire proceedings, the commission should follow the policy of letting the public know exactly what is being done and of asking for public . cooperation. If this has been done, there will be less opposition manifested during the campaign. Election. Form of ballots. (M.S.A. 410.10. ) The expense of a charter el ec73-cn is borne by the city. Presumably, the ordinary rules as to the condun . of elections will apply, but the statutes add the following provision: "if the election is held at the same time with the general election, the voting places and election officers shall be the same for both elctions .The ballot shall bear the printed words, 'Shall the proposed new charter be adopted? Yes -- No, ' with a square after each of the last two words, in which the voter may place a cross to express his choice. If any part of such charter be submitted in the alternative, the ballot ^hall be so printed as to permit the voter to indicate his preference in any instance by inserting a cross in like manner." A sample ballot would therefore take somewhat the following form: lin first class Cities publication must be made in a newspaper .having an aggregate regular paid circulation of a least 25,000 copies. LeFevere Lef ler Kennedy O'Brien Dra-vvz :1 Professional associaiion 2000 First Bank Place West March 6, 1986 Minneapolis Minnesota 55402 Telephone (612) 333 -0543 Telecopier (612) 333 -0540 Mr. Gerald Splinter Clayton L. LeFevere City Manager -Clerk Herbert P. Lefler City of Brooklyn Center J. Dennis O'Brien John E. Drawl 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway David J. Kennedy Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 John B. Dean Glenn E. Purdue Richard J. Schieffer Dear Jerry Charles L. LeFevere Herbert P. Lefler III Enclosed you will find a copy of my letter of January James J. Thomson, Jr. Thomas R. Galt 23 1980 about the special election for the park Dayle Nolan improvement bonds which, in its final section, contains Brian F. Rice a discussion of the extent to which the City ouncil John G. Kressel y 0 'lli ineS.Clugg can become involved in a special bond election. Also �s M. Strommen enclosed is the Attorney General's opinion quoted in Id H. Batty the letter. m P. Jordan Susan Dickel Minsberg Kurt J. Erickson The law on this matter has not changed. In fact, a William R. Skallerud recent New York case reaffirms the osition set out in Rodney D. Anderson p Corrine A. Heine the Attorney General's opinion. John R. McDonald, Jr. David D. Beaudoin rs very truly, David J. Kennedy DJK:caw cc: Richard Schieffer �iroa•:.'•,+.._. ;,1�� A... r: a?fif�.U.ria+"r�h �Pr .u 1 r LAW OFFICES LEFEVERE, LEFLER, PEARSON, O BRIEN DRAWZ I 1100 FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING CLAYTON L. LEFEVERE BROOKLYN CENTER OFFICES HERBERT P. LEFLER MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 6 TOWERS CURTIS A. PEARSON J. DENNIS O'BRIEN TELEPHONE (612) 333 -0543 2610 COUNTY ROAD 10 3 JOHN E. DRAWZ BROOKLYN CENTER. MINNESOTA 55430 DAVID J. KENNEDY .16121 S61 -3200 7 JOHN B. DEAN GLENN E. PURDUE RICHARD J. SCHIEFFER JAMES D. LARSON CHARLES L. LEFEVERE HERBERT P. LEFLER. III JEFFREY J. STRAND JAMES P. 0•MEARA January 23, 198 0 MARY J. BJORKLUNO J THOMAS D.CREIGHTON WENDY L. FREEDMAN. Mr. Gerald Splinter City Manager City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkwav Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Re: Special Election for Park Improvement Bonds: Procedures and Comments Dear Gerry: You have asked me to prepare an outline of procedures to be followed in the conduct of a special election at which the voters 00 of the City will be asked to approve the issuance of general obligation bonds to finance park improvements. The steps involved, togethe %R comments and forms follows. 