Agenda Packets - 1999/11/22 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View City Council Regular Meeting November 15, 1999 Page 15 City Administrator Whiting stated he did not want his comments to be misinterpreted. He explained that in his understanding, the soonest a response would be forwarded to the Council would be February, recognizing the manner in which the Charter Commission conducts its business, by reviewing items at one meeting, and revisiting them for additional work at the next meeting. He stated he did not intend to imply that the Commission imparted to him that they would complete their response by February. Council Member Stigney stated this was also his understanding, from the discussion at the meeting. He stated there appeared to be some time pressure on these issues, however, the only item that perhaps is subject to a time frame, is that item pertaining to votes, which might have some potential for impact. He suggested the Charter Commission consider this item first, as it would seem to have the highest priority. He stated, however, the other items are not much of anything, as State Statutes appear take precedence, and the issue related to term limits is subject to many different viewpoints, in terms of how to handle it. He stated he has no problem with the Charter Commission, as discussed at the meeting, reviewing whatever the City Attorney presents to them in the way of interim language, however, there was no commitment to attempt move forward with a response on all of the issues by the February meeting. He stated the Charter Commission would do whatever they could to resolve the issues as expeditiously as possible, however, he does not want the Commission to be subject to the same time constraints they were previously. He stated the time constraints were uncalled for, from the Council's perspective of dealing with the Commission. He stated the Commission had discussed reviewing these issues on a case by case basis, and hopefully accomplishing as much as possible, however, he did not want the Commission to be directed by the Council that they provide a response, "or else,"which was their impression of the previous directive. Council Member Stigney stated if it was agreeable to the Motioner and the Seconder that the Charter Commission review these issues and respond in whatever manner the Commission itself deems necessary, he would agree to the amendment, however, if this is not the case, he does not agree. Mayor Coughlin stated this was already incorporated into the motion, and he would leave the amendment as it stands. He pointed out that if three of these items are rather innocuous, as Council Member Stigney indicated, it should not take long to resolve them. He reiterated that additional time can be requested, however, it was within the purview of the Council to set a time line, so that the operations of the City can move forward, and the issue does not continue indefinitely. Council Member Stigney inquired if the City Attorney would submit these sections to the Commission so they are aware of the time frames they were dealing with. He reiterated in his understanding, the City Attorney would bring forward interim language for the Charter Commission to review at their January meeting, and the Commission would proceed from that basis. He stated he takes exception to the indicated time line. City Attorney Long stated he had focused primarily upon obtaining the language for the four sections, Section 3.01, pertaining to special meetings, Section 3.04, pertaining to the majority vote issue, or allowing a more restrictive vote, Chapter 5, pertaining to initiative and referendum, and deletion of resolutions, and Chapter 4, Section 4.02, pertaining to the filing for office, in relation to the term limit language. He stated he was not certain how the Council wished to proceed with the time line.