HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-16- 2002 Michel Sandbeck ltr to commission re Removal of Commission MemberMarch 16, 2002
Mr. Chairman,
Although I appreciate Commissioner Le’s interpretations of State Statute Section 410.05, subdivision 2 and
our by-laws, as he stated in his letter titled “Removal of Commission Member”, there was a motion made
during the Charter Commission’s regular meeting of February 7, 2002. This motion was: “Those members
who have missed four consecutive meetings should have their names sent to the judge for removal as per
our by-laws.” The February 7, 2002 Charter Commission meeting was adjourned at 10:10pm.
It is my understanding that Commissioner Le is an attorney, hence my appreciation of his interpretations.
However, his interpretation is but one. I’m sure we could ask 12 different attorneys for their opinions and
receive 12 different opinions in return. It is for this reason I believe the decision on this matter should be
left to the district court. The motion, made by Roger Stigney, seconded by Bill Werner and unanimously
approved by all members in attendance clearly stated that these members’ names should be sent to the
judge for removal.
The motion also stated, “as per our by-laws”. I feel the motion was in order as per our by-laws and state
statute.
State Statute 410.05, subdivision 2 (ref. Commissioner Le’s letter):
“When any member has failed to perform the duties of office and has failed to attend four consecutive
meetings without being excused by the commission, the secretary of the charter commission shall file a
certificate with the court setting forth those facts and the district court shall thereupon make its order of
removal and the chief judge shall fill the vacancy created thereby.”
Mounds View Charter Commission By-laws, Article III, Section 7:
“Any member who has failed to attend four consecutive meetings, regular or special, will be deemed
unexcused by the Commission and may be discharged according to the provisions of Minnesota Statutes,
Section 410.05, Subdivision 2, as amended.”
Mounds View Charter Commission By-laws, Article III, Section 3:
“The powers of the Commission shall be vested in the members thereof in office from time to time. A
majority of qualified and acting members shall constitute a quorum for the purpose of conducting the
Commission’s business and exercising its powers and for all other purposes, but a smaller number of
members may adjourn from time to time.”
It is my belief that according to our by-laws as written on February 7, 2002, we have two duties. We have
a duty to attend regular and special meetings as set forth by the Commission. Resolution 2001-01 clearly
states the regular meeting dates and our by-laws state what a special meeting is. We also have a duty to
conduct the Commission’s business and exercise its powers. Because certain members have chosen not to
comply with Resolution 2001-01, the powers of the Commission have been halted to a certain degree
because of a lack of quorum on December 13, 2001 and March 14, 2002. We have also dealt with only 8
out of 15 members being present at the November 8, 2001 and February 7, 2002 meetings. What would
happen if a 4/5ths or 2/3rds vote were called for? As members of this commission it is our responsibility to
follow our own Resolution 2001-01 and by-laws and if some people make the choice not to follow the rules
that’s their choice and they will have to deal with the outcome. It is our duty to put this in the hands of the
district court and let the judges decide. That’s what their job is.
As far as what the statute intends when it states “When any member has failed to perform the duties of
office”, I do not feel we have the power to determine the definition of duties as per the state statute. We do
not, at present, clarify specific duties of members in our by-laws, other than that which I’ve stated, so we
have to look to state statutes and if state statutes do not clarify what “duties” means then it is up to the
judges to determine what is meant. Regardless of whether or not members’ specific duties are written in
the statute or by-laws in the future, we have to go with what was written in the statutes or by-laws on
February 7, 2002 when the motion was made.
Once again, although I respect Commissioner Le’s opinion, the state statute says “has failed to attend four
consecutive meetings without being excused by the commission.” Regardless of whether or not we agree
with what the statute says, it says, “failed to attend four consecutive meetings”. It also says, “without being
excused by the commission”. Not “without being excused by the Chairman or other member”, it says, “the
commission”, and our commission does not excuse 4 consecutive absences. Now if the commission
chooses to grant the power to excuse individual absences to the Chairman, that’s fine, but we are not
talking about individual absences. Once again, we have to go with the statutes and by-laws we had before
us on February 7, 2002 when the motion was made.
I think our by-laws are in complete compliance with state statute. State statute is being adhered to and our
by-laws take it one further in that they more clearly define what is unexcused by the commission and that
is, “Any member who has failed to attend four consecutive meetings, regular or special, will be deemed
unexcused by the Commission.” The act of missing four consecutive meetings is unexcused, not excused,
but unexcused. The way I read the by-laws, the commission could excuse every absence, but if a member
misses four consecutive meetings, that act will be deemed unexcused regardless of whether or not the
individual absences were excused. And we are perfectly able to make such a rule, the statute leaves the
decision up to the commission as to whether or not we want to excuse that action, and our by-laws, adopted
by majority vote on March 09, 2000 clearly states that we do not excuse this.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, the motion: “Those members who have missed four consecutive meetings should
have their names sent to the judge for removal as per our by-laws,” was made at the February 7, 2002
meeting. This motion was approved unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 10:10pm. There was no
motion made to Reconsider during that meeting. According to my interpretation of Robert’s Rules, page
305, lines 26 – 30, “the motion to Reconsider is subject to time limits and can be made only on the same
day the vote to be reconsidered was taken”, therefore any further discussion of the motion is irrelevant. So
far, as I understand it, the motion was made, seconded, and unanimously approved. Therefore, I would like
to respectfully request the Chair direct the secretary to submit the names of the members in violation to the
district court.
Thank you,
Michele Sandback
Commission member