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