Agenda Packets - 2004/10/11 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View City Council September 27, 2004 Regular Meeting Page 9 Mr. McCarty stated that if the Clerk Administrator determines it’s insufficient, he must within 1 ten working days notify the Council of that fact. He stated that under the new proposal if a 2 petition comes in that is insufficient, you go to Section 504, and the Clerk Administrator shall 3 deliver a copy of the petition with a written statement of its defects to the sponsoring committee. 4 He stated, parenthetically, that under Chapter 410 of the state law, charter law, it is recommended 5 that a sponsoring committee number five, and the Charter reaffirms that the sponsoring 6 committee should be five. He stated that this proposal says five or more. 7 8 Mr. McCarty stated that the committee shall have 30 days in which to file additional signature 9 papers or make corrections, and the Clerk Administrator doesn’t go to the Council yet. He only 10 goes when he declares it as sufficient. 11 12 Mayor Linke stated that if it’s insufficient, then it doesn’t go to the Council. 13 14 Ms. Thomas stated that there was nothing for them to do at that point. 15 16 Mayor Linke stated that the Council should make that official determination, because that’s what 17 they’ve always done in the past. 18 19 Mr. McCarty stated that what is in state law and in the Charter is that the Council is immediately 20 notified within ten days whether it is sufficient or insufficient, and vis-à-vis there is immediate 21 notice to the citizens. He stated that this change short-circuits due notice, and he believes that 22 this is an honest error. He stated he also believes that the five or more should be taken out, and 23 why would you need more than five sponsors. He asked if they could imagine calling in a 24 sponsoring committee of 20 and trying to straighten out some detail. 25 26 Mayor Linke stated that Mr. McCarty brought up some good points. 27 28 Council Member Stigney stated that this had been prepared for the Council, not for referendum, 29 so it took a unanimous vote of the Council to approve the changes. He stated that there may be a 30 gap in there regarding the ten-day notification that they should look at. He stated he saw nothing 31 wrong with the language of five or more. 32 33 Mayor Linke asked if Council Member Stigney was proposing a postponement of action on this 34 matter, and Council Member Stigney said he hadn’t proposed anything yet. 35 36 Ms. Thomas stated that the Council could make small amendments to this and continue on. She 37 stated that what this language allows is a process if a mistake has happened or things are not 38 quite correct, and it doesn’t throw the petition out. It allows the sponsoring group to correct the 39 petition and bring it back before it is declared. 40 41 Mr. McCarty stated that if he is understanding Ms. Thomas correctly, she is suggesting that this 42 revision guarantees an additional 30 days that would otherwise be lost. 43 44