Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council November 24, 2003 <br />Regular Meeting Page 5 <br />• <br />C7 <br />Council Member Stigney indicated he has no issue with this because he viewed the meetings and <br />saw what the action was. He then asked the City Attorney whether there was an issue with <br />regard to the legalities of the change. <br />City Attorney Riggs indicated he could review Chapter 410. <br />Mayor Linke indicated he would like to postpone to provide the City Attorney with time to <br />review the matter. He then said that the City would need to look at the original vote by the <br />residents of the City of Mounds View and whether that vote set out the number of members. He <br />then commented that he does not feel that the judge has the authority to change the number if it <br />was set out by a vote of the people. <br />Council Member Stigney asked whether there were any issues with the language in the <br />resolution. <br />Mayor Linke indicated that one has the changes designated but the other does not. He then <br />commented that they should both be formatted in the same way so that Council is aware of the <br />proposed amended language. <br />Council Member Stigney disagreed and said that there is a statement at the top of the document <br />that the section is an entirely new replacement section. <br />Mayor Linke indicated he does have some issues with some of it but does not want to discuss it <br />now as there is a motion to postpone the matter on the floor. <br />MOTION/SECOND: Stigney/Gunn. To Amend the Motion to Postpone to a Motion to <br />Postpone Until the City Attorney Has the Information Requested. <br />Ayes - 2 Nays - 3(Linke/Many/Quick) Motion failed. <br />Council Member Stigney questioned whether Roberts Rules of Order requires a motion to <br />postpone to contain a time certain. <br />Council Member Marty suggested not to exceed two months. <br />MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Gunn. To Amend the Motion to Postpone to a Motion to Postpone <br />Not to Exceed Two Months. <br />Council Member Stigney indicated he did not see any reason to postpone for two months. He <br />then asked whether there is an issue with the 60-day timeframe wording. <br />Council Member Quick indicated he did not like how it was presented. <br />• <br />