My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 2024/05/28
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2020-2029
>
2024
>
Agenda Packets - 2024/05/28
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 4:48:11 PM
Creation date
5/29/2024 9:48:51 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
5/28/2024
Supplemental fields
City Council Document Type
Packets
Date
5/28/2024
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
95
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
did also indicate that I could think of a scenario where the Council could <br />operate as a 4 member Council for 5 to 6 months because of the State <br />Legislature's decision to define only specific months for holding a special <br />election. <br />The Mounds View City Council has been officially operating as a 4 person <br />Council since May 20t' and in reality since April Is'when Mayor Hull began <br />his chemo treatments as the last City Council meeting he officially led was the <br />second meeting in March. Thus, the Council has operated as a 4 person <br />Council for 7 months. <br />With Council member Lindstrom's election to Mayor on November 7t'', the <br />Council will continue to act as a 4 person Council until next April's special <br />election to fill the remainder of Mayor Lindstrom's council term. Thus, the <br />Council will have operated as a 4 person Council for one year. <br />A 4 person Council obviously can work, but it is not an ideal scenario <br />particularly when it becomes 5 or more months. Major decisions can be <br />decided by the opposition of 2 votes rather than 3 votes for or against. I will <br />also tell you there are other items that are not time sensitive that the current 4 <br />person Council has chosen to table until there is a 5 person Council. I <br />personally recommended tabling one item I am opposed to because I wanted it <br />to either pass or fail on a 3 — 2 vote rather than fail with 2 votes which was the <br />likely outcome. <br />There is another scenario that could happen with full recognition that the <br />odds of it occurring is remote. With the current 4 person Council, there is no <br />current solution provided by the City Charter in the event not one but two <br />additional seats became unexpectedly vacant. <br />I know City Attorney Joe Sathe has provided a memo to the Commission <br />related to Council vacancies, and thus I won't elaborate any further in that <br />regard. <br />As a further addendum, since I made this presentation to the Charter <br />Commission, the 4 person Council had to operate as a 3 person Council for at <br />least one if not two meetings when Council Member Gunn was away for <br />personal reasons dealing with her father's declining health and ultimate <br />passing. This scenario creates an additional challenge as all votes have to be <br />2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.