1. Calling Special Election. The bond issuing procedure is i itiated by adoption by the council of a resolution calling a speci election, fixing the date therefor, stating the a form of the quest n to be voted upon and the form of the ballot, and providing for th %votersec t of the election. (See Form No. 1.) The special election held either separate from or on the same date as the regction. The adoption of the resolution is by Council initiat the Council is required to call such an election on tion, not submitted to the voters within the preceding s, upon receipt of a petition signed by a number os ec. al to 200 of the votes cast at the last regular City el 2. Conduct of on: -1Z S Judges. The election is to be conducted in the same manner as o=1 municipal elections. The polls must remain open for at least hours, and the hours set for the last municipal election contr unless different hours are specified in the resolution calli the election. The election judges and officials are those appoi ed for the last municipal election unless new judges are to be pointed. The polling places too are the same as the preceding e ction. .i LAW OFFICES LEFEVERE. LEFLER, PEARSON, O BRIEN 0RAWZ Page Three Special Election for Park Improvements he Council- "should then declare the results of the canvass by psolution. (See Form 6.) The Clerk must certify the results of th election to the County Auditor. No contest of the results of the lection may be brought after seven days has elapsed since the adopt' on of the--canvassing reso-lut -ion­________ 7. Sale of Bonds: Limits on Resubmission. Bonds authorized at the sp cial election may be issued and sold at any time after the contest period has passed. The authority granted by the voters remainsin effect for at least two years under the cases decided by the Minnesota Supreme Court. The question of issuing the same amount of bond \onDiscount the same purpose may not be resubmitted to the voters for six s, and if defeated at a resubmission may not then be again ted to the voters for one year. 8. Note Bonds. In times of high interest rates it is often necessar for a City to offer for sale bonds representing interest only,in addit'on to the amount of principal actually needed to finance the p oposed projects. Under this technique X in bonds are offered for minimum price of Y and any amount less than X paid_for_ the bonds__ s_,_. _in effect, a discount which increases the effective int est rate on the bonds but allows the underwriter to cover his cos of marketing the bonds. (The City's financial advisors will recommend the amount of discount.) The discount bonds may be issue in an amount not exceeding two percent of the amount authorized t the election. Thus, if the voters approve X the City may is ue and sell X plus .02 X in bonds. If the proposed project req ires this, the City staff and Council should b& prepared to explai the procedure prior to the election and should probably indicate that it is a possibility in the informational material prepared fo the election. The above procedures are spelled out in City Charter Chapter 4 and Minnesota Statutes, Chapters 205 and 4 5. I have omitted citations, but can supply them if you desir I'm sure Al Lindman and Paul Holmulund are quite familiar with t e basic election process, and that the three of us together ca handle any further questions that might arise. Qab You have also asked for our opinion on the q estion of what City Council and staff can do in terms of info ing the voters ut the pros and cons of the election itself. I t ink there is no arer statement of the legal principles involved in his question n the Attorney General's opinion I have attached, an I commend to your reading particularly the quotation from the w Jerse on page 146. LAW OFFICES AT /Jj✓ LEFEVERE, LEFLER, PEARSON, O'BRIEN 6 DRAWZ ,is 0 Page Four Special Election for P provements a While the rule is well stated in the uoted opinion it q p s application to specific fact situations is a hit more difficult. It seems to me that the guidelines the City should follow based on that rule are as follows: a) Any expenditure of funds or staff time -to fully inform the about purpose of the election, the use of the funds to be obtained by the bond sale, its potential tax impact, the relation of the proposed projects to the City's recreational plans and the rationale of the Council's decision to ask for voter approval is permissable. 'V b) Members of the Council and City staff are free, just as other citizens, to advocate the passage of the proposal. 