Laserfiche WebLink
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION June 1, 2009 <br /> APPROVED <br /> 1 maintained at city hall. Mr. Doherty reported that the city has no legal obligation to be <br /> 2 the commission's repository of data unless that duty is first accepted by the city. Charter <br /> 3 commissions have an obligation under data practice law to take care of their own <br /> 4 information. Mr. Doherty did not receive access to the e-mails between commission <br /> 5 members that he requested and that are public data. In reviewing the commission <br /> 6 minutes, there was no evidence that the charter commission ever approved the <br /> 7 expenditure of funds (for signs and brochures). There is reference to something like a <br /> 8 subcommittee and, if that group did exist, it is under the same obligation to maintain data <br /> 9 and make it public. <br /> 10 <br /> 11 A council member suggested that the report seems to indicate that there were some <br /> 12 activities that weren't within the scope of the commission's legal charge; are there any <br /> 13 consequences for those actions? <br /> 14 <br /> 15 Mr. Doherty reviewed the section of the report that relates to signs and brochures used by <br /> 16 the commission. To the extent that those were not legal and allowable expenses, the city <br /> 17 should not have paid the bill if and when it was presented. Further the commission has <br /> 18 no authority to enter into a contract or to order goods. Regarding the commission's Web <br /> 19 site,while the site is prepared and paid for by other than the city, if it represents the <br /> 20 commission, it cannot contain advocacy or preferential information; it must be neutral to <br /> 21 any ballot questions. <br /> 22 <br /> 23 A council member suggested that the bills were prepaid by the city. <br /> `- 24 <br /> 25 Responding on a question of consequences, Mr. Doherty explained that there is little that <br /> 26 could occur in that area between the city and the commission since the commissioners are <br /> 27 appointed by the chief judge. It would be up to the judge to deal with issues. It would be <br /> 28 within the council's purview to inform the chief judge of issues if they deem that is <br /> 29 necessary. The council doesn't make appointments to the commission, the chief judge <br /> 30 has that responsibility. An individual could pursue a complaint under fair campaign <br /> 31 practices. <br /> 32 <br /> 33 A council member suggested that the council must consider the matter of intent. If there <br /> 34 was something done that could be considered illegal, did the commission know that? It <br /> 35 may be prudent to put something together to inform the commission of what is legal and <br /> 36 what isn't. Mr. Doherty suggested the League of Minnesota Cities is a good resource for <br /> 37 assistance in that area. The council member added that individual charter commission <br /> 38 members shouldn't be muzzled on issues; they are volunteers. Mr. Doherty pointed out <br /> 39 that the Web page was presented as belonging to the commission however. Mr. Doherty <br /> 40 further explained that the commission has more limitations than the city council and <br /> 41 cannot even offer an information pieceā€”the commission is not allowed to present that <br /> 42 type of information. The city, on the other hand, cannot advocate but can provide <br /> 43 information. <br /> 44 <br /> 2 <br />