2005_0516_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Keith M. Stidd, Esq. Page 8 September 27, 2972 3 Stan. L. Rev. ~97 (1950~51), for a general discussion of these limitations. Case law and pllior opinions indicate that the prj,.n- cipal subject matter requirement is that the propositions presented encompass legislative not administrative matter's. Reference to case law and prior opinions will provide guidance as to whether 5 particular questions are legislative or administrative in nature. 5. Oakman v. City of Eveleth, 163 Minn. 100,,203 N.W. 514 (1925); Op. Atty. Gen. 59a-32, October 7, 1968; Op. Atty. Gen. 858, Ju1y'27, 1967. Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Min- neapolis v. Minneapolis, No. 325 (Minn. May 26), 198 N.W.2d 531 (1972). The latter case considered Minn. stat. ~ 410.20 (1971), which authorizes muni.clpalities to adopt charter provisions pro- viding for the referendum. The court interpreted this provision to mean that referendum votes on ordj,nances are permissible but such votes on actions of the city council which are not placed into effect by ordinances are impermissible. The line which' divides questions of a legislative nature from those of an adm:1.nistrati ve nature is not precise. In Oakman v. City of Eveleth, su~!'a, it was said that legislative acta estab- lish a permanent an uniform rule of' law whereas administrative acts relate to the daily admlnistr'atlon of municipal affairs. The rationale for prohibiting referenda on questions or an administrative charactel"is found in Oakman v. City of Eveleth, ~upra. It was said that if such questions are subject to popular approval or disapproval, the efficient administration of the af- fairs of the city would be destroyed~ 163 Minn. at 107, 203 N.W. at 517. See also Op. Atty. Gen. 858,j May 20,19"(1, October 26,19'70, August ;, ~O and July 21, 1967.