My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2002_0722
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2002
>
CC_Minutes_2002_0722
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:41:25 AM
Creation date
10/31/2006 9:37:18 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
7/22/2002
Meeting Type
Regular
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 />City Council Minutes - 07/22/02 <br />Page 19 <br /> <br />proposed ordinance prior to Council's discussion of this <br />item. <br /> <br />City Manager Klausing addressed Subdivision 105.02: <br />Indemnification, of the proposed ordinance, questioning <br />the consistency in language between paragraphs 1 and 2. <br /> <br />Mayor Kysylyczyn took exception to Councilmember <br />Klausing's interpretation. <br /> <br />Councilmember Klausing requested City Attorney <br />Jamnik's legal opinion. <br /> <br />City Attorney Jamnik responded that, as drafted, the <br />paragraphs were ambiguous. <br /> <br />Councilmember Maschka concurred with Councilrnernber <br />Klausing, and suggested that City Attorney Jamnik return <br />at a later meeting with a ruling and further refined <br />language of the draft ordinance. <br /> <br />City Manager Beets responded to problems arising from <br />past practices and improvements in current practices, in <br />accordance with data practices, for public access to <br />information and questioned the need for a City ordinance <br />above and beyond those sufficiently addressed by state <br />data practices legislation. <br /> <br />Further discussion involved other subdivisions of the <br />proposed ordinance, with no consensus available. <br /> <br />Kysylyczyn moved, Schroeder seconded, to direct City <br />Attorney J amnik to further clarify Section 1, Subdivision <br />105.02 with more precise legal language. <br /> <br />Ayes: <br />Nays: <br /> <br />Roll Call <br />Schroeder, Kough, and Kysylyczyn. <br />Klausing, Maschka. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.