Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-02-21 CHC MIN City of Stillwater Charter Commission Feb. 21, 2006 Present: Mary Ruch, chair Wayne Anderson, Ned Gordon, John Lund, Dorothy Molstad, Patrick Needham, Dwayne Nelson and Terry Zoller Absent: Gene Bealka The meeting was called to order at 7 p.m. Ms. Ruch introduced new member Terry Zoller. Approval of minutes: Mr. Gordon noted a typo on page 2 -- statute. Minutes were approved as corrected. Application process update: Ms. Ruch stated that, as suggested by Ms. Molstad, the application is listed under the Charter Commission on the City's web site. Vacancies had not been posted, but Ms. Ruch said she had asked staff to include that as well. The form of the application, she said, is the same as the City uses for all other Boards and Commissions. Ms. Ruch said applicants are now directed to send completed applications to the Commission, rather than the City. Ms. Ruch said she thought applications should be sent to both the Commission and the Chief Judge. It was noted that the Commission can made recommendations to the Judge regarding appointments or applicants may contact the Judge directly within the first 30 days of a vacancy. If no appointment is made after 30 days, the City can make the appointment. Update on Councilmember membership: Ms. Ruch gave an update on the discussion at the previous meeting. The City's Charter does not preclude Councilmembers from serving on the Charter Commission, and it was the consensus at the last meeting that the Charter should be amended to do that. The rationale, she said, is that the Charter Commission is the constitutional rule-making body in municipal government. If the people carrying out the policies are also making the rules, that flies in the face of 9 9 balance of power, she said. Also, she noted a function of the Charter Commission is to draw Ward boundaries, which could result in a conflict of interest if Councilmembers are allowed to serve on the Commission. Ms. Ruch said Attorney Magnuson is going to talk to the Council and ask if the Council is willing to pass an ordinance (amendment to the Charter) that would preclude Councilmembers from serving on the Commission. If The Council is willing to take that action, Ms. Ruch said Attorney Magnuson would be asked to draft the amendment and send it on to the Council. Mr. Gordon noted that there was some discussion at the last meeting regarding the possibility of a joint workshop with the Council and asked if that possibility had been mentioned to Mr. Magnuson. Ms. Ruch said the workshop would be a possibility depending on the Council's reaction to the suggested ordinance/amendment. Mr. Nelson asked what action the Commission would take should the Council not be open to the ordinance/amendment. Ms. Ruch said at the last meeting, there was consensus that the Commission would take the matter to a referendum if that was the Council's position; any referendum would be scheduled to coincide with the general election to minimize the expense to the City, it was noted. Old business: 1) Scrivener's changes: Mr. Gordon said he had talked with Mr. Magnuson about the changes, and Mr. Magnuson said the proposed changes are fine. Mr. Magnuson said he would draft the Charter with the changes but had been too busy to do so. Mr. Gordon said the draft may be ready by the Commission's next meeting. New business: Resignations and term limits: It was noted that as of May 1, there would be two openings on the Commission — Ms. Ruch's position and Mr. Anderson's. Ms. Ruch said the City has put out notice of the pending vacancies. Ms. Ruch said she had spoken with the Chief Judge's clerk and the only applicant thus far is Jeanne Anderson. It was noted there was an article in a local paper regarding the vacancies; Ms. Molstad asked that a copy of the article be included in the next agenda packet. Ms. Ruch said it was her interpretation that the Commission had 30 days from the notice of vacancy to make an appointment or the appointment would fall to the Council. She said City Clerk Diane Ward's interpretation is that there is a 90-day notice period and then the 30-day period in which the Commission has to make an appointment. Attorney Magnuson does not agree with the latter interpretation, Ms. Ruch said, so there is some discrepancy as to the timeline of the appointment process. Mr. Gordon read the state statute regarding appointments and the 90-day time limit; the Chief Judge has up to 90 days in which to make an appointment. Ms. Ruch asked Commission members their wishes regarding recommending the appointment of Jeanne Anderson. Mr. Zoller said he knew of one additional person who had expressed interest in making application and said he would be hesitant to make a recommendation without knowing for sure who had submitted their name for consideration. Ms. Molstad suggested the Commission could take action on Jeanne Anderson's application without impacting anyone else who had submitted their name as there are two vacancies. Ms. Ruch pointed out the Commission would not be meeting again in the 30-day time period. There was brief discussion regarding Ms. Anderson's previous appointment and resignation due to a potential conflict of interest, which has been resolved. Mr. Gordon pointed out that there is a potential for future conflict of interest arising from a lawsuit, for example, with any member. Mr. Zoller asked if the Commission was required to make a recommendation; Ms. Ruch said that is not a requirement but she suggested it is incumbent on the Commission to be proactive in the matter or the Commission, in effect, becomes an extension of the Council. Ms. Molstad moved to recommend the appointment of Jeanne Anderson to the Chief Judge. Mr. Nelson seconded the motion. Mr. Zoller again expressed a concern about not knowing whether additional people had applied and questioned the need for a recommendation if there is indeed just one applicant. Ms. Molstad suggested that a recommendation will facilitate the process. Mr. Gordon noted there is an additional opening available and not making a recommendation on Ms. Anderson's application results in defaulting the appointment decision to the City. Mr. Gordon called the question. Motion to recommend Ms. Anderson's appointment passed 7-1, with Mr. Zoller voting no. Mr. Anderson asked which position Ms. Anderson is being recommended for appointment to, pointing out that the vacancy for the seat currently held by Ms. Ruch is for a full term, which the vacancy for the position he current holds is to fill his unexpired a term. Ms. Ruch said that is a non-issue as the law has changed and there are no longer term limits for Commission members, but suggested the Commission may want to think about setting its own term limits. Eminent Domain: Mr. Nelson asked if this was an appropriate issue for the Commission to look at. It was noted eminent domain is a part of the City's Charter. Ms. Ruch pointed out there is legislation pending that would limit powers of eminent domain. If successful, the legislation would affect the Charter as the Charter references state law. Mr. Gordon said since it is in the Charter, it is an appropriate issue for the Commission to deal with, but when the issue was first brought up, the Commission felt its position should be to monitor what is going on at the state and local level. Mr. Gordon said he didn't think there was anything more the Commission could do at this time other than let things gel. Mr. Needham said the Commission needs to know what it is dealing with before taking any stand on the issue. There was discussion of several instances of the questionable use of eminent domain that has brought the issue to the public's attention. The next meeting was scheduled for May 15. Mr. Needham, seconded by Mr. Gordon, moved to adjourn at 8 p.m. Motion passed unanimously. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary