Judge Hears Both Sides Of Park Board Referendum Case
The following article by Steve Brandt was published in the Star Tribune on September 4, 2009:
JUDGE HEARS BOTH SIDES OF PARK BOARD REFERENDUM CASE.
Supporters asked for a quick ruling so that the question of the Minneapolis board's independence can be put on the Nov. 3 ballot. City attorneys argued that the proposed amendment goes too far.
The fate of a Park Board independence referendum in Minneapolis may hinge on whether a judge views it as keeping parks under the umbrella of city government or as creating a whole new unit of government.
Attorneys for the city and Park Board supporters disputed just how far the proposed charter amendment would go during a one-hour hearing Thursday before Hennepin County District Judge Cara Lee Neville.
Park Board supporters asked the court to order that the question be placed on the Nov. 3 ballot. The Minneapolis City Council last week rejected the question on the grounds that the proposal is unconstitutional and runs afoul of state law.
Attorney Brian Rice asked Neville to rule by Sept. 11, the deadline under state law to put the proposed city charter amendment on the fall ballot. He and Fred Morrison represented park supporters who circulated petitions and met the 10,449-signature threshold for qualifying for the ballot.
"I'll do what I can to get this out as fast as I can," Neville said.
Deputy City Attorney Peter Ginder told Neville that the proposal exceeds what's allowed under the state Constitution and state law governing cities with home-rule charters such as Minneapolis. That's because it essentially would make the Park Board a separate and independent unit of government, he argued.
Under state law, Ginder argued, cities can use their charter to organize themselves internally, but the Constitution reserves creating new units of government for the Legislature. "You charter yourself," he said. "You do not create other units of government."
But Morrison said that Minneapolis historically has had two bodies, the City Council and Park Board, that govern separate areas under one city charter. He said the aim of amendment supporters is to stake out more independence under that charter, rather than create a separate and independent new unit.
Ginder responded that the text of the proposed amendment would create an independent unit of government. But park supporters said the amendment wouldn't accomplish that unless the Legislature eventually granted those powers, as the amendment states.
Neville quizzed both sides about those distinctions and also about the burden of proof the city needs to meet in arguing that the proposal is unconstitutional and should be denied a spot on the ballot.
The council voted 11-2 a week ago to exercise what Ginder advised was its discretionary power to reject the proposal. It previously rejected a medical marijuana charter petition in 2004 because the proposal violated state and federal laws, even though it wouldn't have taken effect unless those laws were loosened.