05-21-2019 Minutes-DRAFT - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mounds View Charter Commission May 21, 2019 Regular Meeting Page 2 1 Approval of Minutes 2 3 Thomas stated he would not approve the minutes from TimeSaver noting Commission 4 minutes were to state only what action was taken. He explained the minutes from 5 TimeSaver were completed on a trial basis for review purpose. 6 7 Reyes-Johnson reported on Page 2 of the minutes, Lines 14 and 15 the Charter 8 Commission approved a motion to direct staff to hire TimeSaver on a trial basis to assist 9 with Charter Commission minutes. She asked if a Charter parliamentarian could direct 10 her on how to proceed. 11 12 Amundsen reported the Charter Commission does not have a parliamentarian. 13 14 City Attorney Riggs advised the Chair had the right to ask questions and noted the 15 Charter Commission could adopt either set of minutes. He reported there was no set 16 procedure within the bylaws regarding meeting minutes. He explained the Charter 17 Commission approved a trial run for minutes with TimeSaver. He indicated the bylaws 18 had no set format for the minutes but rather were to be approved by the nine members of 19 the group. He reported the group could deviate on the minutes while still recording votes. 20 He stated he did not understand why the group had competing minutes when there didn’t 21 need to be. He commented the only thing the secretary does within the Charter 22 Commission was to present the minutes back to the Chair so the entire Commission can 23 review and approve the minutes, which was no different than the EDA or City Council. 24 He indicated he understood past practices, but reminded the group of the action that was 25 taken at the March 21st meeting to hire TimeSaver on a trial basis. 26 27 Peterson reported at the last meeting the work being done by TimeSaver was on a trial 28 basis and the current process was not being replaced. City Attorney Riggs reported this 29 would be determined by the Charter. He commented he did not see much difference 30 between the two sets of minutes. 31 32 Clawson indicated he was not in attendance at the last meeting. He requested further 33 information on what was going on and suggested each member take a step back to 34 evaluate the situation. He reported he reviewed both sets of minutes and did not see any 35 substantial differences. He explained he could support either set of minutes. He 36 encouraged the Commission to move forward with approving a set of minutes and to get 37 on with the agenda. He stated it was the prerogative of the Chair to run the meeting how 38 she sees fit. 39 40 Motion by J. Thomas, seconded by J. Peterson, to recommend the Charter 41 Commission consider approval of the minutes submitted by the secretary. 42 43 Peterson stated he would support approving the minutes from the secretary versus 44 TimeSaver given the fact the TimeSaver minutes were incomplete. 45