Loading...
CHM 11/27/1995 CITY OF FRIDLEY CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING, NOVEMBER 27, 1995 ROLL CALL: Chairperson Mau called the November 27, 1995, Charter Commission meeting to order at 7 : 04 p.m. ROLL CALL: Members Present: Terrie Mau, Don Mittelstadt, Karen Clark, Char Fitzpatrick, Gordon Backlund, Ed Hamernik, Carol Hoiby, Iry Olsen (7 : 11 p.m. ) , Gordon Backlund (7 : 15 p.m. ) , Francis van Dan (7 : 17 p.m. ) Members Absent: Jay Klaphake, Maynard Nielsen, Ralph Stouffer Others Present: Bill Hunt, Assistant to the City Manager Bill Champa, City Clerk Rick Pribyl, Director of Finance APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Ms. Mau stated Mr. Hunt would like to announce changes being made regarding the Charter Commission. Mr. Gordon asked that agenda item 4 .a. be tabled to the next meeting. Ms. Clark asked that agenda item 4 .b. be tabled. Ms . Mau stated agenda item 4 .c. also be tabled since Mr. Nielsen was not at the meeting. MOTION by Mr. Gordon, seconded by Ms. Hoiby, to approve the agenda as amended. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON MAU DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 1 . SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Hunt stated there will be some changes in staffing for the Charter Commission. Effective January 1, 1996, Mr. Bill Champa, City Clerk, will be the staff person for the Charter Commission. Also effective January 1, the Charter Commission will no longer have a recording secretary. The staff person will take minutes of CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING, NOVEMBER 27, 1995 PAGE 2 the meetings in the future. Members will continue to be called for meetings. Mr. Hunt stated Mr. Champa is a competent person. He has worked in charter-related areas as City Clerk. Mr. Hunt will work with him whenever there are changes. In March, when electing officers, the Commission may want to consider having the secretary work with the staff person on meeting minutes. Ms. Mau asked if the Commission could continue to tape record meetings in the future. Mr. Hunt stated the Commission could continue to do so. MOTION by Mr. Mittelstadt, seconded by Mr. Backlund, to present a certificate of appreciation to Mr. Hunt, Ms. Cooper and Ms. Saba for their services to the Charter Commission. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON MAU DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVAL OF OCTOBER 31, 1995, CHARTER COMMISSION MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Hamernik, seconded by Ms. Hoiby, to approve the October 21, 1995, Charter Commission minutes as written. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON MAU DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 2. CONSIDERATION OF SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS FOR 1996 Ms . Mau stated the schedule of meetings for 1996 was included in the agenda. Ms. Hoiby stated the November meeting is scheduled the week of Thanksgiving. Some people take that week off for the holiday. That may pose a problem. Mr. Olsen stated the schedule shows the next meeting as January 29. The agenda states January 26. Which is correct? Ms. Mau stated January 29 is the correct date. MOTION by Mr. Gordon, seconded by Mr. Mittelstadt, to accept the 1996 meeting dates as follows: January 29 May 20 February 26 September 30 CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING, NOVEMBER 27, 1995 PAGE 3 March 25 October 28 April 29 November 25 UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON MAU DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. 3. CONSIDERATION OF CHAPTER 3: PROCEDURE OF COUNCIL Mr. Champa distributed copies of the revised Chapter 3. Mr. Hamernik read the proposal for Section 3.01 Council Meetings, as follows: 3.01 .01 The Council shall hold a regular meeting on or before the ninth day of January of each year. At this meeting any newly elected members of the Council shall assume their duties. Thereafter, the Council shall hold regular meetings at a fixed time at least once each month as prescribed by resolution. A regular meeting is one that is scheduled by resolution, at which formal action is taken, and for which minutes are recorded. 3.01 . 02 A special meeting of the Council may be called as needed by the Mayor or any two (2) Councilmembers upon compliance with the notification requirements of State Law and upon at least twelve (12) hours' notice to each member of the Council. The notice must be communicated personally to each member or to a person of suitable age and discretion residing at the member' s usual place of residence, or notice of the meeting must be transmitted to the member's residence. The presence of any member of the Council at a special meeting shall constitute a waiver of any formal notice unless the member appears for the purpose of objecting to the holding of the meeting. Formal action is taken at a special meeting and minutes are recorded. 3.01 .03 From time to time the Council may hold conference meetings at which matters are discussed but no formal action is taken. 3.01 .04 All meetings of the Council shall be public unless. otherwise specified by law. Any person shall have access to any Council meeting minutes or records at all reasonable times unless access is restricted by state or federal law. (Ref. Special Election 4/12/60, Ord. 857) CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING, NOVEMBER 27, 1995 PAGE 4 Mr. Hamernik opened Section 3.01 for discussion. He met with Mr. Hunt to revise the wording for Section 3. 01 . 02 . At the last meeting, the attorney had made the comment that the way the paragraph was written did not meet the requirements of the open meeting law. The Charter was written to assure members of the Council received proper notification. State law requires the public be protected from officials not having closed meetings. They have added a statement to indicate compliance with the notification requirements of State law. The remainder of the Section is basically the same. Ms. Clark stated this addition also accommodates any future changes in State law. Ms . Mau stated Councilmember Billings also had a question about Section 3. 01 . 01 and asked if there were any changes to that paragraph. Mr. Hamernik stated they had not addressed that. Mr. van Dan stated he was perplexed by the sentence construction in Sections 3.01 . 01 and 3.01 . 02. His interpretation is that both paragraphs have the same message. Section. 3.01 . 01 states, "The Council shall hold a regular meeting on . . . " This sounds to him as if there is only one regular meeting and that is to be held on the ninth day of January each year. It goes on to read, "Thereafter, the Council shall hold regular meetings . . . ", so there is only one regular meeting. His feeling is that they define that the Council shall hold regular meetings of which the first meeting of the year shall be held before the ninth day of January each year. Mr. van Dan stated the same thing prevails in Section 3.01 . 02. This paragraph states a special meeting may be called by the Mayor and it emphasizes at least twelve hours notice to each member. The original verbiage was correct stating "such notice" . The proposed wording simply states "the notice" . "Such notice" would refer to the previous clause. Mr. Gordon stated the way the section was now written, in his opinion, is pretty well defined. He believed they have identified what a regular meeting is and what a special meeting is. Ms. Mau stated, for more clarification in Section 3.01 . 01, the first sentence could read, "The Council shall hold the first regular meeting of the year on or before the ninth day of January. " CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING, NOVEMBER 27, 1995 PAGE 5 Ms. Fitzpatrick stated the Council is putting forth a resolution to establish the calendar for the next year. This could be done at the end of December. This would not be the first meeting of the year. Mr. Hamernik stated this does not specify that the resolution be put forth at the first meeting of the year. Mr. van Dan stated they were creating law and whatever they do must be unambiguous. If there is ambiguity, it is open to misunderstanding. Ms. Clark stated this says the Council has to hold a meeting before January 9th at which time newly elected members are sworn in. Mr. Hunt stated the original language states, "On the first official business day of January following a regular municipal election, the Council shall meet at the City Hall at the usual time for the holding of Council meetings. " Most of the time, the Council meets the first Monday in January unless that happens to be New Years Day. This is to rectify that and to indicate any day they want up to and including January 9. If the Council wants to continue according to practice and meet on the first Monday, they will always be able to meet on a Monday. Mr. Backlund stated, while it may not be technically required, it is clearer in putting in the first regular meeting that this is an important meeting. It is our intent to say that this is an important meeting and that this meeting has a special purpose. Ms . Mau stated she was not sure this addresses the concerns of Councilmember Billings. Mr. Hamernik stated he thought Councilmember Billings was talking about the number of meetings required. This stated the Council must have one regular meeting per month. They can have more than that if they so choose. Ms . Mau referred to Section 3. 01.02 . Councilmember Billings questioned the fact that the Mayor and any two Councilmembers could call a special meeting and the twelve hours' notice. Mr. Hamernik stated the question about two members calling a special meeting other than the Mayor is a decision the group will have to make. Mr. Hunt and he worked on addressing the attorney' s concern about the open meeting law. The intent of the original Charter and the twelve hours' notice is to insure there is not a special meeting without due process of notifying Councilmembers. CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING, NOVEMBER 27, 1995 PAGE 6 Mr. Hunt stated the open meeting law is for the public so they are aware of the meeting. The Charter addresses notice to the Councilmembers. By adding the reference to State law, they have distinguished between the requirements of the State law and the requirements of the Charter. Mr. Backlund asked if the Charter refers to State law in other places or if they refer to Minnesota statutes. Mr. Hunt stated they have tried to avoid specifics. Both may be referred to. Mr. van Dan stated he would prefer the language "State law" because it is more generic. If saying "Minnesota statute", they must then state the statute number and change that number if it changes . Mr. Gordon stated he disagreed. When saying "State law", you then allow yourself to rules and regulations which have the effect of State law when it is enacted. He did not think they would want to subject a document such as this to rules and regulations. They are not put into effect by elected officials through due process. Mr. Gordon stated Section 3. 