Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-12-2001 Charter Minutes Charter Commission April 12, 2001 irk �� Page 1 CITY OF LINO LAKES CHARTER COMMISSION DATE : April 12,2001 TIME STARTED : 7:03 P.M. TIME ENDED : 9:34 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT : Aldentaler (arrived at 7:21 p.m.),Bening, Carlson, Christopherson,DeMotts, G.Lane,S.Lane,Montain, Sullivan,Trehus (arrived at 7:07 p.m.),and Zastrow MEMBERS EXCUSED Dahl,Rafferty and Zych MEMBERS ABSENT : Rehhine STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT : Al Rolek COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: None CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Chair Sullivan called the regular meeting of the Lino Lakes Charter Commission to order at 7:03 p.m. on April 12, 2001. Chair Sullivan added Council meeting minutes of November 13 and 27, 2000 to the agenda. In recognition of the attendance of Al Rolek, Chair Sullivan stated the Commission will first consider Item 3A, Five Year Plan Review, and then return to the agenda as ordered. REPORTS OF THE CHAIR A. Five Year Plan Review-Mr. Rolek—Chair Sullivan noted the Commission has discussed the 5-year plan for quite some time and decided the Commission is not here to approve the 5-year plan but to work with the City to assure the existing 5-year plan covers what is included in the Charter. If so, the Charter Commission can find it meets the tenants of the Charter. Mr. Rolek stated the current 5-year draft plan has never been adopted but it is the intention to update it annually,revise it, and improve it so it is a good working document. As with any long range plan,he noted it should be understood that the farther out it goes,the less likely it will occur in that exact manner. Also, things change so the plan needs to also change. Mr. Rolek distributed copies of examples of the plan and provided a brief overview of what it includes. He noted it is not exactly organized as the Charter calls for but is a good place to start. He reviewed the capital equipment data and explained what it entails. Mr. Rolek also reviewed information on the capital improvement plan and synopsis of recognized funding sources. Chair Sullivan asked if there is reference to streets. Mr. Rolek reviewed the areas relating to streets contained within the capital improvement plan and under public services. 1 Charter Commission April 12, 2001 Page 2 Mr. Rolek continued his review of the project schedules and revenue program. In response to Chair Sullivan,Mr.Rolek explained that the revenue would be funds the City expects to receive including taxes and debt levy. However, in this budget it just includes the general fund portion. Mr. Rolek stated the sum total of all revenues on those two pages for the budget year 2000 anticipated receiving$5.5 million in year 2000 to operate the City's general purposes. As it turned out,that was a fair assumption. He advised that revenues exceeded expenditures by about 2%. Commissioner G. Lane asked if the City is operating "hand to mouth" or operating well enough to be able to replace the deteriorating infrastructure when the need arises. Mr. Rolek stated the City has a ways to go on that and there are financial constraints. He stated that needs grow as the City grows. But, sometimes it takes a while for financial resources to catch up to that growth. He stated he does not think the City is operating"hand to mouth" and advised that planning for those events is "key." Commissioner Montain stated the 5-year plan has been presented before but always seems to be dropped before it is adopted. He noted the plan includes replacement of trucks and copiers but he is concerned that the infrastructure and roads are also addressed He explained that part of the Charter is to plan ahead and give thought to development to prevent "leap frogging." Unfortunately,the City has not always planned well enough for street or utility construction. He stated he had thought the 5-year plan would include so many miles of street reconstruction pending approval. He stated he also thought park improvements and park referendum would have been included. Mr. Rolek agreed those items should be addressed in the 5-year plan and are being addressed by staff. But they have not yet been included in the plan. He reiterated this information is just part of the plan and this is not the full document. Mr. Rolek noted the City's Charter relies on referendum or 100% assessment to do roads so additional planning is needed. He assured the Charter Commission that roads will be included in the 5-year plan. Commissioner Montain stated he just wants to assure that staff completes this document so a partial document is not presented again next year. Commissioner Trehus asked how it goes from draft plan to real plan. Mr. Rolek stated this plan will be revised during the budget process and they will look at not only the current year budget and operating budget,but also the capital needs for the coming five years when they will be refined, revised, and incorporated into this document When the budget document is adopted, he expects the 5-year plan will be prepared and the Council will review and adopt at that time or shortly after that time. Chair Sullivan noted there is a need for public hearings as well. Kim Sullivan,resident,noted that Mr. Rolek has indicated that issues like road replacement are being addressed by staff. She asked how they are being addressed and if staff is saying those 2 Charter Commission April 12, 2001 Page 3 items will appear in the final budget this year. Commissioner Aldentaler arrived at 7:21 p.m. Mr.