Greenfield city charter movement becoming rancorous

A city's charter is its constitution, outlining all its government can and cannot do. So writing one -- and before that, even deciding whether to write one -- can be controversial. Eagan, Jordan and Afton all have struggled over it.

But leave it to little Greenfield in northwest Hennepin County -- a city known for its political infighting -- to make its charter controversy spectacular.

In heated public meetings and in letters to a district judge, charter backers and those disillusioned by the process have volleyed allegations: Backers claim the council is shutting down the charter process in order to keep control; the disillusioned claim a small group of cronies is hijacking the charter's drafting.

"It got to the point where I didn't want my name associated with it," said Sue Kavanaugh, a former charter commission member.

"This charter grew legs. It started walking on its own, and there's no stopping it," she said.

Kavanaugh is one of four people drafting the charter who resigned last month. Three of them said they were intimidated, ignored or both.

The City Council recently voted 3-2 to remove two other commissioners -- Mayor Jill Krout and Council Member Mark Lee -- from the nine-person panel, claiming in a resolution that they had "exercised undue influence on other commissioners," "ignored numerous legal opinions," and "are pushing the draft charter through without exercising proper due diligence."

Turns out the council cannot remove them, however. In a Feb. 19 letter, Hennepin County Chief District Judge Lucy Wieland, who appoints charter commissioners, said state law gives the council "no authority" to remove members just because they hold city office.

Wieland goes on to say she has received several letters "expressing dismay" over the commission's practices, including "erratic meeting schedules," "a lack of transparency" and the chairman's brother possibly filling a commission vacancy.

"Without taking a position on the merits of any of these concerns, I would note that I have never had such concerns expressed about any charter commission," the judge states in her letter. "The current charter commission should consider whether this kind of controversy is in the best interests of the city."

What it would and wouldn't do

Greenfield first discussed adopting a charter -- a constitutional option that gives cities more leeway in their governance -- after Krout was elected mayor in 2006. Krout had based her campaign on issues of taxpayers' rights and integrity in office.

With a charter, she said, residents could vote on sizable expenditures and recall city officials.

Those were two key concerns for many Greenfield voters. The previous council had borrowed $1.13 million for a new city hall, and the previous mayor had faced criminal charges unrelated to his position with the city.

Krout and other charter commission members say that the charter they've drafted delivers on those promises. It includes spending limits and recall powers that would "protect against a council that disregards the needs of the public and the taxpayers," said commission chairman Roger Mattila.

But Kavanaugh contends that the section outlining recall powers, like much of the charter, is poorly thought out.

A Jan. 22 League of Minnesota Cities review of Greenfield's draft, which the commission requested, states that "charters have only extremely limited authority to provide for recall elections in a charter" -- only in cases of "serious malfeasance or nonfeasance during the term of office in performance of the duties of the office or conviction during the term of office of a serious crime."

"If this is not stated in the charter in plain language ... a citizen may believe that they have the authority to recall officials because they disagree with an official's political viewpoint or controversial (but otherwise legal) actions," the report says.

The current draft charter, dated Feb. 22, does not include the League's recommended language.

"They're knowingly leading the city astray," Kavanaugh said of the commission. "And they just wouldn't listen -- to me or the League."

Seeking to limit the council

Mattila and Krout said they listen to and appreciate each commission member's opinion. Kavanaugh "certainly had forum to give her commentary," Mattila said. "Nobody stopped her from speaking."

Her disillusionment likely is due to a majority of the commission members often disagreeing with her views, Mattila said.

"A group of nine is never going to agree on everything," Krout said.

Now the commission, down to five official members, is trying to continue its work with no funding. The City Council also voted 3-2 on Feb. 19 to deny the commission's request for $2,000.

"It's not necessarily surprising that the council would be opposed to [the charter], because it seeks to limit their power and give more power to the taxpayers," Mattila said.

The commission had hoped to use that money for a third legal review, a financial review and advertising for a March 13 open house to discuss the draft charter.

Krout and commission member Bruce Rawlings have offered hundreds of dollars of their own money to make sure the public knows about the meeting.

City Attorney Jeff Carson is checking on whether that's allowed.

"I can tell you this," he said -- "I don't know if it's ever been asked. [With] the stuff going on with this charter, there are a lot of first-time questions."

Jenna Ross • 612-673-7168