2004_1114_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Ms. Georgiana Sobola Qctober 15, 2004 Page 2 of 3 (4) What legisiative action is reqnired to dissolve a comrr�ission uz�der the circumstances described? DISCUSSION I. Interpretation of Charter Law Minnesota Statutes, Section 41 �.OS subdivision 5 provides that "if the charter cornmission of a statutory city determines that a charter is not necessary or desirable, the commission may be discharged by a vote of three-fourths of its rnembers." There are no court cases or opinions of the Minnesota Attorney General that interpret this stahzte. Therefore, our only guide in construing the statute are the general rules of statutory interpretation. Pursuant to the ru�es of statutory interpretation, the plain language of the statute should not be disregarded if the meaning is clear_ Minn. Stat. § 645.16, Kirkwold Const. Co. v. M.G.A. Const., Inc., 513 N.W_2d 214 (Minn. 1994). The language of Section 410.05 is unamhiguous. The fact that the voters of Roseville rejected two prior charters does not in and of itself discharge the Gommission. The authority to discharge the Commission lies on.ly witl� the Commission itself. Discharge of the Commission can only occur if (1) its members determine that a charter is not necessary or desirable and (2) there is a vote by three-fourths of the Commission members to dissolve. If the Commzssior� is not discharged, it can again submit a charter to the citizens of Roseville for a vote under Minn. Slat. § 410.10. However, the ability of the Cotnmission to submit another charter to the citizens does not erode its night to discharge itself if it determines that a charter is no ' longer necessary or desirabie and there is a three-fourths vote to discharge. A statute is to be construed, if possible, so that no word, ph�rase, or sentence is superfluous, void, or insignificant. Minn. Stat. § 645.16, Boutin v. LaFleur, 591 N.W_2d 711 (Minn. 1999) cert. den. 120 S.Ct. 417. Minn. Stat. § 410.10 cannot be interpreted to litnit the rnanner in which or the ability of the Commission to discharge itself. Such an interpretation would render section 410.05 subdivision 5 superf�uous and would be contrary to the rules of statutory construction. Accordingly, the Commission is without restriction from proposing a discharge resolution. The question that the Commission rnetnbers must decide, when voting, is whether a charter is necessary or desirable. ihe fact ti�at a proposed charter has been twice rejected at election is probative evidence that the citizens of Roseville do not believe a charter is either necessary or desirable. Furthermore, thc second proposed charter lost by a greater ma�rgin than the first Charter. T�is may indicate a declining interest among t�e citizens in a charter. In additian, it appears that the ci#izens of Roseville have expressed a desire for the Commission to be discharged. Finally, the area's state Senator, wha is elected to represcnt the area's interests, encouraged the Commission to dissolve. These factors alI would tend to support discharging the Cornmission. As a practical matter, the Commission should make a record of its findings to support its decision of whether or not it dissolves. II. Possibi�ities and Consequences of a Legal Challen�e A Iegal challenge can occur whether the Comxnission decides to discharges itself or not. If the Commission proceeds to discharge itself under section. 410.05, subd. 5, a challenge could come from a `��