-Rolek stated the engineer has prepared several feasibility studies for road-improvements for the coming two year period which will be put before the Council and incorporated into this document. As a matter of course, staff will plan beyond that time period. Mr. Rolek then presented the capital budget, 5-year funding for public services program, and capital improvement program. He noted the summary page which summarized the various departments and funding required for the capital improvements outlined in the plan. He noted the need for flexibility in the plan to allow for emergencies while planning for the future. Commissioner Trehus stated the Charter Commission should keep tabs on this document during the budget proceedings and ask for a copy of the approved plan for the January 2002 meeting. Commissioner Montain suggested the Commission follow the course of that process,perhaps, requesting a progress report during July or August. Chair Sullivan agreed and suggested that discussion occur after Mr. Rolek's discussion about the possibility of forming a committee to address those issues. Mr. Rolek stated staff looks forward to making improvements to the 5-year plan. He noted that time and energy will have to be dedicated to completing this plan to assure it is a good working document. Commissioner Montain stated he understands it needs to be refined but it is difficult for the Charter Commission to be patient since this document has been under review for four years and is not yet adopted. Mr. Rolek stated he understands that frustration but his tenure at Lino Lakes has been short and he has not had a great deal of time to spend on the 5-year plan. He stated he has now been through one budget cycle and two audits so he will be able to spend more time on the plan to work towards the end of completing a meaningful and viable document. Commissioner G. Lane asked if the 5-year plan will be in place by the first of the year. Mr. Rolek stated he hopes it will be done in conjunction with the budget and adopted shortly ahead of the budget or just after that process. Commissioner G. Lane asked if this plan is heavily weighted on all Department Heads to provide the numbers. Mr. Rolek stated the numbers are the last thing that comes into the plan since staff first needs to determine what is needed in the way of infrastructure,equipment replacement, and other items. After that is determined,the numbers, depreciation, and amortization schedules are then added. Commissioner G. Lane noted this is a huge project. Mr. Rolek agreed it is a large project but not insurmountable. 3 Charter Commission April 12, 2001 Page 4 The Charter Commission thanked Mr. Rolek for his attendance at the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. October 12,2000 Chair Sullivan asked that the October 12, 2000 meeting minutes be tabled since Commissioner Dahl had some concerns but is not in attendance. B. January 11,2001 Chair Sullivan requested a correction to Page 8, 12th paragraph, to indicate: "Commissioner Dahl stated the Finance Director..." MOTION by Commissioner DeMotts, seconded by Commissioner Christopherson, to accept the Charter Commission minutes of January 11, 2001, as corrected above. Motion carried with Commissioner Carlson voting no and Commissioners S. Lane,Montain, and Trehus abstaining. REPORTS OF THE CHAIR - CONTINUED B. Commissioner Rehbine Resignation—Chair Sullivan read the letter of resignation from Commissioner Rehbine due to his move out of Lino Lakes. Chair Sullivan stated he talked with the City Clerk about the process to replace Commissioner Rehbine and had recommended staff contact the judge to request a replacement as soon as possible rather than waiting for the normal appointment process. Chair Sullivan stated he also asked if Carol Kenfield's name is included for consideration. Commissioner Montain asked if the vacancy will be advertised. Chair Sullivan stated that will be happening. C. Selection of Charter Commission Members—City Newsletter- Chair Sullivan referred to an error in the Mayor's Corner of the Spring newsletter. He noted the letter of explanation and apology from the City Clerk and stated he does not believe a retraction is needed. Commissioner Christopherson stated there was also a