Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-24-2000PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW EDA CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting April 10, 2000 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 7:21 P.M. CALL MEETING TO ORDER ROLL CALL: Coughlin, Marty, Quick, Stigney, and Thomason. NOT PRESENT: None. 1. AGENDA ADDITIONS A. Approve agenda of April 10, 2000 President Coughlin asked the Commission if anyone would like to add items to the agenda. Vice President Stigney stated at the Work Session on April 3, an item to consider communications from the New Brighton-Mounds View Chamber of Commerce concerning membership on the Mounds View Economic Development Commission was before the Council. He stated this was the same item as that currently listed under EDA Business, however, at that time, the item was deleted from the Work Session agenda, because it had come forward that the member requested a Waiver of Public Hearing, and it was determined to be a moot point. He inquired since the public hearing was not held at that time, why it was to take place at this time. President Coughlin stated the reason this item was listed on the Work Session agenda was because it had been determined that the EDA meeting that was previously called to order was not in order, due to an oversight, in that at the beginning of the year, the EDA did not set its meeting schedule for the entire year, as the Council had. He explained that in light of this, the issue of the public hearing required to be addressed once again, and that was the entire thrust of that particular item. He indicated that the Commissioner in question presented documentation waiving their right to a public hearing, therefore, it was not necessary to discuss this item at that time, however, it was certainly mentioned at the meeting that this matter would be taken up this date, and legal staff was also under the impression that April 10 was the date the item would be addressed. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Thomason. To approve the agenda of EDA for April 10, 2000, as presented. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Mounds View EDA April 10, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 2 2. APPROVAL OF EDA MINUTES A. Approve Minutes of March 13, 2000, March 27, 2000 and April 3, 2000. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Quick. To approve the minutes of EDA for March 13, March 27 and April 3, 2000, as presented. Ayes – 5 Nays – 0 Motion carried. 3. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS None. 4. CONSENT AGENDA None. 5. EDA BUSINESS A. Request From the Chamber of Commerce to Have Julie Olsen Removed From the EDC. City Attorney Long stated at the previous meeting, there was discussion regarding the procedure for addressing the issue of removal of a member of the EDC, and this has been set forth in Chapter 408.06 Subd. 2, which indicates “Any member of the commission may be removed from office for just cause and on written charges by at least four-fifths vote of the entire authority. Such member may be entitled to a public hearing before such a vote is taken.” He indicated staff was directed to prepare findings for the City Council and the EDA to consider if they were in the position of desiring to take the action to remove the Commissioner as requested by the Chamber. He provided the Authority with copies of the resolution, noting a typographical error in the first “WHEREAS,” which would be amended by staff. City Attorney Long indicated there were two exhibits attached to the resolution. He advised that Exhibit A is the actual letter that was presented to the City from the Chamber of Commerce raising the issue, and requesting the removal of the Commissioner, and Exhibit B is the notice that came from the Commissioner waiving the public hearing. He stated Ms. Olsen presented staff with this notice and had not signed it, however, she has since confirmed that she intended this to be a Waiver of Public Hearing, and staff is treating it as such. City Attorney Long indicated the item before the Council is a resolution removing a member of the Mounds View Economic Development Commission. He indicated the first “WHEREAS” clause sets forth the fact that the EDC is an advisory commission set up by the Mounds View Mounds View EDA April 10, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 3 City Council by ordinance, and therefore, is a creature of, and advisory to the Authority. He explained that the second clause sets forth the composition of the EDC and spells out that three of the seats are to be held by business representatives. He advised that the third clause states that Ms. Olsen was appointed to fill one of the three business representatives positions of the EDC, and the fourth clause recites the fact that the City received correspondence from the New Brighton-Mounds View Chamber of Commerce which is attached as Exhibit A, and indicates that Ms. Olsen shall be removed from this business representative position, based upon her conduct as Charter Commission Chairperson, because she can no longer effectively represent the business community on the EDC. He indicated this clause was drafted in this manner because the letter from the Chamber of Commerce refers to one particular