4 -c) The City may not expend public funds or utilize staff time to prepare material or circulate material ,prepared by itself or other urging a yes vote at the election. d) The City may make available to others any data in its possession bearing on the issue to be decided at the election for use by any person or group in performing material or conducting a campaign for or against the proposal. 1 e) Any doubt about the propriety of a suggested cause of action relating to the dissemination of information about the election should be resolved by not taking the action; that is, a conservative approach to the question should always be taken. I Hope these cunment5 are y= st af'r and the Council. I would, of course, be happy to review any material prepared by the staff for use in the election, and to answer questions about specific actions proposed. Yours very truly, David J. Kennedy DJK:caw Enclosures CC: Dick Schieffer ,j;:�# r °-�`w a� -s..�. ^t.., a. .z Y d 1, y' �,�'c y! _iz"C �tA1f� I M rt f'+ M `4 i .Y i. }tR t f'_i 1`� 3 K rtE` •3�' ?r :t w M y7^r"`'}-:i v ti r._.,– r tS a w :i -,s fir.. c p J �,T6 i�"jjr'.'.]!�! y r --S' w►.aAGt'° ',f:.. r­ •YY '3` _':'."°1rr'ar:- X. S :.dr .t v. .,u. ..�.f.> 2S –a. t q•".A vr++ �+4 •_:'T.T s; s Y e'S' yy "+f` +.14. .•yW� <.i�G�s s :,�-q '...w'.sr a.ys.. �.l it +y'!. rah! �""a ,s iw. '+4 '414 }t :S„ Y' rTq' 7..; 4 Z °_.S+ r S Xiy.i' �'i' 4 1FA-- .t�+�'tfa'� Y "!v ti•.. a At SCHOOL BOARDS BOND ISBUU 4 r loads t b o o►ards "Y s3cpos� seasonable amount of school district 1 martially plsca pertinent facts before votes a y orally espouse affirmative cause, but cannot use sebool district thuds to promote an affirmative vote as fi n� r r t'opOial. Na i., i s Y f r- mac. e:, i'rr i?!'2� '%�r r f T7.�'�`3 �:1" i� .i t 4�}':, "l$t���� z :r• {�*c'4•�,frw t+.I4 7 1 t t 4 '}r. c f t,JCd �ytj�;' •r .w se.. JF�,+. r5: r i Y�." .`..ti.� tK� R i t q Orr- Yt cx r it T are r /4./ Meows, D4herty� s sutler at torneys tat' d�pondrat adwel District so. 197 XON r ust itstioo bank DnildUq a fault Paul, ilinnevota SS101 .l x M is. '•ZY� V .i r •f' x'•.s c..: T f yf.: •k: ti::s rlr+._ �s a 1.}+�'.. a T -af,•4 S 1.I�� 'Y .T 1 :fr ta'Z p S 9 ff, 1'. iaaI rf -..ii ,a, r A ,r 4� f r r 6 f if. i 2, .,t 4 C. Y 4 -4 J f-. '4 fT il r a a Y A t_a. j 4 "i i L a. r v 'i tdwt M5-. x r t Ait "y 0 L t♦/ y I tt�/M y t 7t PACT" sd &M001 'l Udopfm&M001 Districts loo. 197 conducted as eleatioa for aetrority to Loma* boxers for aAd Construction of sdlsools. Prio to and dust the y 4'aV SN of the eleetift i aasp�s vk presentations sere mad#t by w abore of the Board to various citizens• mss. "OM Lag an the se period Certain literature was pablisbsd. t +ot a paat ON* is enclosed. 9'bis was published a O the Bo4wd. Xn addition &wtber bow Chvre we Viblished entitled •tahy? a py of this also is envloasd• 2 210 **at of publication al thla was borne b the organisation engaged as titaimial consultant for district. z_ S'bs ttai 11 Cost was paid toe by the odusoI district, YO will note on the reverse side of this brochure the tellom e g s owe urge you to V to Yes OA """YO Perry a 1%4. ftd4 that Are listed tAs Arias Of the Benrd of Wucatioa.- 11� A otel! @solt$tians to 4ltiteas• ps of sb. thoaettaq bond election may weaba►ss Board of an iadepen4ent -i hool district s• advoaab tee A go of a boad issu for the aomtrua- rt 1 L.�1. tsr itltfitl0el, eto. of sdboOls ftf a- �),.r �-h_ S :v 1 Y 'fi•? .0 ;l-p y'.. L i! YTS N: ��••r �r .f_7 �'iu J ��'•�"f..f�ias t+G a7„F,. _...tu --Zr ri 1 t `►F ^a ;s V i 4K a�`�- r •:r y ,t .r r.;.r s, r .a -S Yr r .0 's�+� .K�ite �,s r 4 C` 4t$�• Y�'"'A ;4T.tT'1 ?t►. �Y.�3�P►.� -"a f* ra, Q s :r.. r e'er= a:;i5'aY az:.._ ZY•g a+s r'95 i'"= As St q -0 Vii: )Y* K_.yr• L. 'a'+. 0 i x.- a- �9 •�,yt�, 4'•,: t si 1 s a ni> 1•:• r'► v '.i r. „h. r '.3 jj j May 24 ,0 19" io iar the question e! ;.tb r4r "s =AM* O! bolds for the Oonstructio0, 5 1�odilicatieee, etc, v! sadools of an iskie&eadeftt :OC&O" district rt eahoal districts pay the aril• 4�F t; -fir ooet Of 11twaturo printed at the expense of Otbet+s vbidL literature mMes in the came of the School board ce et?sesw the passa Fa ge of tbo Dcnd so 1�4 a. the eoQs�sse are reasooablo? t lag the in Involving the question of the +t issua of baeds tW the cooetroation, N ditioa- a •s ..,floc, eta. et soboola say as Ado i t school fit f rdiatsiot psy for t?r cost of the itasatmre, :well se lTr aching oast of literature w!