discrepancy between the listed membership and actual membership of the Charter Commission. D. City Attorney Cost to Attend Charter Commission Meetings—Chair Sullivan stated there was a motion made by Commissioner Trehus to find out the cost for the City Attorney to attend the Charter Commission meetings. He noted it would cost$101 per hour with a two-hour minimum,plus mileage to and from Anoka. Chair Sullivan stated this information has now been provided and if a Commissioner is interested 4 Charter Commission April 12, 2001 Page 5 in pursuing that issue, it can be placed on the next meeting agenda. REPORT OF COMMITTEES A. New Resident Charter Information(Commissioners G.Lane/S. Lane)—Chair Sullivan stated it was agreed at the last meeting that anyone with concerns would contact Commissioner S. Lane. Commissioner S. Lane stated she was not contacted by anyone. She reviewed the language and suggestion that one sentence be removed. Commissioner Montain stated the Charter can be amended by two means, voter initiative, and Charter and Council action. He recommended the language simply state there is a mechanism in the Charter to make changes and not provide specific details. Chair Sullivan polled the Commissioners if they were or were not in favor of making the change. Commissioner Trehus agreed that the language does not need to detail the method to make a change to the Charter since a full explanation of that method would take more space than is available. MOTION by Commissioner Montain, seconded by Commissioner Trehus,to delete the last sentence and adopt the New Resident Charter Information as amended. Commissioner S. Lane requested the Commissioners review the actual letter prior to taking the vote. At her request, each Commissioner reviewed the revised language. MOTION carried unanimously. Commissioner S. Lane was asked to provide the City Clerk with a copy of the letter for inclusion in the new resident welcome packet. B. Clerk/Treasurer Amendment- City Attorney Opinion—Chair Sullivan stated at the last meeting, a clarification was requested about the Charter with respect to its use of the term "Clerk/Treasurer." He distributed the letter received tonight from the City Attorney related to that question. Due to the detail included in this letter, Chair Sullivan recommended it be tabled to the July meeting to allow time for the Commissioners to review the information. He asked the Committee (Commissioners Bening and Trehus) to take the lead on this issue and continue to make their recommendation. MOTION by Chair Sullivan, seconded by Commissioner Bening, to table Item 4B to the July 12, 2001,meeting. Motion carried unanimously. 5 Charter Commission April 12, 2001 Page 6 UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. 1999 Annual Report (Vice Chair Montain/Secretary Rafferty)—Chair Sullivan noted this document has been on the agenda for quite some time and needs to be accepted. Commissioner Montain stated after acceptance,the Secretary would provide a copy to the judge. Chair Sullivan stated he did remind Commissioner Rafferty to review the requirements of the By-Laws and assured the Commission that he would get that document to the judge. Commissioner Montain read the annual report in full Chair Sullivan requested Commissioner Montain provide copies for the Commissioners in the next meeting packet. Commissioner Montain stated he would do so as well as assure Commissioner Rafferty submits a copy to the judge. MOTION by Chair Sullivan, seconded by Commissioner Zastrow,to accept the 1999 Annual Report. Commissioner Carlson stated he would prefer to wait until it is typed in final form and provided to the Commissioners so they have an opportunity for review. Commissioner Trehus asked Commissioner Carlson if he was present in 1999. Commissioner Carlson stated he was not so he would abstain from the vote, if appropriate. Commissioner S. Lane stated she was also not a Charter Commission member in 1999 and would abstain. Commissioner Bening stated he would also like to see a copy of it prior to adoption. MOTION carried with Commissioner Bening voting no and Commissioners Carlson, Christopherson, and S. Lane abstaining. It was noted that Chair Sullivan had already presented a 2000 annual report which was previously accepted. B. Commission Files/Keys/Cost—Chair Sullivan reported that the file is in place and the officers and City Clerk have keys for it. He advised that the cost authorized on July 13, 2000 was $600 and the actual cost was $538.29. Commissioner S. Lane asked who puts the minutes and documents into the file. Chair Sullivan advised it is the responsibility of the Secretary and at the end of his term he will assure the documents are filed. Commissioner Trehus asked how far back the documents go. Commissioner Montain estimated they go back to 1993 or 1994. He explained the practice during the first ten years was for the 6 Charter Commission April 12, 2001 Page 7 