The meeting centered on the ongoing evaluation of existing commissions, with a specific focus on the mayor’s proposal to assess the relevance and efficiency of these bodies. The discourse brought to light the implications of amending the city charter, especially Section 32, which addresses vacancies in elected offices. A member of the Charter Commission inquired about the typical initiators of amendments, noting that recent practice often sees commission members or staff suggesting changes. The conversation underscored the necessity of involving the charter commission in any proposed amendments to commissions established by the charter, such as the Board of Health or the Police Commission. However, it was clarified that most of the commissions under review for possible consolidation were established by ordinance rather than by charter, diminishing the need for charter amendments.

The historical context of the city’s commissions was also discussed. A reference was made to the zoning commission, abolished roughly a decade ago due to functional redundancy with the Planning Commission. This past decision served as a backdrop for current considerations, emphasizing the importance of eliminating unnecessary overlap in commission duties.

Attention then shifted to the specific language of Section 32. It was revealed that a proposed amendment to this section had been previously considered but subsequently retracted due to a conflict with state statutes governing vacancies. This issue surfaced during preparations for a presentation to the city council, where the city attorney recommended against pursuing the amendment. This clarification allowed the commission to refocus its efforts on other potential amendments and governance issues.

Further, the commission discussed establishing a meeting during the week of February 24th to allow members to review the charter and consider any emerging changes, including those suggested by the utility director regarding duties and powers. A Doodle poll was proposed to determine the availability of members for this future meeting.

In addition to these discussions, the meeting briefly touched on the election of officers for the upcoming year. Rick Jensen was elected as chair, Dave Christian as vice chair, and Michelle Margra as secretary, each with unanimous approval. Following these appointments, the city attorney provided an overview of the commission’s duties and responsibilities under Minnesota state law. He explained that the charter functions as a local constitution, outlining the organizational structure of city government and delineating the powers and responsibilities of the city council and other entities.

The attorney emphasized that the charter commission operates more like a standing constitutional convention, responsible for reviewing the charter and proposing amendments as necessary. He clarified that the commission is not a legislative body and does not have the authority to enforce compliance with the charter. Any legal challenges regarding charter provisions must be addressed through the courts.

The statutory responsibilities of charter commissions include meeting at least once a year to consider petitions and submitting an annual report of activities to the district judge. While the commission is bound by open meeting laws and must maintain complete records of its activities, the attorney noted that there are minimal consequences if these requirements are not met, stating, “there are not a lot of teeth to them.”