First editorial on changing the charter where it seems to me the Tribune "editorial board" is suggesting the council just cram the 4 year mayoral terms down the public's throat.
QUOTE
Here’s an idea: Before having a meeting on the city charter, the people making decisions on it should read it.
It seemed the city staff and commission members were unprepared at that meeting last Monday. There was way too much confusion about what the next step was if and when the Charter Commission makes a decision.
It says right in there in Section 2 that the Albert Lea City Council “exercises the powers of administrative boards and commissions.”
The charter says all other city entities exist merely as advisory bodies.
That means the Albert Lea Charter Commission is but an advisory board — nothing more. It is no different than the Albert Lea Planning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, the Airport Advisory Board, the Heritage Preservation Commission and so forth.
The usual procedure applies. A matter goes to the advisory board or commission for a recommendation (and only a recommendation), then the true decision lies with the City Council.
Even if the Charter Commission says no to changing the charter, the City Council still can say yes. The Charter Commission has no true power. It pretty much just gives advice.
Furthermore, one commissioner thought the mayor’s vote didn’t count unless there was a tie. Again, read the charter. The mayor’s vote counts, even on unanimous decisions. He merely votes last.
Also, at the meetings of the Charter Commission, it might be fine for a city staff member to have an opinion on the matter, but they should not be vocalizing it unless asked by the commission.
If you work for the city, leave the politicking to the politicians and the general public.
Frankly a little bit more order to the Charter Commission meeting is needed. It was sort of a chatty talkfest last Monday.
Apparently at some point after that someone explained the importance of the Charter Commission and the proper procedure to amending the Charter.
QUOTE
There was some confusion over the city charter last week and this week. We hope to provide some clarification below.
The editorial the Tribune had on Monday was good in that it sharpened many people’s interest — including members of the Charter Commission and city staff — in finding what proper procedures were needed to amend the charter. But the editorial also was in error for its description of procedures.
To clarify, the Charter Commission is not the same as other city panels and boards. It is set up by state law and members appointed by district court. It principally operates under mandates set in Chapter 410 of Minnesota law, not by Section 2 of the Albert Lea charter.
Under Minnesota law, there are three ways to amend a city charter for Albert Lea and similarly structured cities. All three are geared to make sure the city residents have a say.
• The people can submit a petition signed by registered voters. Petitioners would need 5 percent of the votes cast in city during the last state general election. Once it is certified as valid, if the Charter Commission isn’t slated to meet, it must convene. It can adjust the proposed amendment for substance and form, but as long as the proposal doesn’t violate state law, it must go to the voters. Neither the Charter Commission nor the City Council can stop it. The council does set the election date.
• A member of the Charter Commission can propose an amendment. If the commission approves, it goes to the City Council. If the council approves it unanimously, it would go into effect 90 days after legal publication. However, a valid petition drive within 60 days of that publication can halt the amendment, sending it to the voters for approval at an election.
• The City Council can pass an ordinance to request the Charter Commission to amend the charter. The commission can accept, reject or change the proposed amendment. Then it would go before the voters for approval.
There are more laws regarding certain situations that could come up in all three methods; however, this summary covers most of what people need to know as the Albert Lea Charter Commission handles the matter of mayoral terms. So far, there has been no petition, no council resolution and no proposal from a Charter Commission member. One of those three will be needed should the Charter Commission be able to move forward on the matter.
The Albert Lea Charter Commission meets again June 6 at City Hall to return to the issue of mayoral terms. We urge the people of Albert Lea to attend because, clearly, the charter is meant to be the people’s document.
They seem to have gone from the position of the Council should ram it down the public's throat to a position of "let's be reasonable about this".
-------------- The people are masters of both Congress and courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it!
imho i do not have a problem with the two year term for mayor. my theory is if you like what the mayor is doing for the city then vote him or her another term if not vote him or her out of office. if you have a four year term of office you are stuck with the person for that length of time. i would think it would be an incentive for the mayor to be very attentive to the position realizing that he or she would be up for reelection in two years & not have four years to fix the problem or problems! the charter was written for a purpose so why try to fix something that is not broken! the city council as as whole formulates city policy not just the mayor. the city manager carries out the policy. the mayor is but one piece of the administration.
-------------- "Do not confuse dissent with disloyalty" Edward R Murrow
Memento homo quia pulvis es, et in pulverem veverteris
Nice emphatic gaffe by the paper everybody luvs so much.