Chair or Secretary to keep the files at their home. He stated Commissioner Rafferty indicated he would contact the past Secretary to obtain those files. However,he is unsure if that will be the full documentation of the Charter Commission. Commissioner Trehus suggested that further work be done to try to obtain all the past Charter files. Chair Sullivan stated Commissioner Rafferty is committed to obtaining as many past records as possible. Commissioner G. Lane asked that this item be placed on the next meeting so Commissioner Rafferty can provide a report on his efforts to create a full archive of Charter documents. C. Review City Council Meeting Minutes for Charter Compliance,November 13, November 27,and December 18,2000; January 8,January 22,February 12,2001—Chair Sullivan noted he added the City Council meeting minutes November 13 and 27, 2000. He explained the Council minutes came out as a separate mailing and he noticed the November minutes were missing. Now those two sets of minutes have been included in the final meeting packet. Chair Sullivan reviewed that it was previously agreed that the Charter Commission would review, not approve the Council meeting minutes. He asked the Commissioners if anyone objected to accepting the six sets of meeting minutes. The Commission agreed there were no problems with the referenced Council meeting minutes. D. Charter Commission Membership List/Research Commissioner Terms (Secretary Rafferty)—Commissioner G. Lane noted a Commissioner has resigned and asked if Carol Kenfield can be reappointed to the Charter Commission. He noted that Ms. Kenfield was a member previously and asked if there is a more expedient process than waiting for the judge. Commissioner Montain stated there is no other process available. Commissioner DeMotts noted Ms. Kenfield would have to reapply to fulfill the term of Tim Rehbine. Chair Sullivan stated he talked with Commissioner Rafferty,who did some research on Commissioner terms. He noted the information provided by Commissioner Rafferty and answer related to Commissioner Dahl's term. Chair Sullivan stated a question was also raised about his term so he reviewed the terms of his appointment and provided that information to Commissioner Rafferty. He explained that more discussion will have to occur related to his term. Chair Sullivan stated the key issue is that a Commissioner who has served more than half a term is considered to have served a full term. Commissioner Montain explained that the appointment is for 16 meetings (4/year for 4 years). A Commissioner who attends eight meetings could be reappointed for a full term. However, a Commissioner fulfilling part of a term that is more than one-half of the appointment(9 meetings) cannot be reappointed to a second full term. 7 Charter Commission April 12, 2001 Page 8 Chair Sullivan stated that section of the Charter actually applies to officers who have served more than one-half of the full term. Commissioner Trehus stated a legal opinion indicated that someone coming into a partial term does not impact the ability to be appointed for two full terms. In the case of Ms. Kenfield,he is unsure if it would impact the ability for her to be reappointed. Commissioner Montain read a section of the By-Laws indicating the Chair is to notify Commissioners whose terms are expiring and are eligible for reappointment. Chair Sullivan noted the next item of business is the amendment issue. He stated the issue of terms needs to be worked on more so he will meet with the Vice Chair and Secretary to discuss the terms under question. He asked that each Commissioner review their terms of appointment and assure the information provided by Commissioner Rafferty is correct. He stated this item will remain on the agenda. MOTION by Chair Sullivan, seconded by Commissioner Bening, to direct the Chair, Vice Chair and Secretary to form a committee to discuss Item 5D, Charter Commission Membership and Terms, and provide a recommendation to the Charter Commission. Commissioner Trehus read the legal opinion indicating a limit to two successive full terms in office. Commissioner Montain noted the information provided by Commissioner Rafferty related to his term indicates when he was appointed but does not indicate the time he was actually sworn into office and attended a first meeting. Commissioner Trehus stated he does not think it is considered an appointment if the Commissioner is filling out an incomplete term. Commissioner Bening suggested the committee make a recommendation on a change to the By- Laws which can be implemented to make it clearer. Commissioner Trehus asked why the By-Laws should cover something that is governed by Statute. MOTION carried unanimously. E. BY-Laws/Section 9. (Appointments)Amendment(Secretary Rafferty)—Chair Sullivan stated at the July 13, 2000,meeting a motion was made by Commissioner Lane and seconded by Commissioner DeMotts to amend Section 9 of the