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
-2- G. Ziebarth <br /> My overall comments on CHAPTER 5 are that although I am not opposed to <br /> the process I don't understand why you have chosen the added restriction of <br /> being registered and at the same time decreased the examination of electors <br /> by the clerk to 5 days. It seems to me it will take more time rather than <br /> less in order for the clerk to ascertain sufficiency. The model charter <br /> suggests 20 dayssand I agree. I also think that 15% should be required for <br /> referendum in keeping with most other charters. Initiative and referendum <br /> proposals from the model charter have certain restriction. Am I to understand <br /> that the Charter Commission is including budget and capital programs, <br /> appropriations of money, levying of taxes and salaries for employees <br /> under the initiative proposal where it is restricted by the model and3if sol <br /> I am requesting sound justification for this departure. <br /> Rather than make specific comments at this time, I would hope that the <br /> commission rethink this entire chapter and attempt to rewrite it in shorter <br /> form with more concise language so that the average person in Mounds View <br /> can and will bcembe use it as an effective tool for imput. At the same <br /> time you shouldAthe Impact on staff and the consequences of the time frames <br /> suggested. My opinion is that most people will give up before they ever get <br /> started with the process as presently stated. <br /> Chapter 6. I am opposed to the suggestions in this chapter that we <br /> have a coordinator rather than a clerk-administrator to the extent that it <br /> will cause more problems than it will solve. The public)in partjhas been <br /> digatisfied with the impact that the past administrator had on the council A acemklc.:t. <br /> fault not the administrators problem. If this be the argument for change <br /> then write it into the councils responsibilities. By diluting the power <br /> of the administrator you are increasing the chances that less will be done <br /> at city hall. By doing what you suggest, he doesn't have to control the <br /> a )P 4 D9Tt4N FE <br /> other department heads (which is the problem now) and now your suggesting <br /> little if any responsibilty to the council. Under your proposal he doesn't <br /> have to be accountable to anyone, he can blame everyone else. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.