letter to the editor signed by Ms. Olsen in her capacity as Chair of the Charter Commission, and this language amplifies what the letter states, because it does not go into the details of that particular issue. City Attorney Long indicated the fourth “WHEREAS” clause simply states that the members of the EDC are appointed to fulfill certain duties and purposes set forth in the Code, and the fifth clause summarizes the EDC’s mission as an advisory body, in terms of the duties and performance of the Commission which deal heavily with working with, representing, and cooperating with the business community. He stated the last “WHEREAS” clause states that based upon correspondence from the Chamber of Commerce requesting removal of Ms. Olsen as an EDC member, the Authority has determined that Ms. Olsen would no longer be able to effectively represent the business community, and therefore, was unable to perform her duties as an EDC member. City Attorney Long stated the items set forth in the “RESOLVED” clauses are the procedural issues and the findings that the Authority would have to make. He stated the first item is basically a restatement of the letter from the Chamber of Commerce, and the second item indicates that all of the recitals, attachments and the Exhibits of the resolution would constitute any written charges required under the Code. He stated the third item indicates that the Authority would find that the lack of support for Ms. Olsen in the business community would not permit her to fulfill her appointed duties and the intent and purpose of the EDC as a member of the EDC, and the inability to perform these duties constitutes the just cause for removal which the Code requires to be found. He stated the fourth item indicates Ms. Olsen has waived her right to a hearing, pursuant to the hand delivered memo set forth in Exhibit B, and the fifth item indicates that the Authority is taking action to remove Ms. Olsen. City Attorney Long stated from a procedural standpoint, it was interesting that according to the Code, these are advisory commissions, and yet, there is “for cause” language present not only in this particular provision, but also with regard to several other boards and commissions. He stated there is no guidance in Minnesota Case Law which defines the term “for cause” in the setting of an advisory commission, which is an appointed body that is created by the Council. He pointed out that there is significant guidance relating to public employee situations, however, in terms of advisory commissions, there is no Case Law to draw upon, therefore, he could not precisely advise how the Court reviews the standards for cause in these cases. Mounds View EDA April 10, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 4 City Attorney Long advised that the language of this and other ordinances makes it clear that the intent is that the Council must have some basis for the removal of a commissioner, and could not do so simply because they wanted to, although the just cause standard is a lesser standard than it would be in a public employee situation, because this is an advisory position, which serves at the will and desire of the Council. He pointed out that Council could abolish the entire commission if it so desired, and the commissioners do not have any vested rights or interests to serve. He stated it would have been helpful to have some Case Law to point to pertaining to how the Courts treat these situations, however, there is none. He added there is no similar language pertaining to the advisory positions in the City Code, and this was somewhat of a unique clause. He stated it was his opinion, that if the Authority were to take action to remove the Commissioner, it would want to have, at minimum, the findings that are specified in the resolution that would set forth a basis for cause based upon the correspondence received from the Chamber of Commerce. Mayor Coughlin stated the resolution before the Council has not been ascribed a number, however, it would be in order for the Motioner and the Seconder to grant latitude to the staff to assign the appropriate number to the document for the record. MOTION/SECOND: Marty/Thomason. To Approve Resolution No. ______, a Resolution Approving a Request from the Chamber of Commerce to have Julie Olsen Removed from the EDC, as Amended to Include in the File, Separately from the Resolution, for Reference Sake Only, a Copy of the Letter in Question as Published in the New Brighton Bulletin, and to Authorize Staff to Ascribe the Appropriate Number to the Resolution, for the Record. Vice President Stigney stated that as a military veteran, and also upon taking office as a Council Member, he took an oath of allegiance to support the Constitution of the United States. He stated the First Amendment of the Constitution allows free speech, therefore, if this or any person writes a letter that another finds offensive, it still might be their Constitutional Right to do so. He stated it was interesting to note that this particular letter was published in two newspapers, and neither editor omitted this language that has been referenced by the Chamber President, therefore, they apparently did not feel it to be highly offensive. Vice President Stigney stated with regard to making a reference to