By-Laws related to the notification period and the Chair's responsibility to publicize the availability of openings on the Commission. He stated that he had reminded Commissioner Rafferty that the Commission is not done with this agenda item until the Commission does what the By-Laws say. 8 Charter Commission • April 12,2001 Page 9 Chair Sullivan read the language of the By-Laws and noted that what is lacking is numbering each amendment,noting the date of each amendment, and to distribute copies of the amendments. He advised that the City Clerk has indicated she has not yet received those copies. Chair Sullivan stated he addressed this with Commissioner Rafferty whom assured him that he would provide those documents to the City Clerk. This item will appear on the July 12, 2001 Charter Commission meeting agenda. F. Review Official Charter & By-Laws—Chair Sullivan stated it was pointed out to the City Council and Administrator that the Commission still does not have an official copy. The City Clerk is working to get a copy and the By-Laws so the Charter Commission can review them and accept it as the official document. Commissioner Bening stated he spoke with the City Clerk quite a few times since the last meeting and learned the document was lost off the computer system so the only copy is a paper copy. He stated Staff scanned in the document last week and it is now available. He stated he has a copy of the Charter and By-Laws available on computer disk. Commissioner Bening stated he can provide a disk to anyone who has a computer and MSWord software to see if there are any discrepancies between that document and the paper copy. Commissioner Trehus stated he thinks the City should hire someone to conduct that review of the two documents. Chair Sullivan stated the Charter Commission could create a committee to handle that review. He stated he believes this review to assure it is an accurate document is the charge of the Charter Commission. Commissioner Montain asked why scanning in the official document and review by someone wouldn't complete the process. Chair Sullivan explained that about 95% of the scan is usually correct but the City staff wants someone to verify it is all correct. Rather than having all Commissioners involved in the review, he suggested a committee be formed. Commissioner Christopherson stated another method would be to conduct a second scan and compare the two documents to each other. Chair Sullivan asked Commissioner Bening to obtain paper copies of the Charter document. Commissioner Bening suggested staff provide those copes in the next meeting packet. Chair Sullivan agreed with that suggestion. Consensus was reached to request a hard copy of the Charter and By-Laws in the next meeting packet. Chair Sullivan suggested anyone interested in an electronic copy to request one from 9 Charter Commission April 12, 2001 Page 10 Commissioner Bening. G. Absence Policy -Chair Sullivan noted the issue of an absence policy was raised at the January 11, 2001 meeting by Commissioners Rafferty and G. Lane who asked that the list of terms be updated. Then a discussion occurred about excused and unexcused absences. He advised this is not in the By-Laws but was put out to some members while others were not aware of it. Chair Sullivan stated there was a problem with not having a quorum so it was decided by a prior Charter Commission that if you were going to be absent, you had to contact an officer. Commissioner Montain stated the practice and policy established was that for an excused absence, you needed to call an officer. Two unexcused absences would result in the Chair writing a letter advising you were in violation of the policy and would be removed from the Charter Commission. Commissioner Trehus asked if it was not left up to the Charter Commission whether it was or was not excused. Commissioner Carlson noted the By-Laws do not define what an excused absence is. Commissioner Montain stated the policy adopted only required a call to an officer indicating you would not attend and was not based on the reason for the absence. Commissioner Trehus noted it could occur that an emergency happens and the member is unable to call an officer. He stated he believes there should be some provision to"forgive" an absence. Commissioner Montain noted that it would not bo an arbitrary decision of dismissal by the Chair, it would result from a Charter Commission discussion at the third absence. Chair Sullivan read the language of the By-Laws and asked if the notification by letter is within the By-Laws. Commissioner Montain stated it is not but is part of the policy which was adopted. Commissioner Christopherson noted the problem with a policy is that it is not written so new Commissioners may not be aware of it. Chair Sullivan asked if there is a member with two unexcused absences. In that case,the Commission should take action. Commissioner Zastrow stated he does have two