My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Gordon Ziebarth Correspondence
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
Charter Commission
>
1978-1989
>
1979
>
Correspondence
>
Gordon Ziebarth Correspondence
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/23/2018 3:03:07 PM
Creation date
8/23/2018 3:03:03 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.
/
43
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
• section 2.05 continued- <br /> QUESTION: Who decides when duties are not being performed without good cause? <br /> It is much easier to talk about it than define it. <br /> Section 2.06. Where you state the duties of the acting mayor, it <br /> may be wise to state this as a separate section and use the language from <br /> State Statute 412.121 which in my opinion states clearly how long in case <br /> of absence as opposed to vacancy. • <br /> Subdivision 2. The fact that the Charter Commission has chosen to include <br /> addtional mayorial powers here in place of the suggested section 2.09 regarding <br /> limits of interference by mayor and council into the administrative process <br /> -07$'r <br /> allows me to conclude something other than:Weak Mayor-Council Plan" is the <br /> intent of this Charter. <br /> QUESTION: What is the intent of the Charter Commission? <br /> SUGGESTION: ELIMINATION OF SUBDIVISION 2.06.2 and THE INCLUSION OF SECTION 2.09 <br /> MOM THE MODEEL CHARTER. <br /> Section 2.07. Regarding no increase in compensation until after the next <br /> election, it was my understanding from what the accountant (CPA) for the City <br /> hIAV <br /> said that this is already state law. If so, the second sentence mbe redundant. <br /> I would also suggest some wording in 2.07 which separates elected officials <br /> from employees of the city. I think this will help avoid any confusion as to <br /> who has control over what salaries. <br /> Section 2.08. I suggest elimination of the final two sentences in keeping <br /> with my statements on 2.06. This is something that each council should decide <br /> for itself. Who shall do the assigniti and what happens if conflicts occur,are <br /> best determined at the time they occur, not by crystal ball statements. <br /> Section 2.09. I suggest including 2.09 from the model charter here unless <br /> there exists some very strong and compelling evidence to indicate a change. <br /> Before any change is made in adminstrative processes and duties, I think the <br /> Charter Commission has an obligation to poll other city councils to determined <br /> the importance of having an administaator who runs the ooeration,t The alternative <br /> is to save the $20,000 it costs for an administrator and let the mayor and council <br /> do the job. (2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.