Adolf Hitler, he believed that if these individuals read the letter, they would find that this was actually a quote attributed to Adolf Hitler, and could have been a quote of Saddam Hussein or any other dictator. He advised that if the point of this action is to indicate that people can not express their views in public, the Authority can vote as it sees fit, however, he would not vote in favor of it, as he would not trample on anyone’s First Amendment Rights of the Constitution. President Coughlin opened the Floor for public comment. Dr. Greg Belting stated he was a member of the EDC a business owner at Silverview Chiropractic, and also the Chairman of the New Brighton-Mounds View Chamber of Commerce. Mounds View EDA April 10, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 5 He stated he also believed in the First and Second Amendments, however, as a newly appointed member to the EDC, and he was quite offended by these comments. He stated he was not a personal friend of Mayor Coughlin’s, although possibly in the future he would be. He indicated he is not Jewish, nor did he fight in World War II, however, he thought comments of this nature were very inappropriate. Dr. Belting stated these are Ms. Olsen’s First Amendment Rights, and they were not attempting to censor people, however, she has been somewhat empowered by the City, and people should be held accountable for their actions. He indicated the Chamber simply felt it was inappropriate that a member of the EDC, which represents the business community, would make statements about someone in reference to Adolf Hitler. Dr. Belting stated he has two children, and if his six year-old does something wrong, he appreciates and acknowledged the fact that this has occurred, and hopefully, there is an apology involved. He added that there is also some retribution involved, at some point, for actions that are inappropriate. He indicated that you must stand for something, and comments such as these are very contrary to the attitude that the Chamber of Commerce would like to represent. He stated he was very embarrassed to learn that the person that made these statements was a fellow member of the EDC. He reiterated these comments were very inappropriate, and he was embarrassed to act on a body that has this person in its membership. He stated he wanted to distance himself as far as possible from this individual, and hoped that the Chamber has accomplished this with its letter. Commissioner Thomason advised that the issue at hand, aside from First Amendment Rights, is a request from the Chamber to have this person removed because she is unable to effectively represent the business community, in that they feel that she has damaged that relationship because of her choice to exercise her First Amendment Rights. She explained that the Authority must consider this issue, and with the approval of this resolution, they are. She indicated in terms of First Amendment Rights, she was not aware that liable and slander were protected, and in her opinion, these statements border upon that. She explained that an individual has no more right to go into a theater and yell “fire”, when there is no threat. She advised that they have the First Amendment Right to do so, however, they must also pay the consequences. Vice President Stigney stated the individual that Ms. Olsen may have been referring to could likely deal with these comments as a public official, however, he did not believe they would hold water because public officials are open to scrutiny. He explained for example, the Governor called the members of the Legislature “gutless cowards”, and it is only a matter of opinion whether they are or not, and no one would likely be sued for that. He stated this goes to his original point, in that he may not particularly support what someone says, however, he does support their right to say it. Commissioner Marty indicated he also believed in the First Amendment, and would not wish to deprive anyone of their rights, however, when an individual is acting as a member of a Mounds View EDA April 10, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 6 Commission for the City, they must be held somewhat responsible for their statements and actions, as these are a reflection on the City. He stated he has heard from persons from Duluth and Brainerd that this individual has placed the City on the map with these comments. He indicated he did not wish to have the City placed on the map in this manner, and therefore, he supported this measure. David Jahnke, 8428 Eastwood Road stated the Governor has placed the State on the map with some of his comments. He pointed out that he has not only placed the State on the map, but has also been appointed to act as a Trade Ambassador, and he has made some very inappropriate comments as well. Mr. Jahnke stated he called Ms. Olsen at her home to discuss this matter with her on the evening the letter was published, as he was also very upset and did not approve of these comments. He advised however, they must be very careful in their actions when considering the statements of an individual. He pointed out that the Governor has made much worse comments, particularly those pertaining to religion, which he was personally very offended by, however, these comments do not hold water. He