Order-Other - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

5 24. If the rest of the Charter Commission wished to take some action that Mr. Amundsen was opposed or indifferent to, it could have voted to do so at any time. Respondent has just one vote. For example, during the May 21, 2019 meeting, petitioner moved to amend the meeting agenda with the stated purpose of conforming the agenda to the Charter Commission’s by-laws. The motion, which took about fifteen minutes of meeting time, was approved by the Commission. Similarly, a motion supported by respondent to address the handling of two different versions of the previous meeting’s minutes was also approved by the Charter Commission. If a majority of the Charter Commission was of the view that respondent’s motions and suggestions were out of order or unwise, they could have voted in the negative. Thus, Mayor Mueller’s characterization of respondent’s actions on May 21, 2019 as lacking respect for others’ time, showing disrespect for the Chair, and demonstrating a “dismissive attitude towards the Commission and City Attorney” is untrue and contradicted by the evidence of record. (Pet., July 11, 2019 at 3.) 25. During respondent’s term as Charter Commissioner, the Mounds View City Council never attempted to amend the city charter by ordinance. By statute, it could have done so at any time. Therefore, there is no factual basis for petitioner to claim that respondent obstructed, delayed, interfered with, or prevented the enactment of charter amendments. If petitioner’s allegation were true, the same could be said of the City Council and its members. 26. There is no requirement in fact or in law that Charter Commissioners get along, like each other, or have the same philosophy about how to conduct or prioritize Charter Commission business. An effective chair, utilizing Roberts Rules of Order, has ample opportunity and authority to run a meaningful and controlled meeting.