Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977 08-24 CHCABROOKLYN CENTER CHARTER COMMISSION Wednesday, August 24, 1977 City Hall, 8 p:m. Meeting of Brooklyn Center Commissions Monday, August 15, 1977,-7:30 p.m. City Hall 1. Roll Call 2. ,Approval of the minutes, of July 20, 1977 Revised Rules of Procedure Appointments 4. Report from committees a. Study Group II Bill Hannay be Study Group III Ed Theisen c. Study Group I Jim Gillen 54 New Business STUDY GROUP II Minutes of August 18, 1977 Meeting, Library Conference Room, City Hall Members present: Vince Tubman, Mona Hintzman, Orlander Nelson, and Bill Hannay. 'A. Third review of Chapter V Sec. 5.01: add at the end of the paragraph "This chapter shall be construed liberally in favor of the people." Discussion included the possible conflict of the addition with Chapter I, Sec. 1.02. It was decided that there was no conflict. However, concern was expressed that Chap. I, Sec. 1.02 perhaps centered too much authority in the corporate city. Sec. 5.02: Much discussion and concern was expressed about this section and the following summarizes the points of concern: 1. If the petitioners must present an accounting of expenses, why not also the city. If only the petitioners reported, that information might be used against the petition without the opportunity of rebuttal. 2. The first part of this section refers to offering of reward to people to go out with the petition or to sign the petition. This obviously is of deep concern and a violation should be punishable by a misdemeanor as referred to at the end of the section. However, the question was raised that the "itemized detail" in the second half could maybe have the "misdemeanor" used unjustly against the petitioners and this violation might better be a "petty misdemeanor." 3. Another question was raised concerning the "five days before the election." It is probably necessary to get that close to election to get most of the expenses, but does this serve the purpose of uncovering any violation, particularily of the first part of the section? Might it not be wiser to have a report earlier? If there was a violation, what effect might this have on a petition already passed by the electorate? 4. There is provided a punishment for the petitioners, but what punishment is there if the City Manager or City Council do something wrong, such as, tying up the petition by the use of the courts? 5. Should there be a stipulation in this section that no city monies could be expended either in favor of, or in opposition to, the petition? Discussion was held that further thought should be given to the idea that if a petition is signed by a large percentage of the citizens it must be approved by the council or put to referendum without challenge. a Page 2 Study Group II August 18, 1977 After much discussion, it was decided that we were not in position to make specific recommendations without some input from more people and perhaps legal assistance. Sec. 5.03 Upon reflection of our recommendation at our April 14th meeting where we suggested that after the word "taxes" in the 3rd line we add "The petitioners shall have free access to the City Attorney for assistance in establishing the regularity of the petition," that this should be dropped, the reasoning being that under the present structure, the City Attorney could perhaps be biased and be of no value to the petitioners. The real problem lies with the question, what are the duties and /or responsibilities of the City Attorney? Should this retrain an appointed position or should it be made an elective position? In either case would it be feasible and wise to add another part to Sec. 6, saying, for example, "that it shall be the sworn duty of the City Attorney to protect and uphold the rights of the people under this charter." Sec. 5.05 Our original concern with this section was the possibility that the City Clerk, or others, could use the word "irregular" and the phrase "to correct the petition in all other particulars," to defeat the petition presented on some minor technicalities. This second_ look at this section makes us think that changes would probably be unnecessary if the role of the City Attorney is corrected. Sec. 5.06 Line 17, following "election upon the measure," add, "without challenging its constitutionality or any other legal aspect." If the above were to be added, our second recommendation of the April meeting would be unnecessary. Sec. 5.10 Leave as it is. B. Chapter VI It is this chapter that would seem to apply to City Attorney and it is here that we would make the afrementioned changes: Sec. 6.02 Subdiv. 3 mentions his appointment. If he were to be elected, this would have to be changed. Sec. 6.06 Line 10 now' indicates a 4 /5th vote of the council. If we go to a 7 member council, that figure will have to be revised to 5 /7ths or 6 /7ths. Add Sec. 6.07 "The sworn duty of the City Attorney shall be to protect and uphold the rights of the people. Other duties may be prescribed by the City Council." Page 3 Study Group II August 18, 1977 C. A discussion was held on Chapter 7. Sec. 7.08 line 10 where mention is again made of a 4 /5ths vote of the Council. A council of 7 will require a change in this fraction to 5/7ths or 6 /7ths. Sec. 7.16 Clarification of the legal purposes outside of the debt limit as provided by law. D. Chapter 8 Sec. 8.03 ninth line. If we were to change to a 7 person council the percentage of 4 /Sths would have to be changed. Respectfully submitted, William D. Hannay, Secretary 9.