Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council May 22, 2000 <br />Regular Meeting Page 19 <br /> <br />rather submitted to the Charter Commission as a body appointed to oversee the Charter, so that <br />they may examine it and bring their recommendation back to the Council. He stated there has <br />been very limited discussion of this matter, and no analysis on either of these issues. <br /> <br />MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/________. To Postpone Action on this Item Until the Charter <br />Commission has had the Opportunity to Review this Matter, and that It Not be Presented Under <br />State Statute 410.12, but rather, Submitted to the Charter Commission as a Body Appointed to <br />Oversee the Charter, so that they may Examine It and Bring Their Recommendation Back to the <br />Council. <br /> <br />Motion failed. <br /> <br />Mayor Coughlin advised that all of the concerns with regard to the Charter Commission review <br />have been addressed in this Section of the Statute, which requires that the matter be forwarded to <br />the Charter Commission for consideration, and that the Charter Commission is required to <br />provide its comments. <br /> <br />Council Member Stigney advised that this proposal does not have to be submitted to the Charter <br />Commission under State Statutes Section 410.12, Subd. 5, and he believed the City Attorney <br />could verify this. <br /> <br />Mayor Coughlin stated he would verify this. He indicated the proposal has been submitted in <br />this manner in order to follow State Statute, and the Motioner and Seconder were in agreement <br />with that. He stated this item pertains to the position of Mayor, and therefore, he would request <br />the consent of the Council to abstain. <br /> <br />Council Member Quick requested the Motion be restated. <br /> <br />Mayor Coughlin stated the Motion was to waive the reading and approve the first reading of <br />Ordinance 662. <br /> <br />Mayor Coughlin asked City Attorney Long if an abstaining vote would be counted with the vote <br />of the majority. City Attorney Long stated unless there is a direct conflict, the abstention would <br />count as a vote in favor. <br /> <br />Council Member Quick indicated he did not believe it was necessary for Mayor Coughlin to <br />abstain, as he would be required to stand election, regardless of the outcome. <br /> <br />Mayor Coughlin stated he would request the Council’s indulgence in allowing him to abstain. <br /> <br />Council Member Stigney inquired if a vote of abstention would be counted with the vote of the <br />majority. City Attorney Long stated this was correct. <br /> <br />Council Member Stigney advised that the majority vote would not necessarily be an affirmative <br />vote. City Attorney Long advised that if there were a direct conflict in Minnesota State Statutes <br />that would allow for a true abstention, the abstaining vote would not be counted, however, if