03-16- 2002 Michel Sandbeck ltr to commission re Removal of Commission Member

Home Browse Search

March 16, 2002 Mr. Chairman, Although I appreciate Commissioner Le’s interpretations of State Statute Section 410.05, subdivision 2 and our by-laws, as he stated in his letter titled “Removal of Commission Member”, there was a motion made during the Charter Commission’s regular meeting of February 7, 2002. This motion was: “Those members who have missed four consecutive meetings should have their names sent to the judge for removal as per our by-laws.” The February 7, 2002 Charter Commission meeting was adjourned at 10:10pm. It is my understanding that Commissioner Le is an attorney, hence my appreciation of his interpretations. However, his interpretation is but one. I’m sure we could ask 12 different attorneys for their opinions and receive 12 different opinions in return. It is for this reason I believe the decision on this matter should be left to the district court. The motion, made by Roger Stigney, seconded by Bill Werner and unanimously approved by all members in attendance clearly stated that these members’ names should be sent to the judge for removal. The motion also stated, “as per our by-laws”. I feel the motion was in order as per our by-laws and state statute. State Statute 410.05, subdivision 2 (ref. Commissioner Le’s letter): “When any member has failed to perform the duties of office and has failed to attend four consecutive meetings without being excused by the commission, the secretary of the charter commission shall file a certificate with the court setting forth those facts and the district court shall thereupon make its order of removal and the chief judge shall fill the vacancy created thereby.” Mounds View Charter Commission By-laws, Article III, Section 7: “Any member who has failed to attend four consecutive meetings, regular or special, will be deemed unexcused by the Commission and may be discharged according to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 410.05, Subdivision 2, as amended.” Mounds View Charter Commission By-laws, Article III, Section 3: “The powers of the Commission shall be vested in the members thereof in office from time to time. A majority of qualified and acting members shall constitute a quorum for the purpose of conducting the Commission’s business and exercising its powers and for all other purposes, but a smaller number of members may adjourn from time to time.” It is my belief that according to our by-laws as written on February 7, 2002, we have two duties. We have a duty to attend regular and special meetings as set forth by the Commission. Resolution 2001-01 clearly states the regular meeting dates and our by-laws state what a special meeting is. We also have a duty to conduct the Commission’s business and exercise its powers. Because certain members have chosen not to comply with Resolution 2001-01, the powers of the Commission have been halted to a certain degree because of a lack of quorum on December 13, 2001 and March 14, 2002. We have also dealt with only 8 out of 15 members being present at the November 8, 2001 and February 7, 2002 meetings. What would happen if a 4/5ths or 2/3rds vote were called for? As members of this commission it is our responsibility to follow our own Resolution 2001-01 and by-laws and if some people make the choice not to follow the rules that’s their choice and they will have to deal with the outcome. It is our duty to put this in the hands of the district court and let the judges decide. That’s what their job is. As far as what the statute intends when it states “When any member has failed to perform the duties of office”, I do not feel we have the power to determine the definition of duties as per the state statute. We do not, at present, clarify specific duties of members in our by-laws, other than that which I’ve stated, so we have to look to state statutes and if state statutes do not clarify what “duties” means then it is up to the