My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
11/10/2008 Council Packet (2)
LinoLakes
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
1982-2020
>
2008
>
11/10/2008 Council Packet (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/20/2014 3:28:31 PM
Creation date
5/16/2014 10:43:11 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Council Document Type
Council Packet
Meeting Date
11/10/2008
Council Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
85
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
3) As I just mentioned in my 2nd complaint Charter Commission members <br />questioned billings for the city attorneys. This was to try to discredit not only the <br />petition but I also believe to cast a shadow of suspension on City Hall. Once <br />again this is way out of bounds and highly inappropriate behavior for the Charter <br />Commission. <br />4) Minutes for the 9/10/08 Charter Commission meeting were not released in a <br />timely manner. These minutes were critical for the people in this election to <br />understand the deliberation that the Charter Commission went through in <br />examining the Petition to adapt Statute 429. Minutes from the 9/10 meeting of <br />the Charter Commission conveniently will not be available until Jan 2009. This <br />was the only meeting where the "Citizens for Safer Roads" petition was discussed <br />by the Charter Commission. It wasn't discussed at the 8/23 meeting and the 10/9 <br />meeting was cancelled. It doesn't seem possible that in one meeting the Charter <br />Commission: first discussed the 429 referendum; never consulted with petitioners <br />or City Hall about the petition; fully understood the differences between 429 and <br />the Charter; decided against 429; decided to campaign against the referendum; <br />decided all the details of the campaign, website, signs and letter writings that then <br />took place. If there were additional meetings, why were they not made public and <br />where are the minutes as required by the Charter? <br />5) The Charter Commission did not do a full and complete examination of the <br />petition submitted by "Citizens for Safer Roads" before deciding their course of <br />action. If the only meeting on this topic was on 9/10 and no one from Citizens for <br />Safer Roads, City Hall or any other outside source was consulted, then the <br />Commission did not completely and properly examine this issue. <br />6) The Charter Commission may have violated Open Meeting laws. If there were <br />additional meetings beyond 9/10 the Charter Commission needs to disclose this <br />and provide minutes for these meetings. If there were additional meetings <br />appropriate action should be take for this violation. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.