CHM 12/30/1974 CHARTER COMMISSION
December 30, 1974
MEMBERS PRESENT: Ray Sheridan, Ole Bjerkesett, and Peg McChesney
OTHERS PRESENT: Ken Sporre, Ken Brennen
Mr. Sheridan began the meeting by stating that hopefully the Commission and
Committee of Petitioners could come to an understanding that was agreeable
to both.
Mr. Sheridan recalled the Charter Commission's proposal to change Section 2.05,
Vacanc.'es in the Council, which gives the Council the opportunity if there
is a vacancy, to appoint and if they do not within a certain period of time,
they have to hold an election for the unexpired term. Mr. Sheridan's understanding
of the Committee's proposal was that it is mandatory to call a special election,
not less than 45 days nor more than 60 days, if there is a vacancy to fill the .
unexpired term. Mr. Sheridan explained that one of the concerns the Charter
Commission had regarding this proposal was the Commission could foresee when
there would be possible times, if upon the death or resignation of vacancy
in the Council, you could be holding a special election and general election
for a particular office within 30 days of each other. Mr. Sheridan said
they could maybe include the statement that a special election be held within
a certain period of time, if there is a period of six months of the unexpired
n term or greater. Mr. Sheridan explained it was the Charter Commission's
intention to alleviate the possiblity of two elections within a short period
of time.
Mr. Sporre felt that a 6 month time limit would be acceptable to the committee.
He said it was their idea to eliminate the appointive process, he felt the
citizens do not have the chance to choose the representatives they want.
Mr. Bjerkesett expressed his opinion. He felt the reason for the Charter
Commission's change was because of the incident in Ward 2 when there was no
representative directly for 7 or 8 months, and it was not mandatory in the
Charter at that time. Mr. Bjerkesett said for rather such a short term,
he thought it invaluable for the taxpayers to spend that much money on a special
election.
•
Mr. Sporre said he personally felt it would. He said the reason the committee
went the petition route was because they felt at least the people should have
some say, he thought they would receive better representation from an election.
He said he would like to see his tax money spent on something constructive
where he would have a voice in who would be representing him.
Mr. Bjerkesett said this particular issue was raised by the committee after
the Charter Commission had spent two years going over all the proposed changes.
Peg McChesney stated that the Charter meetings had been advertised in the
newspaper, special invitations had been sent out to various organizations,
representatives came in and shared their thoughts. Mr. Sporre said the League
of Women Voters had proposed a change in Section 2.05. After they had heard
the proposal, they felt it was an improvement but not sufficient. Mr.
Sporre said that was when they began the petition route, because they
a
• Page 2
felt it important to get the citizen's opinion before they came to the Charter
Commission. Mrs. McChesney asked the Committee why they would want to spend
more money, and who would be the person to choose to run on his time, effort,
and money in a 6 month period, why they would be willing to trust them when
they were not willing to trust the other men in office to elect that person
for you. She felt that if you really believed in representation, then the
men all ready elected should be trusted.
Ken Sporre said they must take some blame for not coming to the Charter Commission
sooner, but stated that during the past three years they had been supporting a
campaign, the Fridley Beautification Association Save North Park, which averaged
25 hours a week of Mr. Sporre's time. They felt at that particular time that
was #1 priority. After the League of Women Voter's proposal, they began the
petition. Mr. Sporre spoke for himself and said he did not have anyone turn
him down. Mr. Sporre spoke of one particular incident and said that was why
he felt strongly towards an appointive process.
Mr. Sporre said the compromise that the Committee of Petitioners was willing
to make is what Mr. Herrick said in his letter to the Charter Commission,
"that if there was a general election within a six month period, that no
special election be held at that time, no appointment in that particular
time, and there would be no need for a special election if only two or more
persons file for the vacancy. Such elections should be held only if two
or more people.file for the vacancy." Mr. Sporre said the committee could
go along with that change only. Mr. Crowder said with the Committee's proposal,
when they take away appointing entirely, if nobody files, it does not say
the vacancy must be filled. Mr. Sheridan asked them if they would rather
have Council sit as 4 members rather than 5. Mr. Sporre said yes, they
would like the elective process only. Mr. Sporre suggested placing a time
limit on the vacancy, the longest period of time being 6 months.
Mr. Bjerkesett asked Mr. Sporre if they had enough signers to qualify the
petition? Mr. Sporre said they did. Mr. Sporre went over the process
of the state statutes in presenting this petition, presented to the Charter
Commission, the Commission must then forward it to the City administration,
in which they had 10 days to verify the signatures, and if any discrepancies
found, handed back to the Committee of Petitioners within 10 days to clarify
it, either going to the special election or a ballot by the City Council.
Mr. Sporre said this petition was submitted the first week in October, there
was not much time but there was enough time so that it could have been taken
care of on the general election.
Mr. Bjerkesett said he opposed to the petition. He said you could have an
election for office the 25th of October, and November 4 have another election
for the same office. Mr. Sporre said maybe they could amend the petition.
Mr. Bjerkesett said he was not positive, but did not think there was a provision
in the state statutes for a change in petition.
Mrs. McChesney said even if the Charter Commission was to accept it, and incorporate
it into the Charter changes, the petition may not be accepted due to the
procedure in which the petition was handled. Mr. Sheridan said assuming that
the petition was not sufficient, the Committee could possibly bring it up to
/'"N sufficiency or drop it. An attempt to an area of agreement could be incorporated
into the proposed Charter Commission changes, which would either be adopted
by the Council, and if not, required to go to the special election.