absences. He explained that he had tried to reach the Chair but could not so he talked with staff member Mary Kay Wyland who said she would let the Chair know He stated he also informed Commissioner Aldentaler Chair Sullivan asked if it is policy to take an action of dismissal if it is not part of the By-Laws. Commissioner Montain stated other groups he has worked with consider practice and policy followed over the years to be just as powerful as if it is included in the By-Laws. 10 Charter Commission April 12, 2001 Page 11 Chair Sullivan stated his concern is that some were aware of this policy and others were not. Commissioner Christopherson stated he knew about the absence policy at the July meeting when it was discussed. Commissioner Carlson stated if the Commission wants to hold a member to this policy, it should be included in the By-Laws. Commissioner Trehus stated not including it in the By-Laws allows the Commission to consider each absence on a case-by-case basis. He stated if a Commissioner misses several meetings but has a desire to attend meetings, he would like the ability to consider it rather than waiting for months for the judge to make the reappointment. Commissioner Trehus stated he does not think any Commissioners will try to "skirt" this issue if they want to be part of the Charter Commission. He stated he thinks sending the letter is a good policy to maintain since it puts the Commissioner on notice that there has been two absences and they can be dismissed. Chair Sullivan asked if a Commissioner can attend the meeting but leave in half-an hour and have it counted as an attendance. Commissioner Montain stated during his tenure on the Commission,this has not really been an issue and if someone was dismissed, they did not indicate they wanted to get back on. Commissioner Carlson stated the issue was raised because a Commissioner called in his absence but not to an officer. He asked if a reporting policy should be considered. Commissioner Montain stated the Chair would not arbitrarily write the letter and it would be discussed by the Charter Commission when the issue was raised. He stated in a case where the Commissioner had made numerous calls and ended up taking with a non-officer,he would vote to keep the Commissioner on the Charter Commission. Commissioner Christopherson stated when this was discussed.at the last meeting, a very fine line was discussed that it would not be excused if an officer was not called. Commissioner Trehus agreed that was the discussion. He noted that there is a delay for making an appointment but if there is a third absence with no excuse, he would have no problem with the dismissal. Chair Sullivan noted the By-Laws do not indicate the Chair would call the absentee and find out if there is a reason. Commissioner Carlson noted reference is made to a State Statute. Commissioner Bening read that section of the Statute which indicated that after four absences without excuse the Secretary files a certificate with the court setting forth those facts and the District Court will then execute an order of removal and the Chief Judge will fill the vacancy. 11 Charter Commission April 12, 2001 Page 12 Commissioner Montain stated Lino Lakes can have tighter absence requirements (currently two meetings) and the definition of an excused absence could be included. Commissioner Trehus stated the Statute does not apply since Lino Lakes has tighter requirements. All agreed. MOTION by Commissioner Montain to not discharge Iry Zastrow as he attends meetings and is a good participant. Commissioner Trehus noted the policy is actually for the Chair to ask for a motion to dismiss and if none is made,the matter is closed. Commissioner Montain withdrew his motion. Commissioner Zastrow explained that there was a death in the family and he could not attend. MOTION by Commissioner Montain, seconded by Commissioner Christopherson, to make Commissioner Zastrow's two absences excused due to a death in the family and other conditions. Motion carried unanimously. Chair Sullivan called for a motion to address the need to call an officer to receive an excused absence. MOTION by Commissioner Zastrow, seconded by Commissioner G. Lane,to not require that a call be made to a Charter Commission officer to receive an excused absence and to allow a call to any Charter Commission member. Chair Sullivan stated he would prefer to just follow the current By-Laws which is left totally up to the Charter Commission. Commissioner Trehus stated he would not support a motion to be able to call just any member. Commissioner Zastrow stated he had tried to call the Chair but was unable to reach him. Chair Sullivan again stated his preference to follow the current By-Laws or noted that someone can write an amendment. Commissioner Christopherson stated it would not matter who you call, if you have two absences the Charter Commissioner still needs to decide about dismissal. Commissioner Montain explained that in 1994 there was a problem getting a quorum so this policy was established for excused and unexcused absences and the requirement started to call in to an officer. 