My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
04-24-2000
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
Economic Development Authority
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2000
>
04-24-2000
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/29/2025 9:15:16 AM
Creation date
8/7/2018 6:47:57 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
Economic Development Authority
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
4/24/2000
Commission Doc Number (Ord & Res)
0
Supplemental fields
Date
4/24/2000
EDA Document Type
Council Packets
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Mounds View EDA April 10, 2000 <br />Regular Meeting Page 7 <br /> <br />Seconder would agree to add this item to the resolution as Exhibit C. <br /> <br />Commissioners Marty and Thomason agreed. <br /> <br />City Attorney Long stated the reason he did not initially attach the letter to the resolution was <br />because legally, the Authority was not acting on the letter to the editor and the comments made <br />by Ms. Olsen, but rather, the loss of confidence from the business community. He advised that <br />they would not wish to confuse the issues pertaining to First Amendment rights, which has been <br />raised, versus the rights of the business community to speak regarding whether or not this person <br />can effectively represent them. <br /> <br />President Coughlin stated the Motioner and Seconder could withdraw the amendment, however, <br />he would like to keep with the spirit of Vice President Stigney’s suggestion. He inquired if the <br />letter could be referenced, without being an established offering as an appendage to the <br />document. <br /> <br />City Attorney Long advised that the letter would be archived, and remain a part of the public <br />record. He stated he did not wish to have it mentioned or addressed in the official resolution, <br />because it could be misinterpreted to be part of the reason for acting upon this item, as opposed <br />to the letter from the Chamber of Commerce. <br /> <br />President Coughlin inquired if the Chamber could submit, as an addendum to their letter, a copy <br />of the letter to the editor. He explained that in this case, the Chamber would be making reference <br />to the letter, and not the City’s resolution. <br /> <br />City Attorney Long advised that it may be more appropriate to have the minutes of the vote <br />reflect the fact that Vice President Stigney requested, and that the Authority agreed, that the letter <br />would be kept on file with the resolution and the two exhibits, so that if anyone desired to <br />examine all of the documents, they would be available. He stated these would remain as two <br />separate documents, and one would not be part of the other, however, he believed this would <br />satisfy the intent that people could examine the record if they so desired, for informational <br />purposes. <br /> <br />President Coughlin inquired if the Motioner and Seconder would agree to include in the file, <br />separately from the resolution, for reference sake only, a copy of the letter in question. <br /> <br />Commissioners Marty and Thomason agreed. <br /> <br />President Coughlin called for a roll call vote. <br /> <br />ROLL CALL: Marty, Quick, Thomason, Coughlin, Stigney <br /> <br /> Ayes – 4 Nays – 1 (Stigney) Motion carried.
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.