My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2005_0219
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2005
>
CC_Minutes_2005_0219
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:24:52 AM
Creation date
5/12/2005 12:21:45 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
2/28/2005
Meeting Type
Special
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
25
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
<br />Special Session of the City Council: <br />Saturday, 02/19/05, Cedarholm Golf Course Clubhouse, <br />2323 Hamline Avenue North, Roseville, MN <br />Page 16 of 21 <br /> <br />limit on public comment and did not think public comment <br />went on too long. He found value in the current format for <br />public comment. <br /> <br />Councilmember Ihlan suggested a 5 minute time limit, she <br />noted that that speakers or residents submitting comments in <br />writing was okay, and that councilmembers should not re- <br />spond to public comment except to refer issues to staff for fol- <br />low-up or to be placed on a future agenda. <br /> <br />Mayor Klausing asked whether public comment should be re- <br />ceived off-camera. He indicated his preference not to do that, <br />stating that such a procedure deprived the speaker of the op- <br />portunity to speak to the community in addition to the coun- <br />cil. <br /> <br />Councilmember Schroeder concurred with the Mayor on that <br />issue. He reiterated his support for videotaping all council <br />meetings, and opined that time limits were a form of censor- <br />ship. <br /> <br />Mayor Klausing felt that time limits were not censorship but <br />were reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions that <br />were permissible under the First Amendment. He asked the <br />Council how they expected to enforce a time limit. <br /> <br />Councilmember Maschka commented that the Council as a <br />whole needs to enforce time limits, such as by adjourning the <br />meeting or voting to have the speaker removed. <br /> <br />Councilmember Kough did not favor time limits on public <br />comment, though he stated that he didn't feel public comment <br />was necessary at council workshops. <br /> <br />Councilmember Schroeder noted mechanisms for enforcing <br />time limits, such as an official timekeeper and possible time <br />lights that indicate when the time limit has expired. <br /> <br />Councilmember Ihlan supported someone being a timekeeper. <br />She noted that speakers could always work through council- <br />members to put longer items on the agenda as separate <br />agenda items. She indicated she was unsure about whether <br />an opportunity for public comment was necessary at council <br />work sessions; Councilmember Schroeder also expressed his <br />uncertainty on that issue. <br /> <br />16 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.