01-17-2008 Charter Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

Charter Commission January 11, 2007 Page 8 DRAFT to public vote. If the change was to explain and describe, it could be changed by an ordinance. Commissioner Trehus stated that if a provision was ignored, the Commission could not take the City to court, but an individual citizen could. Commissioner Bor inquired about the process in dealing with the outstanding issues. Mr. Thomas indicated he made a list from the notes brought from staff to the Commission. The Commission submitted eleven items and all were rejected. Then there were 25 items where some were concepts or a single word. They met every month, and some were joint meetings with Council. After a couple of months, they prioritized the items with 12-13 items in category A. Chapter 5 concerns could not go to ballot because it was not explained enough. Pictures were needed to explain it clearly and concisely. Chair Warren mentioned that a flow chart would be helpful for the road construction concern. Mr. Thomas continued that there were five appendices discussing items such as adopting a ballot issue and a timeline for adopting a ballot issue. The diagrams were necessary because of the timeline and extensive textual language necessary. He checked to make sure if it went to ballot, there was the technical capabilities available to handle diagrams. After receiving help it was now in the ordinance process. The attorney's comments stated there could be no conflict between dialogue and diagram, because the text would be legal if there was a conflict. The second was that the text should follow the diagram. Commissioner Carlson inquired about the reason for not putting the timeline in the Charter. Mr. Thomas indicated it would work to put it in the Charter, but he would prefer to put it in the by-laws. In their City, no one agreed on the Commission, and the Council could not explain it. Mounds View chose to put it in the by-laws. Commissioner Bening questioned if they used subcommittees over the years. Mr. Thomas responded that usually all was done by the entire Commission. When there were 13 members, they used them. A lot of research was done by individual Commissioners or through meetings or e-mails with staff. If a subcommittee is larger than a quorum, it must be made public. Chair Warren thanked the visitors, indicating their input was appreciated. Mr. Thomas stated he would e-mail the final draft of chapter 5. Ms. Thomas mentioned they were building a new list, so they were in a similar position as the Lino Lakes's Commission. Mounds View is at 13,000 population, and would be fully developed in about 20 years. Among them, there were 8,300 registered voters. She indicated they were willing to assist the Commission if needed.