My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2003_0127
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2003
>
CC_Minutes_2003_0127
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:33:27 AM
Creation date
2/17/2006 11:18:17 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
1/27/2003
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
40
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 />Regular City Council Minutes -1/27/03 <br />Page 4 <br /> <br />possibly in two (2) weeks. <br /> <br />Mayor Kysylyczyn questioned whether such a pathway <br />would be more appropriate on the St. Paul side, and <br />whether the Citizen Pathway Committee considered the <br />fiscal effect of its recommendations. <br /> <br />C. Legal Opinion - Legal Newspaper Bid <br />City Attorney Scott Anderson reviewed his written legal <br />opinion dated January 27, 2003 provided as a bench <br />handout. City Attorney Scott opined that Council <br />changing the "official newspaper" designation at this point <br />may expose the City to breach of contract, constitutional <br />violation claims and attorney fees claims. Mr. Scott also <br />discussed the applicability of Roberts Rules. <br /> <br />Councilmember Kough questioned whether a contract had <br />been made. <br /> <br />Mayor Kysylyczyn indicated this would con1e back in a <br />week or two. <br /> <br />Mayor Kysylyczyn called on Dr. Richard Verhagen, who <br />opined that no contract had been made and that the <br />Council's original designation of a newspaper fails for <br />lack of a definite timefran1e. <br /> <br />D. Legal Opinion - Committee and Commission <br />Appointments <br />City Attorney Scott Anderson reviewed his written legal <br />opinion dated January 27,2003 provided in response to a <br />request for his interpretation of Council Rule 10 as it <br />related to appointments of City Con1illission members. <br /> <br />City Attorney Anderson opined that Rule 10 would not <br />apply to City Commissioners as delineated by Title 2 of <br />City Code, which provided for the existence of the City's <br />Planning, Parks and Recreation, and Human Rights <br />Commissions and Code Sections 201.02, 203.01 and <br />204.04 providing that the City Council was the appointing <br />authority for those commissions. <br /> <br />2003 Legal <br />Newspaper <br /> <br />Committee and <br />Commission <br />Appointments <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.