reiterated that they must be very careful when considering the statements that people make. Carol Frey, President of the New Brighton-Mounds View Chamber of Commerce stated she was the individual who wrote the letter to the City. She stated the Chamber fully supports First Amendment Rights, however, this is not the issue. She indicated the issue relates to the association Ms. Olsen has with the business community. She explained that they fully believe that the City of Mounds, the City Council, the Mayor, and the Chamber need to move forward in a very positive manner to heal some of the relationships, and that they bring in the new business groups that will help make the City of Mounds View strong. She indicated the attitude exhibited in Ms. Olsen’s letter would not help them reach these goals. Vice President Stigney stated that Ms. Olsen’s letter was not included as a part of the official documentation before the Council. He suggested, in that there are references to this letter, that rather than making an oblique reference to Adolf Hitler, a copy of the actual letter that was sent to the Focus Newspaper or the New Brighton Bulletin be included for posterity, so that if someone desires to see specifically what they were referencing and what has occurred, they could do so. President Coughlin inquired if the Motioner and Seconder would be agreeable to a friendly amendment to include Ms. Olsen’s letter in the resolution as Exhibits C and D. Commissioners Marty and Thomason agreed. Vice President Stigney advised that the letters submitted to both the newspapers were the same. President Coughlin stated the Bulletin was published first, and inquired if the Motioner and Mounds View EDA April 10, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 7 Seconder would agree to add this item to the resolution as Exhibit C. Commissioners Marty and Thomason agreed. City Attorney Long stated the reason he did not initially attach the letter to the resolution was because legally, the Authority was not acting on the letter to the editor and the comments made by Ms. Olsen, but rather, the loss of confidence from the business community. He advised that they would not wish to confuse the issues pertaining to First Amendment rights, which has been raised, versus the rights of the business community to speak regarding whether or not this person can effectively represent them. President Coughlin stated the Motioner and Seconder could withdraw the amendment, however, he would like to keep with the spirit of Vice President Stigney’s suggestion. He inquired if the letter could be referenced, without being an established offering as an appendage to the document. City Attorney Long advised that the letter would be archived, and remain a part of the public record. He stated he did not wish to have it mentioned or addressed in the official resolution, because it could be misinterpreted to be part of the reason for acting upon this item, as opposed to the letter from the Chamber of Commerce. President Coughlin inquired if the Chamber could submit, as an addendum to their letter, a copy of the letter to the editor. He explained that in this case, the Chamber would be making reference to the letter, and not the City’s resolution. City Attorney Long advised that it may be more appropriate to have the minutes of the vote reflect the fact that Vice President Stigney requested, and that the Authority agreed, that the letter would be kept on file with the resolution and the two exhibits, so that if anyone desired to examine all of the documents, they would be available. He stated these would remain as two separate documents, and one would not be part of the other, however, he believed this would satisfy the intent that people could examine the record if they so desired, for informational purposes. President Coughlin inquired if the Motioner and Seconder would agree to include in the file, separately from the resolution, for reference sake only, a copy of the letter in question. Commissioners Marty and Thomason agreed. President Coughlin called for a roll call vote. ROLL CALL: Marty, Quick, Thomason, Coughlin, Stigney Ayes – 4 Nays – 1 (Stigney) Motion carried. Mounds View EDA April 10, 2000 Regular Meeting Page 8 Vice President Stigney stated he voted in opposition to the measure for reasons previously stated. President Coughlin requested the City Attorney, in conjunction with the Interim Administrator, present a copy of the resolution to the Commissioner in question. He indicated that procedurally, he was the person who appoints to vacancies, based upon the approval of the Authority. He stated that any business member wishing to serve in the capacity of Economic Development Commissioner to fill the remainder of this un-expired term, complete an application form, which is available at City Hall and on the City’s Website. He requested applications be submitted by the end of the work day on April 21, in order that the EDA may consider any potential candidates for appointment at their April 24 meeting. 6. REPORTS None. 7. ADJOURNMENT President Coughlin adjourned the meeting at 7:56 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Closed Session.) Respectfully submitted, Recorded and transcribed by: Trish Pearson TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.