2012-08-15_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Page 2 funds to promote the passage of a ballot question by presenting one-sided information on a voter issue." The Minnesota Supreme Court is currently reviewing this case. 3. What are the exceptions to the general prohibition on the expenditure of public funds? Additionally, the attorney general has stated that a proposal could have "such a direct and substantial effect upon the interests of a particular municipality that [the municipality] has a legally recognizable interest in promoting or protecting those interests in a state-wide forum." The opinion noted however that the city cannot spend funds to promote its own position if the proposed amendment "relate[s] primarily to private interests ar affects individual municipalities in only a general and indirect way." The attorney general was asked to issue an opinion about whether a city could expend funds to promote a position on a constitutional amendment related to the use of proceeds of the Motor Vehicle Sales Tax for highway and public transit funding. The attorney general stated: "... it seems likely that such proposals pertaining generally to state-wide transportation systems and funding would not be appropriate for locally funded advocacy... �RJesources may not be expended for such purposes where the effect upon the unit [of governmentJ would be only indirect and in common with the public at large. " This opinion suggests that it would be inappropriate to expend public funds in order to influence the outcome if an amendment would impact all cities in the same manner. This narrow exception seems to preclude cities from expending public funds to either promote or oppose the two constitutional amendments being proposed on the 2012 state general election ballot—although, because of its cost implications, the question of whether this opinion would apply with respect to the city's use of public funds to advocate in support or opposition to the proposed voter ID amendment may be a closer call. 4. Can public officials orally advocate for or against passage of an amendment? Yes. As noted in the response to Question 1, public officials may advocate for or against a particular ballot question, provided that no public funds are expended. While elected officials are clearly "public officials," the term was not defined to clearly include or exclude others in public administration. 5. If the city determines it cannot spend money in support of a position, can a city still provide the public factual information regarding the potential impact of an amendment without taking a position for or against passage? Yes. A key principle that cities must observe is that all city expenditures and actions must primarily serve a public purpose. (See LMC information memo "Public Purpose Expenditures.") The attorney general stated that: