Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View Charter Commission May 21, 2019 <br />Regular Meeting Page 6 <br /> <br />corrections being made by the group prior to receiving approval at the next 1 <br />meeting. He explained that was the efficiency of working with an outside agency, 2 <br />such as TimeSaver. 3 <br /> 4 <br />Amundsen indicated he was in favor of the trial with TimeSaver but stated he was 5 <br />unclear about the processes that would be followed. He asked who would be 6 <br />responsible for making the technical changes to the meeting minutes. City 7 <br />Administrator Zikmund reported this task would be completed by staff. He 8 <br />indicated a substantive change would be made by the Commission at a meeting 9 <br />and staff would amend the minutes to reflect the requested substantive change. 10 <br /> 11 <br />Amundsen stated he would be in favor of a three-meeting trial with TimeSaver to 12 <br />see what the substantive differences were between the meeting minutes. 13 <br /> 14 <br />Thomas explained he could support the motion on the floor. He indicated this 15 <br />group had copious minutes years ago when verbatim minutes were being provided 16 <br />for each meeting. He discussed the amount of time it took the Commission to 17 <br />review and approve these minutes. He stated after some time the Commission 18 <br />agreed to reduce the level of detail that was included within the meeting minutes 19 <br />and this was written into the bylaws. He reported TimeSaver was given no clear 20 <br />direction on the March minutes and was doing more capturing of the events than 21 <br />was preferred based on the history of the group. He stated going forward he 22 <br />would like to see the minutes have less detail and less personal opinions. 23 <br /> 24 <br />Motion Approved 25 <br /> 26 <br />Review purpose, role and guiding principles. 27 <br /> 28 <br />Reyes-Johnson reviewed the purpose, role and guiding principles for the Commission 29 <br />based on the discussion held at the March meeting. She requested feedback from the 30 <br />group on how to proceed. 31 <br /> 32 <br />Thomas commented on the mission statement or purpose of the Charter that was 33 <br />approved by this group in 2002. He asked if the Commission wanted to review the 34 <br />mission statement, the purpose statement, or both. 35 <br /> 36 <br />Reyes-Johnson reported the Commission did not have a mission statement in the bylaws. 37 <br /> 38 <br />Amundsen stated he was confused and noted the mission statement does not capture the 39 <br />duties intended by the statutes or responsibilities for this group. 40 <br /> 41 <br />Reyes-Johnson explained this was not intended to be a mission statement for the group 42 <br />but rather was to clarify the purpose and role for the Charter Commission. 43 <br /> 44