My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05-15-23-WS
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Minutes
>
2020-2029
>
2023
>
05-15-23-WS
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/13/2023 9:56:32 AM
Creation date
6/13/2023 9:56:13 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
18
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION — MAY 15, 2023 11 <br />Mayor Grant noted it wasn't voted down, it was voted meaningless because of when it would be <br />scheduled. He felt they were having this discussion because someone lost an election. Any <br />councilmember should be able to put an item on an agenda. A couple of emails from <br />Councilmember Fabel weren't well written and on one occasion the City Administrator was <br />confused about which agenda it should be on. Mayor Grant stated he himself was confused <br />about what agenda it should be on but both items were ultimately included on the agenda. He felt <br />the councilmembers should be able to put an item on the agenda whether the rest of the Council is <br />fully on board or not. As a council they should be discussed and accepted or rejected. They were <br />elected to represent the people, not to thwart other councilmembers on a 3-2 vote. There will be <br />things on agendas they may not be in favor of but they shouldn't be trying to thwart the will of the <br />council, other councilmembers or the mayor. <br />Councilmember Monson said she would like to see a more formal process. She liked the idea of <br />items going to the city administrator the Tuesday before, and to make sure the item is an <br />actionable item. She thought the TCAAP open house would have been a perfect discussion for a <br />work session. No one was thwarting anybody, there was a different council and three have a <br />different preference on how to set an agenda. She thought it was not uncommon to have a <br />deadline for an item so staff didn't have to scramble at the end. <br />Councilmember Rousseau felt they need to move forward past negative comments like <br />"thwarting" or about somebody losing an election. <br />Mayor Grant agreed that a deadline is a good idea. His comment involving thwarting was based <br />on Councilmember Fabel's comment that items should go on the agenda based upon a council <br />majority. <br />Councilmember Fabel stated that what he said was an additional item the day of the meeting <br />should require the majority of the council at the meeting. <br />Mayor Grant said that the practice of pulling consent items to discussion items is recognized <br />because someone may have a reason to pull it. <br />Councilmember Holden asked why pulling off consent should be any different, if they have <br />questions they have ample time to follow up with staff. She would like a definition for <br />"actionable". For example, being in favor or not of an open house was actionable to her. <br />Councilmember Fabel said actionable is something that would require a vote to make a decision. <br />Discussion items are what they do at work sessions. <br />Councilmember Holden said so if they want an open house for TCAAP, the answer would be <br />yes or no and is actionable. <br />Councilmember Fabel replied it could be, if there was a certain date you wanted an open house <br />on it would be actionable. <br />Councilmember Holden said then the game is if you're willing to do it that day or not and it gets <br />voted down. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.