{ Page 3
Mr. Sporre asked the Charter Commission what they relied on as far as getting
information for an acceptable amendment in their process to change the Charter?
Mrs. McChesney said they received poor response from the letters sent out,
but invited the Councilmen, Mayor, City administration to discuss the Charter,
discussed the Charter thoroughly, divided the Charter into various divisions
appointing members to research it, members inquired into other Cities as to ,
what their Charter included, had interviews with other City Managers, and
reviewed the Model Charter from the League of Minnesota Municipalities.
Mr. Sporre questioned if he was to present this petition to the Charter
Commission now, what would the reaction be? Mr. Bjerkesett said he could
not answer that, since the officers of the Commission were present only
and the entire Commission consisted of 15 people. Mr. Bjerkesett stated
that the intention of the Charter Commission had been to get to things the
best way they could, and in their own good judgement apply it to what they thought
was best for the City of Fridley.
Mr. Sporre said at the time the amendment was drawn up, an election was
coming up, and if it was to go the petition route, it had to be acted upon
quickly, thus f,,rcing the Charter Commission to take action so it would be
on the November election, so a special election would not have to be called.
Mr. Sheridan said had the Committee come to the Charter Commission first,
hence through the discussions there probably would be something incorporated
into the section. Mrs. McChesney felt they could have covered the Petitioner's
concern in some way had the Charter Commission been aware of it. Mr. Sheridan
added that this section of the proposed amendments to the Charter was
something that had been discussed continuously.
Mr. Brennen asked if this was to go to the special election, will it be put
in with some of the other Charter changes? Mr. Sheridan explained this
would probably be on a separate ballot. Mr. Sporre asked when this particular
petition would be presented to City Council? Mr. Sheridan thought it would
be presented at the January 6 council meeting. Mr. Sporre said if the
petition was submitted to them, they would have 10 days for verification of
signatures. If they found the petition non-sufficient, the Petition Committee
would have 10 days (26th of January) to clarify it. They could meet with
the Charter Commission at the January 14 meeting and try to incorporate some
thoughts as far as the elective process goes, and if an agreeable decision
is made, incorporate this to the Commission's satisfaction, and let the other
drop. The petition will be in due process and will be clarified. Mr. Sheridan
said if this is sufficient, a special election will probably have to be called.
Mr. Sheridan said in review of the committee's proposed changes, and the
Charter Commission's changes, he could not wite a memo to Council recommending
the petition's adoption in its present form. He did not think Council could
adopt it without a recommendation from the Charter Commission. Mr. Crowder
thought the petition was bound for the special election. Mr. Sporre thought
their interpretation was that Council could adopt it. Mr. Crowder stated
that already there is a negotiable time limit to the amendment and also there
is the question what happens if nobody files? Mr. Crowder said the first
thing to do is change that amendment into an acceptable document. The Council
could not approve it if they wanted to, there is no provision included if
no one files.
Mr. Sporre questioned whether the petition could be re-worded under the
state statutes? Mr. Crowder explained that he did not think the Charter
•
Page 4
Commission was going to do that, the reason being that a long time had been
spent on coming up with the final decision. It was decided upon an appointing
process and if that failing, an elective process. He said to come up with
a proposal which eliminates appointing entirely would have to have definite
reasons thereof. He was not sure the Charter Commission would even want to
do that.
Mr. Sporre asked if the Charter Commission did not want to incorporate some
of the Committee's thoughts into the final proposal. Mr. Crowder emphasized
that they are looking at two ways to get a man on the Council, one is appointed
and one is elected. The Charter Commission covers both and the Committee of
Petitioner's proposal, regardless of the time limit, would eliminate the fact
that Council can appoint. Mrs. McChensey did not think they were giving the
Charter Commission that many words to incorporate into the Charter. Mr. Crowder
said he did not think the Charter Commission with all their study is going to
go back and totally redo that particular phase. Mr. Sporre said the only
other alternative would be to go to a special election. Harry Crowder said
even before they get to that, he felt it was imperative for the Committee
to come up with an amendment which is acceptable in itself. It could be
checked for the legality of the content and based on that knowledge, make
the necessary changes in the amendment and be presented to the Charter
Commission at their next meeting. Mrs. McChensey added the ideal thing
would be to make it acceptable to Council so it would not have to go to a vote,
prior to the Charter Commission's recommendation.
Mr. Crowder summarized the reasons for all this background information.
He stated the Council had approved most of the Charter Commission's recommendations,
Section 2.05 receiving no criticism at all. If they were to come forth with
a recommendation as the Committee has proposed, the first question will be why?
Mr. Crowder said this was totally different then what was submitted 6 months
ago, and the Charter Commission would end up supporting the particular amendment.
Mr. Crowder added that the Model Charter carried only the Council appointed
procedure.
Further discussion was held on the content of Section 2.05. Mrs. McChesney
asked if the eLection had to be definitely scheduled within a certain period
of time? Mr. Sheridan said it did, this was required by state statutes.
Mrs. McChesney asked what the Committee researched to find out what was workable.
Mr. Sporre said they did not go to other municipalities, they gathered their
research from citizens in the community. Mr. Sporre said possibly this
process could be used as a precedent to other Cities.
Mr. Sheridan invited all members of the Committee of Petitioners to attend
the next meeting, January 14, and if the petition then was found not to be
sufficient, they could work on a proposed amendment to Chapter 2, Section
2.05.
Mr. Sheridan delcared meeting adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
/'1 z,
Recording Secretary
V