BA Amundsen IDR April 11 Part 3 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Attachment 1 — Response to City Letter of July 11, 2019 Case File 62-CV-19-4965 The Letter states that the Council met on July 1, 2019, again to discuss removal. • I agree with the statement. • The Council on July 1, 2019, again publicly discussed removing both Commissioner Thomas and me from the Commission, without notice to either of us. During that meeting the Council decided by consensus (no formal motion was made) to request only my removal, directing city staff to prepare a letter to the Court for my remove. The Council further discussed its vision and model of a next generation Commission which has staff and city attorney develop charter language amendments with the Commission simply reviewing those amendments before they are sent back to the Council. • The Letter fails to state that the Council reviewed the removal letter as a staff report on July 8 Council meeting. The document was not read publicly or provided to the public. The Council did not make a motion to send the letter. The Council's letter was prepared by "consent". The Letter states that the Commission will have "high turnover resulting in continuation of a dysfunctional and ineffective Commission." • I disagree with the statement. • The Commission can functioned by 410.12 (Attachment 5) post Charter adoption when its quorum is present, for its purpose as stated in the Bylaws (Attachment 3) and quoted here: "Article 1, Section 2 Purpose. The purpose of the Charter Commission is to serve as the custodians of the Mounds View City Charter in accordance with state law, these bylaws and rules of the Charter Commission." The Letter include two charts of the Commission membership (Letter Attachments I and 2.) • I disagree with the Council conclusion that any previous commissioner term was shortened due to my presence on the Commission. • The Commission membership continued to decline when I was not on the Commission in 2007 and 2008, • Commissioners are not required to serve beyond their appointment or provide any reason or documentation as to why they are leaving the Commission at the conclusion of their appointment. • I disagree with the charts and request they be removed from the case file. • The first chart is faulty because it doesn't show the term to which each commissioner was assigned_ Statute 410.05 requires half of the commission appointment terms expire every two years. The commissioners assigned term may have been open for a period oftirne before assignment, such as my 2009 appointment filled a term which ended in 2012, resulting in me serving just three years instead of four. The chart should be discarded and replaced with one showing the term rotation every two years, the appointment date, and written resignation reasons provided by the commissioners (like Don Johnson who resigned for health reasons.) Also, the chart is based on a December 31 end of year calendar, but the Commission effective calendar ends October 31. • Attachment 9 of this response is an alternate representation of the Commission assignments and includes the commissioner reasons for leaving as researched from resignation letters. Even if the chart shows commissioners serving for short periods of time, that doesn't reflect context of Page 4 of 13