►idb =Voo r z x lA the saaaa of the fabool Board or ot2orwise the w ;i g* ad the bond lasue 00 long as the exnoaees Y M. 1 .X 4 r,lt. t x J,. r �a t w�i�w Vff�iv Aav�e atly 9`00sardhod the above captioned watt" and it aMeass that tUo CMrupt Practices Act does a�p It to edtbool district elections. `t 208 Mitsi. 551* s Is addition, CAapt�s 211 does not by its '"`c ap dowse svdh pleat ome soar Is At it sa lted k thereto. Za addiaioe, w bane examined Opinions of the N r Attorney Qeseeal, 1595 -11 dated 89pte2ftr 170 1957, and 159a-3 date ;=LOGO 23, 1942 "bier, to our opinions, do sot bagels asked. Finally, we know tbaIt Dow of of oar bald bave felt restricted by a Val id a t, that they were preclude! fr GO y lita�ratsa�. 2os+a9e an issue otbar orally or by 'atilt it is eor virr that so I" as the expenses are rea- eos b2. there Mboald be se such liai ion eeota flea s tat either as to ctal !!oa s by l !tern tote paid for by s+des1 dI tsiot t_ tit u ttr Board �ifaswr is act clew. it would seems 1Me• as anthasiI to operate the schools, lit be •Marred is dae wbich it Y! eiwid !r a epeoitio restsiotiao ag promul able to do 00 it s itica�l to he unabl to di eepesase !pis the si 1s is rd Itself wbiab bas spm osed GoYM. t t7.''1 i2• i��et t ,�'t sv. =w 53'S4. Iu.�... iv v ��Y .f r ,�:I Yi Ysi "l i' T- F yN,� �c Y V r. r :3 :.r.� :.ice y ���1. aC -^i r F t a 1 f. ±.4 •"l Z. ::+fix "•X. i a-" p:y x. a �Y! tti :,•��I•'% :Y.JC aV A•-.. 'T i lesels. qty. 8�1e ,..g say 24 1lii attls� OtIIO! As stated Sal Ope. Atty. Gone 159a -3. May 25. 1962 aa�d 159b -I1, septv�er 17. 1937 (copies enclosed) a school b Pay a reasonable aamomt of •ahcol district tonda to aSWise the voters in the diatsiot of facts pertinent to the proposal. you ask wb*tber %be Donald aas go f astber than that and include in s u cb tactual sub a _a mate eemts *We as yea to -vote Ses on Tuesday. r dwaary S'0 1966' and the ads of the Board of Education listed tbsaroundes. it bas been bold that a wmicipal corporation lacks authority to incur ir.:obtednesa or appropriate tunds for the caaduct Of a •i VVV easpefqs to SecuM a lave able vote an a proposal bossy issue• C.J.d. 'Mwsioipel Oorporatiaas 1838. V. 3431 13 Mo0ai111a. J1f gn S MIX 29 'ytvuioipsl c7oa�posatios�s tad Ed.) f 39.21. ZA 145 M.M. 129 (211.) the court statedt "The amW*d bill charges. and the demurrers od%lt that the advertising of wr acmplaint is was ale not to be an inpart:•1 statersnt of !Acts for the �tion of the voters,. but that it was aA attsspte j s partisan ia< its nature.- tea induce the voters to svt favorably upam the bond isews oubeitted at the election fte amduat of a as before an el" wtice, for the pnspose of emrtimV an influence upon the voterso is not the e=xcise of an authorised municipal function a"d bmae is ooarporats purpose of the I ,.inn M"icipality. :•s• !i 2921 �t�ole partiaalarly ap�pacogoe is the case of r' Z a DWa. XA.. 98 Atl. (2d) 673 N.J. Op. by Judge WA. J. 8reewan. Js. agar Associate Justice of the C. Be Sqw4ae Conn) wheys the oc hool board put Out a factual sDeet on odAool bond isms to be voted upon end it placed an tbo oawr &W an two of the poges the words N Vbte Yon and 'V4te Yes I Dea�mbes Z. 1952• and fkrthow it included an Ontire page of ssQNaent 00 to fiat will happen it the bonJ proposal ISe +•i� �x� y z R t s t_• r -.wf. .;]{..sL ti• •s. ,,q 3r .y n; 'f z '�'1"a`` ms s•... 's t n. vt'aw{ a+.r *;`y�e 7 c�" l- 1� ;:�If .F M •4.l !+.?.r- l;{:": s .a_.: `'7�. ma' °•tk ;T£!� ';K Ira .•f t. .•�t�y, yr`_ sw '-ri3t•.�".�:? ,�y, lrt H t Z Y '"r s yf..-: =fy_. Messrs. aeoRsertr. R mblei -.4 NOT 24 1961 a sutler ?De court upheld the right of the toard of idoaation to present 'O facts to the voters. It lien stated (pages 4 -7-47108 ISl But the defendant board was not content i *Imply te, psesent the facts. The o3d:oartation 'abte ass' is repeated as three pages and tb4 dire oOase- i: 'Ity lea of !fie fai lure so to do are over- draaaitised en tb4 p99e replOdnoed abow,. .14 that Samer 4'.