JB: > Jason is mistaken on three other counts. First, the Charter Commission does not have the authority to reject charter proposals
JS: The Charter Commission has two statutory obligations for dealing with amendment proposals by petition: "1. The charter commission [shall] propose amendments ... upon the petition of voters equal in number to five percent of the total votes cast at the last previous state general election in the city. "2. The proposed amendment shall first be submitted to the charter commission for its approval as to form and substance." (401.12s1) These are the only requirements proscribed by state law, and the medical marijuana amendment fulfilled both of them. JB: > The petitioners were advised that state law makes it unlawful to sell and distribute marijuana (for any reason) and that their proposed amendment certainly would conflict JS: We received a letter, signed October 3, 2003 by an assistant city attorney, communicating the Charter Commission's review of our proposed amendment. Aside from the letter's specific statement that it constitutes no legal advice, it communicated that: "1. The Commission approved [the amendment's] form in that it appears to be properly placed within the Charter and is in acceptable form. "2. The Commission disapproved the content of your proposed amendment on two grounds. First, the subject matter appears to be more appropriate for ordinance enactment rather than a charter provision. Second, the subject matter of the amendment, dealing with matters clearly proscribed by both state and federal law, is highly inappropriate to be included in the Charter which is the basic legal document of this City's structure." So in the first clause the Commission validated its statutory approval of our proposal. The second clause delivered a sharp criticism of it. I'm sorry Jim, but your low opinion of our effort was clearly not advice that the amendment is in conflict. JB: > Using a "Trojan horse mechanism" such as this "activation" clause was a terrible precedent and ought to be rejected. JS: Saying that my arguments for the amendment's legality don't hold up is a bit misleading. I am not a lawyer, did not draft the language, and did not develop the arguments for its legal precedence. I was involved with developing the amendment's intent, which I explained in my previous post and stand by. For the sake of argument though, I believe that the crux of the lawsuit countering the City Attorney's claims is that the City cannot meet a substantial burden of proof that the amendment is unconstitutional or in conflict: "The words 'to the extent permitted by State and Federal Law' must be construed as they would plainly be understood... The plain language of the proposed charter amendment is explicitly consistent with federal and state law... Therefore, the City of Minneapolis must place the proposed charter amendment on the ballot and let the voters decide." JB: > Third, the Charter Commission did not "recommend that City Council prevent the question from being placed on the November ballot". JS: Jim, you specifically stated at the August 4th Charter Commission meeting that the "Commission has an opportunity to forward with the petition the recommendation that the City Council not approve placement of the citizen petition on the ballot." (Charter Commission Minutes 08/04/2004) As Chair, you signed the Charter Commission's August 11th letter to City Council, stating: "The Commission believes it is in the best interest of the City of Minneapolis that you find the proposed Charter amendment inharmonious with the Constitution and the laws of Minnesota, and therefore not place the proposed amendment to the Charter on the November ballot." That sure sounded like recommending Council keep it off the ballot to me. JB: > No one was "disenfranchised" by this decision. DISENFRANCHISED adj : deprived of the rights of citizenship especially the right to vote (Source: WordNet R 2.0, C 2003 Princeton University) JS: In this case, the Minneapolis Elections Office certified that 5% of the registered voters in our city signed a legal petition calling for a city charter amendment by citizen initiative. Those voters were subsequently deprived of their right to vote on that amendment. As for the people who came to testify that they misunderstood the petition's intent, I recall that most of them were affiliated with a certain community group with a direct tie to the Charter Commission. I do not believe that they were representative of a general misunderstanding about the petition's intent, and I stand by my work having trained petitioners to explain the amendment properly. Despite that, the fact remains that the content of every petition sheet was uniform, had the heading "Petition to Amend the Minneapolis City Charter," listed the full text of the amendment, and prominently displayed a clause stating that the undersigned voters agree that they fully understand the terms and nature of the proposal. If somebody signed that without reading it, that is ultimately their responsibility. That is not to say I wouldn't have honored any request to strike a petition entry because somebody misunderstood its intent, but not a single person ever contacted me with that request. JB: > Some of the petition organizers acknowledged that this effort was intended as a "referendum" on medicinal marijuana JS: Speaking for myself, I can say that I was involved with this effort for that reason. That does not change the fact that the charter amendment we put forth was drafted in accordance with the law and is valid. Conversely, I agree with the Charter Commission's sentiment that 410.12 should be amended to give them the power to challenge a proposed amendment when reviewing its language. My opinion does not change the fact that the text of this amendment was properly approved on the grounds called for in current state law. JB: > In my opinion, the City Charter of Minneapolis ought not to be abused in this manner. JS: And this is where I believe that Mr. Bernstein's sentiment turns wholly undemocratic. He is but one citizen of this city. 12,500 other Minneapolitans signed our petition calling for the amendment to be placed on the ballot. If our city's charter truly belongs to its citizens, then they should not be deprived of the right to make changes to it. Apparently Jim Bernstein believes in a more republican form of government, where elected or appointed officials determine what you can vote on, and the democratically expressed will of the people is cast aside. For shame! Jason Samuels Whittier Administrative Coordinator, Citizens Organized for Harm Reduction -----Original Message----- From: Jim Bernstein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 6:32 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [email protected] Subject: RE: [Mpls] Council Members Goodman, Johnson & Medicinal Marijuana Jason is correct on one count. The Minneapolis City Attorney advised the City Council that they have the authority (and many would argue the responsibility) to reject a charter amendment if it conflicts with state or federal law. The "Medicinal Marijuana" amendment clearly did so and it was rejected by the City Council. Jason is mistaken on three other counts. First, the Charter Commission does not have the authority to reject charter proposals no matter how outrageous or unlawful! There is nothing that the Charter Commission can do if petitioners want to proceed with collecting signatures. At that point, all the Charter Commission can do is to make sure the proposed amendment is correct as to form and length and does not conflict with other charter provisions. The petitioners were advised that state law makes is unlawful to sell and distribute marijuana (for any reason)and that their proposed amendment certainly would conflict - and they already knew that. The petitioners did generate enough signatures and the Charter Commission did bring the petitions to the City Council as required. Second, adding language that "activated" the amendment only if state or federal law was changed to allow the sale or distribution of marijuana still did not change the fact that the City Charter would be amended to authorize something that state law forbids. There was widespread agreement that using a "Trojan horse mechanism" such as this "activation" clause was a terrible precedent and ought to be rejected. Jason can argue all he wants that the "activation" clause made the amendment acceptable but the opinion of the City Attorney citing precedents in state law made it clear that Jason's argument does not hold up. Third, the Charter Commission did not "recommend that City Council prevent the question from being placed on the November ballot". We advised the City Council of the legal issues that had been raised and addressed but that they alone had the authority to decided what to do with the petition. We also advised that in our opinion, this was an issue that should be addressed by ordinance and not by charter but that was not sufficient reason for rejecting the petition. A final point. No one was "disenfranchised" by this decision. In fact, during testimony on this issue, it was evident that many signers - no one knows how many - thought they were signing a petition to legalize marijuana or at least legalize "medicinal marijuana" when in fact this would have done neither. Some of the petition organizers acknowledged that this effort was intended as a "referendum" on medicinal marijuana in an effort to "wake up" or to "put on notice" legislators that there was support for the legalization of medicinal marijuana in Minneapolis. In my opinion, the City Charter of Minneapolis ought not to be abused in this manner. Jim Bernstein Fulton Minneapolis Charter Commission REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[email protected] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
