My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Chair Doty Correspondence
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
Charter Commission
>
1978-1989
>
1979
>
Correspondence
>
Chair Doty Correspondence
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/10/2018 5:28:51 AM
Creation date
8/23/2018 2:51:56 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Misc Documentation
Date
12/31/1979
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
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
Page 6 <br /> Sub. 2: Believe the title would be more effective if the language were changed <br /> from Clerk to City thus the title would be expressed as City Administrator <br /> (see Minnestrista resolution). In fact, the remainder of this chapter <br /> could be shorten considerably by allowing the City Council to adopt it's own <br /> administrative code regarding the position by ordinance. This is suggested <br /> by the League found in appendix B, page 20 of their comment section of the <br /> Model Charter Book. <br /> Sub. 3: Would suggest that in the term City be substituted for Clerk in all <br /> subsequent citations to the position of Administrator. Again, the <br /> chapter could be significently reduced by noting that the City Administrator <br /> shall have or shall include duties of the Clerk as outlined under Minnesota <br /> Statutes 412. This would also eliminate all the remaining informatioh <br /> found in the chapter with respect to the City Administrator. Subsections <br /> 2, 3, 4 are the same comments as previously noted. <br /> Sub. 5: Should not be the intent of the Charter to outline how the person <br /> will carry out their duties. The second sentence is reduntant since it includes <br /> duties of the Clerk in reference to sub. 1 , 2, 3, and 4. The third sentence <br /> maybe who Lely in appropriate since the references that you cited are to a Town Clerk <br /> and this is a different form of government then a City. Thus , the third <br /> sentence should obviously be eliminated or substancially adjusted. The fourth <br /> sentence has a contradiction in it in so much as the Administrator appoint <br /> a Deputy with Council consent it appears that he may dismiss the Deputy without <br /> Council consent. The duties of the Deputy should be taken care of in a seperate <br /> subsection and it would be sufficient to say the Deputy may discharge any of <br /> the duties of the City Administrator. <br /> Sub. 6: The City Administrator should be responsible for the direction of <br /> administration and not be a member of a group to make decisions on the operation <br /> of the City. <br /> Sub 7: The Administrator shall direct,not participate in,the preparation of <br /> reports to the City. <br /> Sub. 8: The Administrator shall cause the preparation of the annual budget <br /> and capital improvements plan to be submitted to the City Council . The <br /> last sentence is both unclear and unnecessary in light of chapter 7. <br /> Sub. 9: Is unnecessary if previous suggestions have been excepted with respect <br /> to combining the position of the City Clerk and Administrator. <br /> Sub. 10: Is unnecessary if previous suggestions have been accepted with <br /> respect to combining the position of the City Clerk and Administrator. <br /> Sub. 11 : Same as above. <br /> Sub. 12: The language could be cleaned up by saying the Administrator should <br /> participate with the Finance Officer deleting where`"such be" etc. It should <br /> also be noted that this is maybe a redundancy since they are included in <br /> sub. 8. <br /> Sub. 13: Redundant. Same as stated in sub. 1 . <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.