12 Charter Commission April 12, 2001 Page 13 Commissioner S. Lane asked if leaving a message on an answering machine constitutes notification. Chair Sullivan stated it would. Chair Sullivan noted the current process works well, as evidenced tonight by the Charter Commission's ability to deal with Commissioner Zastrow's absences. He noted the motion on the floor would require an amendment to the By-Laws. Commissioner Trehus stated it does not need an amendment since the current policy is not within the By-Laws. However, it may require a verbal policy to be established. Commissioner Montain stated he believes that policy and past practice carries a lot of weight and is as strong as the written word. Commissioner Carlson stated with another group he is involved with, the dismissal policy is in writing. He noted that at the last meeting, Commissioner Rafferty did ask that his absence be excused but no decision was made. MOTION failed with Commissioners G. Lane and Zastrow voting yes. Chair Sullivan noted the meeting minutes identify which absences were excused and which were unexcused. He stated he doubts the Charter Commission should go back and change their meeting minutes. He asked if anyone has an issue about past absences. MOTION by Commissioner Trehus to include a statement in the next meeting packet that if you want your recorded absences addressed, the next meeting is the last opportunity to do so. Commissioner Carlson noted the October minutes were tabled which is the set that identifies Commissioner Rafferty as being absent. Commissioner Christopherson suggested that all currently approved minutes not be changed. Commissioner Trehus agreed but noted the Charter Commission can still go back and excuse an absence. Commissioner Montain stated revision to approved meeting minutes is a different process. He noted that there is no penalty for an unexcused absence and if Commissioner Rafferty wants to have his absence considered excused, it can be discussed. There being no second, Chair Sullivan declared the motion dead. Commissioner Zastrow asked for a copy of the information provided by Commissioner Rafferty on commission terms. It was noted that Commissioners S. Lane,Montain, and Zastrow need a copy of that document. 13 Charter Commission April 12, 2001 ' Page 14 Chair Sullivan agreed that past practice policies are in place and can be rescinded by the Charter Commission, if desired. Commissioner Montain stated the past practices would require a call to an officer to receive an excused absence. MOTION by Commissioner Trehus, seconded by Commissioner S. Lane, to continue the past practice policy to require a call to an officer to receive an excused absence. Commissioner Montain noted Lino Lakes allows two unexcused consecutive absences and the Statute allows four. He pointed out that a benefit of requiring a call to an officer allows the meeting to be called to order because you are aware if someone is not going to be attending and you don't need to wait for them. Commissioner Montain noted if someone has a strong opinion on this, it can be revisited. Chair Sullivan noted this policy is also an information gathering process. Commissioner Montain stated that requiring the call to an officer provides more objectivity. Also, officers may be more apt to attend the meeting to report the absence. Commissioner Trehus suggested no change be made and this topic be discussed again in six months. MOTION carried unanimously. Commissioner G. Lane stated he would like to see the names and telephone numbers of officers listed on the agenda so it is easier to follow that process. Commissioner Carlson agreed and suggested that staff be asked to update their meeting agenda so this information is contained along the bottom of the page. MOTION by Commissioner G. Lane, seconded by Commissioner DeMotts, to include the names of the three officers with their area code and telephone numbers on the bottom of the agenda. Motion carried unanimously. NEW BUSINESS A. - Set 12 July, 2001 Agenda—Chair Sullivan advised the following items will appear on the July 12, 2001 meeting agenda: • Approval of October 12, 2000 and April 12, 2001 meeting minutes • Five Year Plan Review • Clerk/Treasurer Amendment • 1999 Annual Report Update 14 Charter Commission April 12, 2001 Page 15 • Review City Council Meeting Minutes for Charter Compliance • Charter Commission Membership List/Commissioner Terms • By-Laws/Section 9 (Appointments) Amendment • Review Official Charter and By-Laws • Set Next Agenda ADJOURN MOTION by Commissioner Trehus, seconded by Commissioner Zastrow,to adjourn the meeting at 9:34 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Respectfully submitted, Carla Wirth TimeSaver Off-Site Secretarial, Inc. 15