Laserfiche WebLink
RATWIK, ROSZAK & MALONEY, P.A. <br />Attorneys at Law <br />Paul C. Ratwik <br />John M. Roszak <br />Patricia A. Maloney* <br />Terrence J. Foy* <br />Stephen G. Andersen** <br />Scott T. Anderson <br />Kevin J. Rupp <br />Jay T. Squires*t <br />Ann R. Goering <br />Nancy E. Blumstein* <br />Joseph J. Langel <br />Michael J. Waldspurger* <br />Margaret A. Skelton <br />Amy E. Mace <br />Isaac Kaufman <br />300 U.S. Trust Building <br />730 Second Avenue South <br />Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 <br />(612) 339-0060 <br />Fax (612) 339-0038 <br />www.ratwiklaw.com <br />* Also admitted in Wisconsin <br />** Civil Trial Specialist <br />Certified by the Minnesota <br />State Bar Association <br />t Real Property La~v Specialist <br />Certified by the Minnesota <br />State Bar Association <br />Eric J. Quiring <br />Stacey L. Wilson <br />Eric L. Hedtke <br />Kimberley K. Sobieck <br />Sonya J. Guggemos <br />Jennifer L. Wolf <br />Dawit Haile <br />October 1 S, 2004 <br />Georgiana Sobola <br />Charter Commission Chair <br />2660 Civic Center Drive <br />Roseville, MN 55113 <br />RE: Dissolution of the Charter Commission <br />Our File No. 4002(1)-0143 <br />Dear Ms. Sobola: <br />FACTS <br />The Roseville Charter Commission ("Commission") was organized on September 22, 1999, <br />pursuant to the procedures delineated in Minn. Stat. § 410.05. The Commission drafted a charter, <br />which was rejected by the citizens of Roseville in 2001. In 2002, a revised charter was also rejected by <br />the citizens of Roseville. <br />It is our understanding that following the rejection of the charters, an assumption existed <br />among some of the voters of the City that either the Commission no longer existed, or that it should no <br />longer exist. In fact, the State Senator for the area encouraged the Commission to dissolve. <br />Based on these facts you raise the following: <br />ISSUES <br />(1) What are the statutory requirements to dissolve a charter commission? <br />(2) If the Commission dissolves under Section 410.05 subd. 5 what are the possibilities of a <br />challenge? <br />(3) What might be the possible consequences to the City and to the individual commissioners <br />in the event of a challenge? <br />