Issues: Charter amendments

Under Minnesota law, every home rule city must have a charter commission with the ability to examine the charter and propose amendments. The amendments that it proposes can either be adopted by the Council, or else by vote at a general or special election. Fairmont's Charter Commission has proposed a series of three amendments to be voted on at the November election.

 

The third of these amendments would resolve an ambiguity in the charter. RIght now, the charter says that Council must approve purchases over a defined amount (the charter says $5000, but the city attorney has told us that that is superseded by Minnesota law that sets the amount at $25,000). A separate section of the charter says that the Public Utlity Commission can make purchases on its own. In the past, it has operated under that assumption. The city attorney has recommended that we amend the charter to resolve this ambiguity. This amendment is the result, and I support it.

 

The second amendment cuts Council out of the nomination process for Charter Commission members. I oppose this amendment, because as state law is written, Council is intended to have a part in recommending members of the Charter Commission. This grew out of my successful effort to repair the broken Charter Commission by removing several of its members.

 

The first amendment is a direct attack on me as a member of both Council and the Charter Commission. Ever since I came out in opposition of the amendments the Commission proposed in 2022, they have tried to bully me off of the Commission, first by naked bullying in meetings -- Chairman Mike Katzenmeyer gave me a 30-minute public tongue-lashing in one meeting because of it, and several other members similarly tried bullying me; then by attempting to set Commission meetings for the same time as Council meetings; and finally by this amendment.

 

I don't knuckle under to bullies. I never have, and I never will.

 

Minnesota law explicitly provides that Council members can serve on the Charter Commission unless the charter prohibits it. In my time on the Commission, I have not only served as an advocate of stability, but also been an effective liaison to city government and source of expertise on how the city actually operates.

 

Some members of the Commission see their role as dictating how the city operates through the charter. Katzenmeyer often complains that the Commission did not meet for 30 years and thereby was prevented from holding the city to the charter. He argues that the city has violated the charter in several ways over the years.

 

He may well be right about the latter. He's wrong about the former. The Charter Commission has exactly one power: to propose amendments to the charter and place them before Council or the voters. It has no enforcement powers whatsoever. None. There is nothing the Commission can do to enforce the charter that any citizen of Fairmont cannot do themselves.

 

Adoption of the first two amendments would validate the approach a few people take to the Charter Commission's role, that of standing as an enemy to Council and staff. The voters should tell them no.