02. 02 states, "The notice must be communicated personally . . . " Is that notice something that has to be served on each Councilperson? Saying "communicated" leaves it open to verbal notice or does this refer strictly to the notice to be given to the Councilperson such as in an affidavit of service? Mr. Hunt stated the intent was to acknowledge electronic forms of communication including phone message, fax, e-mail, etc. State law does not require formal documentation. State law regards notification of the public. The Charter has created its own parameters. He felt it was not the intent of the original drafters to make it that severe, but they want to make sure all appropriate persons got the message in a reasonable way. Mr. Backlund asked what the customary method was. Mr. Hunt stated the Councilmembers are usually telephoned. The proposed language would clarify the current usage. The present language says notice must be delivered to each member personally. Mr. van Dan stated there are two angles here. If he understood Councilmember Billings correctly, it happened in a suburb where two Councilpersons were at odds and called a Council meeting without notifying the others, stated the others did not show up, and proceeded to have a meeting. On the other hand, we want to avoid CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING, NOVEMBER 27, 1995 PAGE 7 star chamber procedures so you don't have much publicity to the meeting. When notifying under the twelve-hour deadline, it does not keep the public up-to-date so they know there is a Council meeting. Mr. Hunt stated a provision in State law stated the press must be notified that a meeting will take place so the public is served. Ms . Mau stated Section 3. 01.02 would have the following changes: "State law" would be changed to "Minnesota statutes" and the second sentence would begin "Such notice must be communicated . . . " Mr. Hamernik read the proposal for Section 3. 02, Secretary of Council, as follows: 3. 02 The Council shall choose a Secretary to serve at its meetings. The Secretary shall prepare the journal of minutes of proceedings. The Secretary shall also prepare other records and perform other duties as may be required by this Charter or by vote of the Council . The Council may designate any official or employee of the City, except the City Manager or a member of the Council, to act as Secretary of the Council. Mr. Hamernik opened discussion on Section 3.02 . Mr. Hunt stated the secretary is the preparer. Section 6.04 states it is the duty of the City Clerk to keep the records. Ms. Mau stated this was changed to reflect what is actually being done. Mr. Hunt stated it is logical. The secretary has not kept minutes. This language is rectifying practice. The actual responsibility for maintaining and codifying is that of the City Clerk. Mr. Gordon stated he thought Section 3. 02 keeps the chain of connection going. Section 3.02 refers simply to preparing and Section 6.04 indicates who keeps them after they are prepared. Mr. Hamernik read the proposal for Section 3.03, Rules of Procedure and Quorum, as follows: 3.03 The Mayor and other members of the Council each have one vote. Three Councilmembers constitute a quorum to do business, but a lesser number may adjourn from time to time. The Council may determine its own rules and order of business and must keep a journal of its proceedings. CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING, NOVEMBER 27, 1995 PAGE 8 Mr. Hamernik opened discussion on Section 3. 03. Mr. Hunt stated the issue raised by Councilmember Billings was that of a quorum. The present Charter says a majority of all Councilmembers shall constitute a quorum. That refers to all members. If this said a majority of "seated" Councilmembers, it would be different. The majority of all members is three so this is not a substantive change. Saying three members shall constitute a quorum is clarifying language and not changing the language. This raises an issue. If you have less than three members, do you want the Council to carry on business of any sort? Mr. Hamernik stated the previous language did not allow either according to our interpretation. Mr. Hunt stated the language as presented is for clarification. The next question is whether this is what we really want. It does get confusing because, under Ordinances, Resolutions and Motions, a majority vote is required. If there are three seated Councilmembers and an election, Section 2. 06 states the Council shall be the judge over an election of the members, and they could not pass a resolution to canvass the elections. He discussed this with the Charter Commission attorney who said one way to get around that is to reference that section of the Charter. Mr. Backlund stated he thought they should specify that. The intent is not to have two Councilmembers passing resolutions, major changes or taking significant business actions. Mr. Gordon asked if Mr. Hunt was suggesting adding a separate subparagraph or adding verbiage to an existing chapter in order to cover this issue. Mr. Hunt stated, if there is a quorum of three apart from the canvassing of elections, then that would take care of it. Canvassing elections is done by motion or resolution. Mr. Backlund stated they need to provide for this in any event. Mr. Hunt stated, although we try to look at every reasonable eventuality, there is no way the Charter can cover every occurrence that may possibly happen. The attorney is suggesting making an exception to the quorum for the purpose of canvassing elections. Mr. Gordon stated he would propose they do that and that the presenters add verbiage to review at the next meeting. He was not sure if they can come up with exact verbiage at this time. CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING, NOVEMBER 27, 1995 PAGE 9 Mr. Hunt stated he understands the consensus is to hold the quorum at three unless for the purpose of canvassing or certifying elections. Mr. Hamernik presented Section 3. 