My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 2002/02/25
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2002
>
Agenda Packets - 2002/02/25
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 4:46:35 PM
Creation date
8/8/2018 2:43:15 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
2/25/2002
Supplemental fields
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
2/25/2002
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
96
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 January 28, 2002 <br />Regular Meeting Page 12 <br /> <br />Mr. Berk commented that the statement of the Mayor in the letter to the City Administrator <br />claiming that, had he known the purchase was illegal, he would have withdrawn the offer to Park <br />and Recreation and the savings would not have occurred. He then commented that, in light of the <br />amount of money spent in attorney’s fees, there has been no savings to the City. He then asked <br />why the taxpayers are paying to defend the Mayor’s personal business. <br /> <br />Mayor Sonterre commented that, if the former finance director followed state statute, none of this <br />would have happened. <br /> <br />City Administrator Miller explained that the City Attorney was involved because the City <br />received a request to investigate. She further explained that the City Attorney represents the <br />City, not Mayor Sonterre or TSS. <br /> <br />Mr. Berk stated that, if the Mayor had not been involved in this matter, the City Attorney would <br />not have to defend the City. <br /> <br />City Attorney Riggs commented that, had the City followed proper procedures in six or seven <br />different incidents this would not have taken place and Council had asked that it be reviewed. <br /> <br />Council Member Thomas asked if there had been a need for prosecution who would have been <br />liable. <br /> <br />City Attorney Riggs indicated that City Staff and Council would be responsible. <br /> <br />Council Member Thomas commented that it is frustrating to think she could have been held <br />liable for what happened because she currently sits on Council. She commented that there are <br />approximately 17 other issues of a similar nature that the City is working to clear up. She then <br />commented that it is frustrating to be blamed for something that Council did not know was <br />wrong. <br /> <br />Mr. Berk suggested that Council Member Thomas could resign if she did not like her job and did <br />not want to listen to residents. <br /> <br />Council Member Thomas indicated she would listen to Mr. Berk as long as he needed to speak. <br /> <br />Council Member Marty indicated he had requested copies of the just and correct claims for June <br />of 2000 for the exercise equipment. He commented that he looks at the claims and Council <br />Member Stigney reviews the claims and, if the fitness equipment was on the just and correct <br />claims, Council should have been aware of it and ultimately approved it by approving the <br />Consent Agenda. He then commented he is still waiting for the requested information. <br /> <br />City Administrator Miller indicated she had received a voice mail from Council Member Marty <br />that she understood to be a data practices request. She then commented that, if it was not a data <br />practices request, the information could be provided tomorrow. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.