^•Y rt board YN Of er liQ Etude t0 advOaate able side �r ooly Of the Controve goestlon without affording v r •1., the dissenters tl1A oOpportnAity by scans of that financed rediaa to present their side and thus IMerilled the propriety of the entire expenditure. The La funds entrusted to tbo board belong equally to yropoo►.ats and opponents of the paroposition. cad the are of the !bads to liaawn not the presentation of facts mewl but also arguments to persuade the voters that only ore side has writ. gives the dis- $"term f east "Una foe laint0 The expenditure is then dot vitASa the iqp led pomeer and 3s not lawful in the absence of eWess aatAority from the Logis f *Ws do toot mean that the publia body formulating A�,,, the p rogrm is othe"jun restrained from advocating and espousing its a eaend. as P doptioia by the esters. Xnd 12 the insta8t case when the prowas represents the body's JUdPMWt of vhat is r equired in the effective disabarge ce its re s ponsibility. it is sot only the s sight but pes%ape the duty of the body to o»doavor to seCYre the assent of the voters t2wr The question Me are a°aasLderUn is simply the extent to and sanner in which the t ds may with 3ustiae to the rigbts of dissenters be ceded toe espousal of the voters• approval of the body's judgment. oven this the body Wy do withU fair limits. The reasexueble expense, for ale, Of the conduct of a publics forum at Which all s.:y appear and freely express their viers pro and nom Mould not be improper. The same may be said of reasaaabls expenses Jmaurred feat radio os television o f aa j taktuq t?fs foam of debates beta as peoponants iag sides of the faropositim. It is the de ditss• Ot public funds in support of r side only is Rai*as stab Ives the dissenters no appoartwsity 8 to present diou side QUIch is outside t'M palo.` bars i y. a..ta� LY f� s^ f'. 'R t �•.'n y�si �4�..�� b`�'�•.fs i� �i �.i Al, Est, �",F S •rs f- k �r� l rr Zf l i!. '�Z }J[.^h• r Z-'T .S' V y S S S *-l-•` r r 4 r( f. af1," rs Y' a .t a 1. j fi s Y• 5 a r r a w �P �1�•��, t .f f F tiatT' y* si F rC -•'sue. ,y r. w• fM K iV, +h'r'' i 1 A3 f .0 '}*4'• c •a .,l *.Staff c F u.� -s ,s,F "s? r r` `,r• as '^r" ..:cs ae�r!reaYC <1f4 le .v. 'ti` s'x• ,'xs. 1• K a ..y i._cG iiJ ~.w3. y .s"i i 'v_ d t� `•i7 i .:.i` Z r•�s*�' -a f. *'::G iy�!(;.' o f -1 *i ��'i 2 .'3'r a�• 'C.�-a. T�' 4 of s1�4� 1� �.r 7c -.ia� 1 fa.y i A 4 ��+�J Y. •irl+ '7Rf. 'Y'fay1, S ti. .•Cr' �,3�•<� *a tsat i�at it f�io ~ILC r we pesaOS*AW #a sir aomtta. t'Aois d�oiate� Id be la bammy' vift the ftw sw"T �iaiaw Oi awd .A so st ttat+alost give pat a t»gatiw r a w gtMail aid Y p tO the 3blivldud sore at tle boas! s�I s•I f j v 400163M aad ""out* ap e! a bwd iaaaa. �►aooac�dimgit, w Yew lisrrt +twatioa attla"% tvwl T �la+iEsi+e� R'yge: �4r' .S♦+y _r rr T r,. 1. i•}.i� ..t r tt �t n �:•_i, u' J ,d {S,r- f ,�aw+,< v- 'w• w' 7�• -4f' z• r 3 t� ii__ r�'�` Y s L r't 'may s r rq•'� :y.. f�. n -1x� s- �r 1 r t 1 ti; 'tt'�•n" s s 1 l r i1• t�� ss r r s •c t!° ,t W I N ta:` Y y'"`'f' Y_ K+. •rat s .h rte' 'ti A. v f s.. tom' �L .t a .t t E x i 5r t sr� t s• i aii �y -vr "•.a Aaalitant Attocney Genwal Ti• A HISTORY OF THE BROOKLYN CENTER CHARTER C014MISSION ELECTIONS AMENDMENT 1983- Present In response to comments made by citizens, city staff, election judges, and council members, the Charter Commission began a study of even year only elections. The previous format of elections every year has been in place since the Charter was approved in 1966. Prior to the City Charter, elections were held every year also. The City staff prepared data showing election participation, election costs, and election formats for most North Suburban communities. The Charter Commission studied this data before and at its March 1984 meeting. The Commission discussed many other points such as: need for change, a more informed electorate, visibility for local issues, greater voter participation, and elections' costs in relation to democratic government. At that meeting, Chairman Escher appointed an interview committee to question the present Council members as to their views on this issue, since they would be directly affected by a change in length of term. In April, the Interview Committee reported to the full Commission on its findings. All the Council members reacted favorably to the even year only election