04, Ordinances, Resolutions and Motions, as follows: 3. 04 Except as otherwise provided in this Charter, all legislation shall be by ordinance. Every ordinance and resolution shall be presented in writing and read in full at a Council meeting. All administrative business may be transacted by ordinary motion. Upon the vote on ordinances, motions, and resolutions, the ayes and noes shall be recorded unless the vote is declared unanimous. An affirmative vote of at least three (3) members of the Council is required for the passage of all ordinances except as otherwise provided in this Charter. Resolutions and motions require a majority vote of the Councilmembers in attendance at a meeting, except as otherwise provided in this Charter. Mr. Hamernik opened Section 3.04 for discussion. Mr. Hunt stated the previous section states three people constitute a quorum. If below that number, everything stops until enough are elected again. This section deals with ordinances, resolutions and motions and tries to address the concern to make a distinction. An ordinance still requires three votes. But a majority is all that is needed for resolutions and motions. Otherwise, if you cannot even make a motion, one person can tie up the entire Council. Mr. Hamernik asked how much city business can be conducted with a resolution. Is that the authority we want to leave? Mr. Hunt stated quite a bit of business can be done by resolution. If there is any dispute in the Council at all with three seated members, it would be difficult to carry on. Alterations in the budget can be made. Four members are needed to authorize a transfer of funds. Basically, if an item is not budgeted, a vote of four would be required to approve it. If an item is budgeted, two out of three members could approve the spending of funds. Three members can pass the budget but they cannot levy taxes. Ms . Clark stated that is an important distinction. If funds are already budgeted, the discussion has taken place and this would be expediting the process if fewer than three members are needed to pass a motion or resolution. It is still a majority of who is there. If you make it that things already approved cannot be CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING, NOVEMBER 27, 1995 PAGE 10 disbursed unless there are three in favor, it could delay city business. It seems that ordinances would require three votes. For things not budgeted, even a simple majority could approve. But for other matters, a majority of those present would insure to keep things moving. Mr. Hunt stated the situation may arise this year where three members may be approving the budget and another meeting will need to be called in order to levy taxes. The adoption of taxes, Section 7.05, requires an affirmative vote of at least four members of the Council. The passage of the budget requires a majority. Technically, if the Council is down to three people, they could pass the budget, but they might not be able to levy taxes. Mr. Gordon stated Section 3.04 is another situation where they need to add a sentence or two to clarify that matter, but it would not necessarily have to have it anywhere else. Mr. Hunt stated this section requires three votes to pass an ordinance and for normal business. Resolutions and motions would require a majority vote of those in attendance at the meeting. It seems this would meet Councilmember Billings' concerns about carrying on the work of the Council. Ms. Mau stated these discussions addressed the concerns expressed by Councilmember Billings at the previous meeting. She asked if the Commission members felt the language as proposed was acceptable. The consensus of the Commission members was to accept the changes as discussed. 4. CONSIDERATION OF CHAPTER 5: INITIATIVE, REFERENDUM AND RECALL (Presenters) a. Sections 5.01 through 5. 09, Commissioner Gordon b. Sections 5. 10 through 5. 12, Commissioner Clark c. Sections 5. 13 through 5.19, Commissioner Nielsen Tabled to the next meeting. 5. CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FILLING VACANCIES ON THE CHARTER COMMISSION Mr. Hunt stated he has the same names as previously discussed. Ms. Fitzpatrick asked if there was a way to get interest from the Council. CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING, NOVEMBER 27, 1995 PAGE 11 Mr. Hunt stated an ad was placed in the paper. He can forward the names he now has or he can advertise again. MOTION by Mr. Gordon, seconded by Ms. Fitzpatrick, to take the time between now and the next meeting to try to get additional names for filling the current vacancies and wait until the next meeting before forwarding names of interested persons. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON MAU DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Mr. Gordon, seconded by Mittelstadt, to adjourn the meeting. UPON A VOICE VOTE, ALL VOTING AYE, CHAIRPERSON MAU DECLARED THE MOTION CARRIED AND THE NOVEMBER 27, 1995, CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:34 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ,3 , 71/c) La onn CooperRecording Secry