Laserfiche WebLink
4 <br /> <br />11, 2019).) At that time, there was a single opening and four applicants. There were three <br />applicants for the second most recent opening a year ago. <br />18. Except for the period of time needed to advertise for and appoint three replacement <br />Charter Commissioners (one moved out of Mounds View in 2017, another did not reapply for his <br />seat in 2018, and a third resigned following the May 21, 2019 meeting), the Commission has had <br />a full complement of nine members since May 2017. <br />19. No evidence was presented to the court that any current or past member of the <br />Charter Commission resigned or failed to reapply for membership due to conduct by respondent <br />in his capacity as a Charter Commissioner or in any other capacity. <br />20. In 2006-2009, when respondent was off the Charter Commission, quorums were <br />not met just as frequently as when respondent was a Charter Commissioner. Since respondent’s <br />most recent appointment, and the reduction in authorized Charter Commission membership from <br />11 to 9, there was a quorum for 100% of the meetings. For most of these meetings, respondent <br />was the elected Charter Commission Chair. <br />21. Whatever the reason for recruiting and quorum challenges over the years, the <br />challenges were not caused by respondent. <br />22. Petitioner asserts that the Charter Commission is inefficient and that the <br />inefficiencies are due to respondent. However, petitioner failed to demonstrate through admissible <br />evidence that the Charter Commission is either inefficient or that respondent caused inefficiencies. <br />23. There is no requirement that the Charter Commission pass charter amendments at <br />all much less on a particular time table. Similarly, the passage of potential charter amendments is <br />not necessarily the measure of whether a Charter Commission is efficient or effective.