09/28/2009 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION September 8, 2009 DRAFT 42 including the hiring of an attorney for that purpose. Anything beyond that becomes questionable. 43 It is clear that no municipal or government entity may spend public funds to advocate for a 44 position. Regarding data privacy, a responsible authority should be designated by the group and 45 person should have access to the data of the commission as well as be able to respond to requests 46 for data in a timely manner. It isn't the city's obligation. A charter commissioner noted that a 47 response to the data practice question is included in their attorney's response to the audit; as well, 48 they have contacted other charter commissions and have found none that have designated a data 49 practice authority. It is an on -going discussion and the commission is not clear on how to 50 proceed; they believe that all their records are kept and accessible at city hall. A council member 51 suggested that the commission may want to contact the League of Minnesota Cities for assistance 52 in planning their data practices. 53 Pat Smith, former charter commission chair, commented that he understands from experience the 54 difficulties that can arise because the commission is self - policed; it would be helpful to televise 55 commission meetings and to have spending run through the council. 56 Council comments included recognizing that audits are done to review practices and provide 57 advice on improvements and it would be appropriate to respond to the advice given by this audit. 58 The issues are outlined by the audit and the job at hand is how to address them. The League of 59 Minnesota Cities provides advice in areas such as city charters and could be a useful and free tool 60 to deal with charter questions. The council recognizes that the commission is a volunteer 61 organization and encourages them to ask for help if needed. 62 Comments from the audience included questioning why the city is paying money to an 63 organization that has no guidelines. The brochure that was produced by the charter commission 64 about the charter amendment on public improvements was one - sided, unfair to those who 65 opposed their position and the council should know ahead how public funds will be spent. 66 Wrong was done by the commission and to restore credibility an apology is in order to allow 67 everyone to move forward. 68 Comments from charter commission members included that the commission's impetus for 69 getting an audit response from their attorney was not to dispute but rather for advice on 70 responding. The audit attorney and the commission attorney clearly don't agree and that is not 71 unusual with legal opinions. The city practices should be reviewed and held to the same high 72 standard as they want for the commission. 73 The council will be asking the commission to consider establishing guidelines and procedures 74 and to include an education process on them for new members. If they need some professional 75 help in that area, they should ask. 76 3. Charter Commission Budget — City Clerk Bartell noted that the council's discussion of 77 the charter commission's budget was initiated by a July 24, 2009 letter from the commission 78 requesting additional funding in 2009 and a budget level in 2010. The council has discussed the 79 budget with some commission representatives at work sessions and a joint meeting with the 80 charter commission was held in August. Budget points have been submitted explaining the 81 commission's current request. 2 • • •