amendment. These comments (by Council mem- bers) were printed in our minutes of April 25, 1984. The Charter Commission also discussed transition from the present format. At the May 23, 1984, meeting, the Charter Commission passed un- animously the even year only amendment and directed the City Staff to prepared documents for submittal to the City Council. Prior to the vote, discussion centered on the length of the mayor's term. The consensus of the Commissioners was for the voters to be able to vote for a majority of council members every two years. This capa- bility is in the present Charter format. Thus, the mayor's term would be two years and Council members would be four years. Discus sion was held on publicity. This issue had been before the Charter Commission for over six months, regular P.R. notices had been re- leased, yet no public support or opposition had materialized on this significant issue. On June 14, 1984, a comprehensive article was published on page one of the Brooklyn Center Post. This newspaper article covered in depth our deliberations and actions up to date. In the fall Park and Recreation newsletter, which is delivered to every home in Brooklyn Center, there were several paragrphs devoted to this issue. The City Staff reported only a couple calls and they were only clarificational. Because of budget hearings, etc., the City Council did not take up this issue until the November 19, 1984, meeting. Chairman Escher gave a presentation at the first hearing to the Council and answered several questions of Council members. The Mayor and the Council thanked and praised the work of the Charter Commission and they voted to publish the amendment in the Brooklyn Center Post. HISTORY OF BROOKLYN CENTER CHARTER COMMISSION ELECTIONS AMENDMENT PAGE 2 to on November 2 b Ton Chairman Escher was contacted 5 y y Kuefler on behalf of the Citizens for Better Government. His request was for a special meeting with the Charter Commission regarding the elections amendment. Chairman Escher reported this request to the Charter Commission on November 28. After discussion, Chairman Escher was instructed to decline this invitation because of the Open Meeting law and the issue was before the City Council and was no longer being considered by the Charter Commission. This motion passed unanimously. At the City Council meeting of January 28, 1985, the Council held the second hearing on the elections amendment. Three members of the C.B.G. (Dave Skeels, Phil Cohen, and Tony Kuefler)spoke to and presented the Council with a position paper addressing the elections amendment. The paper critized the Charter Commission for not being more aggressive in soliciting input from them and the original Charter writers. The Charter Commission was further critized for bringing this issue before the City Council instead of the voters. These C.B.G. members felt the mayor's term was too short. They also felt that electing a majority of the Council every four years (instead of 6 at present) was too often. It should be pointed out, at the C.B.G. meeting in early January, 1985, this paper was presented to the membership for adoption. Since a quorum did not exist at this meeting, the position paper was not adopted as a C.B.G. paper. Following the presentation, the City Council voted 2 -3 and referred the elections amendment back to the Charter Commission. Nyquist and Lhotka voted in favor of the elections amendment; Scott, Theis, and Hawes voted against. Since the next Charter Commission meeting came only two days after the Council meeting and not all commissioners could be present at the Council meeting, it was agreed to read the C.B.G. paper and discuss it at our next meeting. On March 27, 1985, the Charter Commission met to discuss further action on the elections amendment. Dave Skeels and Phil Cohen spoke to the Commission. They reiterated much of their City Coun- cil presentation. Following, the Charter Commission discussed their options: (a) table the amendment indefinitely; (b) forward to voters for referendum vote; (c) study at Commission level; (d) refer to a sub committee for more study. After discussion, the Commission decided upon option (d). Chairman Escher appointed