2002_0422_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

David I. Kennedy Page 7 October 27, 1995 transition scheduled Set out in section 27, suhd, 2, } officials elected in 1996 wili serge until either 2000 or 2002 and those elected in 1997 will serve until 2002. etc. 'fhe potential dilemma we perceive is thar. these transitional provisions will place Crystal, for example, on a schedule calling for odd-year elections, in default of an affirmative act by the city to establish even-year elections. However, the amended version of Minn. Stat. 205.07, which will rake effect in January 1998, requires the City to conduct.gven elections, in default of an affirmative choice by ordinance to conduct them in add-numbered years, Thus it would appear that a city which makes no affirmative volitional choice choce.-I n ni't the timing of its elections is required to follow a transition schedule �ucmpatible with the future general law for which the transition is intended. Cities themselves in fi g h t resolve this contradiction by either affirmatively electing to hold even-numbered year elections and providing by a resolution or ordinance for an "orderly plan" of transition as permitted by section 26, subdivision I of the 1994 Act, or by adopting an ordinance, expressly providing for odd-year elections consistent with the transition called for by section 27. If c i t l�s such as Crystal do not take such actions o tl their own volition, 3 A, F e v e 11 ,1011►d appear that t.h y will '11 1998 be out of compliance `��i t h section 7 �.v h c.ll will r e-q u i c e elections in years when no term will be due to expire in che following January. It appears that this difficulty may have resulted from an oversight by the legislature. To exte L that s t!ip w as:' t best be resolved by correct' 'e I o is ai'vc acdop,.3 . A second p c s s b difficult �� arses from the ' that t transitional s lfi 4 e k_ provided in the 1994 Act, nor any modification thereto in the 1995 Ac.(, appears to specifically address the transitional timing of mayoral terms in a city which chooses to provide for a two year term for its mayor as permitted by section 5 of the 1995 law. It is not clear v:rh4ther or not thar omission is intentional. However, it does appear that the transitional sched u i cs %,e-re premised upon four year terms. Dope nd i ncr upon t 1l e draw o l lots by the c�� i c� ; I� is possible that a mayor's transitional term could be five years.