Laserfiche WebLink
3 <br /> <br />10. During Charter Commission meetings, respondent was polite and courteous to <br />members and others in attendance. <br />11. At no time during Charter Commission meetings was respondent disruptive nor did <br />he in any way interfere with or impede the meeting process. <br />12. Respondent’s election to two officer positions by his colleagues is inconsistent with <br />any claim that Charter Commission members consider respondent to be a disruptive, ineffective, <br />or inefficient member of the Charter Commission. <br />13. Between 2002 and 2016 the Charter Commission regularly failed to meet its <br />quorum requirement and regularly had fewer than the full number of authorized commissioners. <br />14. In 2003, the authorized size of the Charter Commission was reduced from 15 to 11 <br />members. <br />15. The Charter Commission continued to have fewer Commissioners than authorized <br />during 2006-2009, when respondent was not a Commissioner. <br />16. On January 3, 2017, this court issued an order approving amended Charter <br />Commission by-laws reducing the authorized size of the Charter Commission from 11 to 9 <br />members. (In the Matter of the Appointment City of Mounds View Charter Commission, File No. <br />62-CV-11-1263 (Dist. Ct. Jan. 3, 2017).) <br />17. Recruiting citizens to serve on the City of Mounds View Charter Commission is <br />challenging but any past shortage of applicants was not caused or contributed to by respondent. <br />Moreover, over the last three years, there were often more applicants than openings. The most <br />recent opening was filled by court order dated September 11, 2019. (In the Matter of the <br />Appointment City of Mounds View Charter Commission, File No. 62-CV-11-1263 (Dist. Ct. Sept.