My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2003_0203
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2003
>
CC_Minutes_2003_0203
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:33:31 AM
Creation date
2/17/2006 11:40:07 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
2/3/2003
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
23
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 - 2/3/03 <br />Page 9 <br /> <br />that contract elements are in place in the City's previous <br />acceptance of the original proposal. Mr. Squires stated <br />that while the Attorney General's opinion would probably <br />hold, the City could redesignate, possibly prompting <br />ensuing discussion. Mr. Squires stated that the City did <br />not solicit sealed bids, simply an RFP process. <br /> <br />Mayor Kysylyczyn asked City Attorney Squires if the <br />motion on the table specifically violated law. <br /> <br />City Attorney Squires stated that, on its face it raised <br />questions addressed by City Attorney Anderson's legal <br />opInIon. <br /> <br />Councilmember Klausing spoke against the motion, <br />opining that, while it may not be illegal, was this <br />something the Council wanted to do from an integrity <br />and/or ethical standpoint. Councilmember Klausing stated <br />that costs to defend the City's second request for the RFP <br />process could be prohibitive to any cost savings realized. <br /> <br />Councilmember Kough spoke against the motion, opining <br />that the integrity of the RFP process would be damaged. <br /> <br />Further discussion included whether or not a contract <br />existed; whether the City should consider expending <br />additional energy and resources on potential defense of <br />this issue; <br /> <br />Councilmember Maschka spoke against the motion, <br />opining that the Council needed to consider whether this <br />action was considered good public policy to enter into <br />RFP's and then not honor the RFP process; and whether or <br />not the City's integrity was at stake, whether or not it was <br />later determined if a contract did or did not exist. <br /> <br />Roll Call <br /> <br />Ayes: <br />Nays: <br /> <br />Kysylyczyn. <br />Kough, Klausing, Maschka and Schroeder. <br /> <br />Kysylyczyn moved, Schroeder seconded authorizing the <br />City Attorney to refer this issue to the State Attorney <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.