Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council November 24, 2003 <br />Regular Meeting Page 5 <br /> <br /> 1 <br />Council Member Stigney indicated he has no issue with this because he viewed the meetings and 2 <br />saw what the action was. He then asked the City Attorney whether there was an issue with 3 <br />regard to the legalities of the change. 4 <br /> 5 <br />City Attorney Riggs indicated he could review Chapter 410. 6 <br /> 7 <br />Mayor Linke indicated he would like to postpone to provide the City Attorney with time to 8 <br />review the matter. He then said that the City would need to look at the original vote by the 9 <br />residents of the City of Mounds View and whether that vote set out the number of members. He 10 <br />then commented that he does not feel that the judge has the authority to change the number if it 11 <br />was set out by a vote of the people. 12 <br /> 13 <br />Council Member Stigney asked whether there were any issues with the language in the 14 <br />resolution. 15 <br /> 16 <br />Mayor Linke indicated that one has the changes designated but the other does not. He then 17 <br />commented that they should both be formatted in the same way so that Council is aware of the 18 <br />proposed amended language. 19 <br /> 20 <br />Council Member Stigney disagreed and said that there is a statement at the top of the document 21 <br />that the section is an entirely new replacement section. 22 <br /> 23 <br />Mayor Linke indicated he does have some issues with some of it but does not want to discuss it 24 <br />now as there is a motion to postpone the matter on the floor. 25 <br /> 26 <br />MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Gunn. To Amend the Motion to Postpone to a Motion to 27 <br />Postpone Until the City Attorney Has the Information Requested. 28 <br /> 29 <br /> Ayes – 2 Nays – 3(Linke/Marty/Quick) Motion failed. 30 <br /> 31 <br />Council Member Stigney questioned whether Roberts Rules of Order requires a motion to 32 <br />postpone to contain a time certain. 33 <br /> 34 <br />Council Member Marty suggested not to exceed two months. 35 <br /> 36 <br />MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Gunn. To Amend the Motion to Postpone to a Motion to Postpone 37 <br />Not to Exceed Two Months. 38 <br /> 39 <br />Council Member Stigney indicated he did not see any reason to postpone for two months. He 40 <br />then asked whether there is an issue with the 60-day timeframe wording. 41 <br /> 42 <br />Council Member Quick indicated he did not like how it was presented. 43 <br /> 44