My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 2003/02/24
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2003
>
Agenda Packets - 2003/02/24
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 4:46:34 PM
Creation date
8/8/2018 9:43:37 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
2/24/2003
Supplemental fields
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
2/24/2003
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
109
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 City Council February 10, 2003 <br />Regular Meeting Page 14 <br /> <br />Administrator and Council were aware of them and to keep one Council Member from directing Staff 1 <br />and the rest of Council not being aware. 2 <br /> 3 <br />Council Member Stigney indicated that employees can call him any time as he is an elected official and 4 <br />that is part of his responsibility. 5 <br /> 6 <br />Council Member Gunn asked how Council could correct the interpretation problem. 7 <br /> 8 <br />Council Member Stigney indicated he just stated in public that any emp loyee could contact him and, if 9 <br />Council agrees, all the directors will know that they are not to be more restrictive than what the 10 <br />Resolution says. 11 <br /> 12 <br />Council Member Marty indicated he was not in agreement with the way this Resolution was interpreted 13 <br />by the previous Administration. He then indicated he would like to rescind it so that the same issue 14 <br />does not present itself with the new Administration. He further indicated that Resolution 5944 states 15 <br />that the City Council prefers to let the City Charter speak for itself and he no longer feels the need for 16 <br />Resolution 5555. 17 <br /> 18 <br />Council Member Quick asked if Resolution 5555 conflicts with the Charter. 19 <br /> 20 <br />City Attorney Riggs indicated it does not. 21 <br /> 22 <br />Council Member Quick commented that he is not aware of many employees with a copy of the Charter 23 <br />handy to refer to and Resolution 5555 is a simple way of laying out the protocol for communication. 24 <br /> 25 <br />Council Member Stigney disagreed with Council Member Marty as the paragraph that he read is not in 26 <br />the Charter and that is why Resolution 5555 is needed. He then said that the interpretation is the 27 <br />problem not the Resolution itself. 28 <br /> 29 <br />Mayor Linke indicated there are several reprimands in files for employees talking to Council Members 30 <br />because items did not go up to Council and when it was suggested to Council that is when the 31 <br />reprimand happened because the next person up the line from department head did not follow through 32 <br />that process. He then said that there is too much room for interpretation there and that is why he is for 33 <br />rescinding Resolution 5555. 34 <br /> 35 <br />Mayor Linke indicated the policy was that Staff could talk to Council Members but Council could not 36 <br />give direction to employees other than through the City Administrator as a Council body. 37 <br /> 38 <br />Barbara Thomas of 5444 Landmark Circle encouraged Mayor Linke to go back through the files 39 <br />because there are only minor circumstances where that occurred. She then said she had the Charter in 40 <br />front of her and the circumstances of the birth of Resolution 5555 were shortly after an extended perio d 41
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.