I think in light of this Norman situation, and the former "finance" guru.
Both the paper and the pep squad behind this charter alteration need to pipe down about the whole thing.
Maybe try to focus on the little things like making sure people like your, "finance manager", aren't running amok.
Before you move on to big things like this charter thing.
I know some people say that the council people do a thankless job and so on.
But that whole case is really an extremely poor reflection on everyone involved directly with matters pertaining to the running of the City of Albert Lea. IMO
Or maybe a good reflection would be a better way of putting it.
That means the Albert Lea Charter Commission is but an advisory board — nothing more. It is no different than the Albert Lea Planning Commission, Board of Zoning Appeals, the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, the Airport Advisory Board, the Heritage Preservation Commission and so forth.
The usual procedure applies. A matter goes to the advisory board or commission for a recommendation (and only a recommendation), then the true decision lies with the City Council.
Even if the Charter Commission says no to changing the charter, the City Council still can say yes. The Charter Commission has no true power. It pretty much just gives advice.
Apparently at some point after that someone explained the importance of the Charter Commission and the proper procedure to amending the Charter.
QUOTE
There was some confusion over the city charter last week and this week. We hope to provide some clarification below.
The editorial the Tribune had on Monday was good in that it sharpened many people’s interest — including members of the Charter Commission and city staff — in finding what proper procedures were needed to amend the charter. But the editorial also was in error for its description of procedures.
To clarify, the Charter Commission is not the same as other city panels and boards. It is set up by state law and members appointed by district court. It principally operates under mandates set in Chapter 410 of Minnesota law, not by Section 2 of the Albert Lea charter.
Under Minnesota law, there are three ways to amend a city charter for Albert Lea and similarly structured cities. All three are geared to make sure the city residents have a say.
• The people can submit a petition signed by registered voters. Petitioners would need 5 percent of the votes cast in city during the last state general election. Once it is certified as valid, if the Charter Commission isn’t slated to meet, it must convene. It can adjust the proposed amendment for substance and form, but as long as the proposal doesn’t violate state law, it must go to the voters. Neither the Charter Commission nor the City Council can stop it. The council does set the election date.
• A member of the Charter Commission can propose an amendment. If the commission approves, it goes to the City Council. If the council approves it unanimously, it would go into effect 90 days after legal publication. However, a valid petition drive within 60 days of that publication can halt the amendment, sending it to the voters for approval at an election.
• The City Council can pass an ordinance to request the Charter Commission to amend the charter. The commission can accept, reject or change the proposed amendment. Then it would go before the voters for approval.
There are more laws regarding certain situations that could come up in all three methods; however, this summary covers most of what people need to know as the Albert Lea Charter Commission handles the matter of mayoral terms. So far, there has been no petition, no council resolution and no proposal from a Charter Commission member. One of those three will be needed should the Charter Commission be able to move forward on the matter.
The Albert Lea Charter Commission meets again June 6 at City Hall to return to the issue of mayoral terms. We urge the people of Albert Lea to attend because, clearly, the charter is meant to be the people’s document.
They seem to have gone from the position of the Council should ram it down the public's throat to a position of "let's be reasonable about this".
QUOTE
They seem to have gone from the position of the Council should ram it down the public's throat to a position of "let's be reasonable about this".
No, I think both Timmy the misleader and Scott Schlemiel went from idiots to morons.
QUOTE
If you work for the city, leave the politicking to the politicians and the general public.
And if you both run and write the editorials for a local small town newspaper you ought to follow your own advise on issues until you know what you're talking about. All you are doing is misleading the public to follow in "your opinion." How about the person of your "Editorial Board" man up and put his name on your opinion while you're at it. Start practicing your own policies.
The people of this town look to your newspaper for the facts and take what you print as such, not your misconceived or ill informed opinions.
We know you read this forum. I posted a week and a half ago with your link.
QUOTE
The Chater Commision should also be sure to check into state laws that have been established to protect city charters from being changed because of ambitious people.
All you have now is
-------------- Actually my wife is especially happy when my google check arrives each month. Thanks to douchbags like you, I get paid just for getting you worked up. -Liberal
This is not the time to amend or change our City Charter folks. Our City Administration and Council need to stay on task. Two year Mayor term was put in place for a reason. With past failed history of our present City leaders ( and I say that loosely) complete the mission before opening up another can of worms.