five Commissioners to serve on this sub committee. They were asked to report back to the full Commission on October 23, 1985. Through the spring and summer of 1985, the sub committee worked on this issue. They mailed a questionnaire to 85 mayors and coun- cil members in the surrounding communities. The questionnaire asked: (a) What is the current length of term for mayor and council members? (b) What is your preference as to odd year, even year, or a combination election? (c) What is your preference in regard to length of term? (d) Has your community changed terms of office or election year within the past ten years? HISTORY OF BROOKLYN CENTER CHARTER COMMISSION ELECTIONS AMENDMENT PAGE 3 The questionnaire further asked council members for comments and reactions to these questions. The sub- committee reported a 64% response rate. Of those responding, 52% favored even year elections, 37% favored odd year or every year elections, and 11% of those responding offered no opinion. The main reason given for favoring odd or every year elections was keeping local politics separate from national politics. The reasons given for even year elections were: (a) higher percentage of people voting; (b) elections re- flected the community better; and (c) monetary savings. The sub committee reported to the full Commission on October 23, 1985. They listed four recommendations: (a) The City of Brooklyn Center change from odd and even year elections to even year elections; (b) Council members' terms be changed from 3 years to 4 years; (c) The Mayor's term be changed from 2 years to 4 years; (d) The citizens of Brooklyn Center vote on this issue at the general election in November of 1986; (e) The City Clerk be instructed to prepare the necessary wording changes to Sec. 2.03 and Sec. 4.01 of the Charter to implement these changes. And fur- ther, the Charter Commission Chair be directed to forward this amendment on or after June 1, 1986, following public notification to the citizens of Brooklyn Center of the Charter Commission's proposed amendment. Considerable discussion followed (details in minutes of October 23, 1985) this motion, On the vote for the election amendment, ten commissioners voted in favor and two opposed; the amendment was adopted. At the January 22, 1986, Charter Commission meeting, Chairman Kueng appointed a sub committee to plan a public information cam paign on this issue. The sub committee held its first meeting on February 18, 1986. They decided to use all of the various public media in this area and to seek participation in the candi- dates' forums held in the fall. Committee members were assigned projects and research in preparation for their report to the full Commission on April 23, 1986. CHRONOLOGY OF ELECTIONS AMENDMENT Nov. 8, 1983 City Election: 586 citizens vote. Voter turnout 3%. Dissatisfaction of present system expressed by election judges, citizens, City staff, and Council members. Dec. 7, 1983 Charter Commission asks City Staff to comprise data from recent Brooklyn Center elections and data from surrounding communities. Feb. 1, 1984 Charter Commission receives election data from City Staff. Mar. 28, 1984 Charter Commission begins formal discussion of even year only election amendment. Apr. 25, 1984 Charter Commission interview committee reports. Formal discussion continues. May 23, 1984 Charter Commission passes unanimously the election amendment for transmittal to the City Council. June Aug 1984' Media articles appear in Brooklyn Center Post and City Manager's Newsletter. Nov. 19, 1984 First reading of amendment by City Council. Dec. 6, 1984 Publication of amendment in Brooklyn Center Post. Jan. 28, 1985 City Council defeats amendment 2 -3, remanding it back to Charter Commission. C.B.G. members distribute position paper. Jan. 30,1985 Charter Commission meets to discuss C.B.G. paper and further action. Mar. 27, 1985 Charter Commission appoints sub committee to fur ther study and submit recommendations. Oct. 23, 1985 Sub committee reports to full Commission. Charter Commission accepts their report. Jan. 22, 1986 Charter Commission appoints publicity sub- committee. Feb. 18, 1986 Publicity sub committee meets to prepare publicity strategy.