My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
11-27-2017 Council Packet
LinoLakes
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
1982-2020
>
2017
>
11-27-2017 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/14/2018 3:17:53 PM
Creation date
3/14/2018 2:46:13 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Council Document Type
Council Packet
Meeting Date
11/27/2017
Council Meeting Type
Regular
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
202
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
COUNCIL MINUTES November 13, 2017 <br />DRAFT <br />2 <br />confirmed that there was no conflict. There was discussion about a situation that could be perceived 46 <br />as a conflict and Mr. Rafferty explained that he falls on the side of caution when that perception could 47 <br />be seen. 48 <br /> 49 <br />Mayor Reinert recalled his discussion with the City Administrator and how it came to be that the city 50 <br />attorney would be asked; he was not aware that any legal costs would be incurred. He is surprised at 51 <br />the price but he understands that the City Administrator wanted to have that legal review. Perhaps 52 <br />the question is why the cost is so high. Mayor Reinert also mentioned that the city council is 53 <br />discussed going out for RFP for legal services. 54 <br /> 55 <br />Council Member Kusterman suggested it was a blaming situation; he suggests that all council 56 <br />members should have been consulted in this case. 57 <br /> 58 <br />Council Member Manthey concurred that the matter was one for the entire council to review. He 59 <br />feels that the council having transparency is highly important. He believes that the council has 60 <br />discussed perceptions of possible conflict for its members in the past so an experienced member of 61 <br />the council would have already known the answer. 62 <br /> 63 <br />Mayor Reinert suggested this is a case of sour grapes based on election results. He had a 64 <br />conversation with the administrator and Mr. Karlson chose to approach the city attorney for an 65 <br />opinion. It was not a created situation for political gain. 66 <br /> 67 <br />Council Member Manthey noted that the matter of paying the bill is on the agenda for council 68 <br />approval tonight; the council as a whole is expected to make that decision. 69 <br /> 70 <br />Mayor Reinert asked if the council would like to add discussion of a policy on legal opinions and the 71 <br />city administrator to the next work session agenda. The council concurred. 72 <br /> 73 <br />Council Member Kusterman added that the RFP process for city attorney was initiated after the 74 <br />opinion was received. 75 <br /> 76 <br />Council Member Maher asked the City Administrator if he would normally contact the city attorney 77 <br />without a clear council direction to do so. 78 <br /> 79 <br />Administrator Karlson said he would normally contact the city attorney on matters that he feels 80 <br />requires that course and it is not always with council direction; he noted that other city staff has the 81 <br />ability to do the same. 82 <br /> 83 <br />Mayor Reinert reviewed the general process of seeking RFPs. He also recalled a discussion with the 84 <br />city’s contracted engineering firm and his quest for an opinion on a good timeline for RFP – how 85 <br />often should the city seek them. He read an email from that firm’s representative responding to the 86 <br />question. 87 <br /> 88 <br />Council Member Manthey asked if that communication came after the candidate of that firm filed for 89 <br />office; he suspects it did and it doesn’t look good. 90
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.