04-24-2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View EDA April 10, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 3 City Council by ordinance, and therefore, is a creature of, and advisory to the Authority. He explained that the second clause sets forth the composition of the EDC and spells out that three of the seats are to be held by business representatives. He advised that the third clause states that Ms. Olsen was appointed to fill one of the three business representatives positions of the EDC, and the fourth clause recites the fact that the City received correspondence from the New Brighton-Mounds View Chamber of Commerce which is attached as Exhibit A, and indicates that Ms. Olsen shall be removed from this business representative position, based upon her conduct as Charter Commission Chairperson, because she can no longer effectively represent the business community on the EDC. He indicated this clause was drafted in this manner because the letter from the Chamber of Commerce refers to one particular letter to the editor signed by Ms. Olsen in her capacity as Chair of the Charter Commission, and this language amplifies what the letter states, because it does not go into the details of that particular issue. City Attorney Long indicated the fourth “WHEREAS” clause simply states that the members of the EDC are appointed to fulfill certain duties and purposes set forth in the Code, and the fifth clause summarizes the EDC’s mission as an advisory body, in terms of the duties and performance of the Commission which deal heavily with working with, representing, and cooperating with the business community. He stated the last “WHEREAS” clause states that based upon correspondence from the Chamber of Commerce requesting removal of Ms. Olsen as an EDC member, the Authority has determined that Ms. Olsen would no longer be able to effectively represent the business community, and therefore, was unable to perform her duties as an EDC member. City Attorney Long stated the items set forth in the “RESOLVED” clauses are the procedural issues and the findings that the Authority would have to make. He stated the first item is basically a restatement of the letter from the Chamber of Commerce, and the second item indicates that all of the recitals, attachments and the Exhibits of the resolution would constitute any written charges required under the Code. He stated the third item indicates that the Authority would find that the lack of support for Ms. Olsen in the business community would not permit her to fulfill her appointed duties and the intent and purpose of the EDC as a member of the EDC, and the inability to perform these duties constitutes the just cause for removal which the Code requires to be found. He stated the fourth item indicates Ms. Olsen has waived her right to a hearing, pursuant to the hand delivered memo set forth in Exhibit B, and the fifth item indicates that the Authority is taking action to remove Ms. Olsen. City Attorney Long stated from a procedural standpoint, it was interesting that according to the Code, these are advisory commissions, and yet, there is “for cause” language present not only in this particular provision, but also with regard to several other boards and commissions. He stated there is no guidance in Minnesota Case Law which defines the term “for cause” in the setting of an advisory commission, which is an appointed body that is created by the Council. He pointed out that there is significant guidance relating to public employee situations, however, in terms of advisory commissions, there is no Case Law to draw upon, therefore, he could not precisely advise how the Court reviews the standards for cause in these cases.