Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council September 27, 2004 <br />Regular Meeting Page 9 <br />Mr. McCarty stated that if the Clerk Administrator determines it's insufficient, he must within <br />ten working days notify the Council of that fact. He stated that under the new proposal if a <br />petition comes in that is insufficient, you go to Section 504, and the Clerk Administrator shall <br />deliver a copy of the petition with a written statement of its defects to the sponsoring committee <br />He stated, parenthetically, that under Chapter 410 of the state law, charter law, it is recommende <br />that a sponsoring committee number five, and the Charter reaff rms that the sponsoring <br />committee should be five. He stated that this proposal says five or more. <br />Mr. McCarty stated that the committee shall have 30 days in which to file additional signature <br />papers or make corrections, and the Clerk Administrator doesn't go to the Council yet. He only <br />goes when he declares it as sufficient. <br />d <br />Mayor Linke stated that if it's insufficient, then it doesn't go to the Council. <br />Ms. Thomas stated that there was nothing for them to do at that point. <br />Mayor Linke stated that the Council should make that official determination, because that's what <br />they've always done in the past. <br />Mr. McCarty stated that what is in state law and in the Charter is that the Council is immediately <br />notified within ten days whether it is sufficient or insufficient, and vis-a-vis there is immediate <br />notice to the citizens. He stated that this change short-circuits due notice, and he believes that <br />• this is an honest error. He stated he also believes that the five or more should be taken out, and <br />why would you need more than five sponsors. He asked if they could imagine calling in a <br />sponsoring committee of 20 and trying to straighten out some detail. <br />Mayor Linke stated that Mr. McCarty brought up some good points. <br />Council Member Stigney stated that this had been prepared for the Council, not for referendum, <br />so it took a unanimous vote of the Council to approve the changes. He stated that there may be a <br />gap in there regarding the ten-day notification that they should look at. He stated he saw nothing <br />wrong with the language of five or more. <br />Mayor Linke asked if Council Member Stigney was proposing a postponement of action on this <br />matter, and Council Member Stigney said he hadn't proposed anything yet. <br />Ms. Thomas stated that the Council could make small amendments to this and continue on. She <br />stated that what this language allows is a process if a mistake has happened or things are not <br />quite correct, and it doesn't throw the petition out. It allows the sponsoring group to correct the <br />petition and bring it back before it is declared. <br />Mr. McCarty stated that if he is understanding Ms. Thomas correctly, she is suggesting that this <br />revision guarantees an additiona130 days that would otherwise be lost. <br />• <br />