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.