My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2013-04-17_HRC_minutes
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Human Rights Commission
>
Minutes
>
2013 Minutes
>
2013-04-17_HRC_minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/9/2014 10:49:25 AM
Creation date
6/20/2013 8:53:27 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
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
In respect to the HRC, the definition of a meeting is whenever there is a quorum of the <br />Commission present discussing, debating, or deciding official business. Gaughan added that <br />meetings can occur during e-mail communications with a quorum of Commissioners, and his <br />advice to the HRC members to avoid sending emails discussing HRC official business to one <br />another, especially e-mails with a"reply all" option. <br />In response to a question from Chair Grefenberg Gaughan defined official business as anything <br />that required a collective decision of the Commission. Commissioner Thao asked if an e-mail <br />regarding meeting time or location could be considered "official business". Attorney Gaughan <br />replied that the best practice was to run e-mails through staf£ Later on he added that HRC <br />committees—as long as said Committee did not constitute a quorum--could prepare <br />recommendations for the full Commission's action. <br />City Attorney Gaughan understood that emails were an efficient form of communication, but the <br />open meeting law should be carefully followed or the HRC members risk receiving a$300 fine <br />for intentional violations <br />What was the real difference between an e-mail transmitted by staff and one transmitted by a <br />commissioner. Commissioner Becker asked. Gaughan acknowledged that every situation was <br />different, but he was providing the safest general advice. <br />Chair Grefenberg asked if all meeting notices had to have an agenda, referring to an issue raised <br />at a recent League of Minnesota Human Rights Commissions meeting. City Attorney Gaughan <br />stated that it would be appropriate to have an agenda that list out the items for discussion. <br />City Attorney Gaughan said the quorum issue was an important criteria, namely that no more <br />than three Commissioners should be contacted on any official business, and advised that to be <br />safe all items should be sent to staff and then emailed to the HRC. <br />Chair Grefenberg thanked City Attorney Gaughan for clarifying these issues with the HRC. <br />New Susiness <br />Committees and Other Reports <br />There was nothing additional to report at this time. <br />Appointment/Reappointment of Youth Commissioners <br />Discussion of Process: Chair Grefenberg questioned how the HRC would like to proceed with <br />the youth commissioner vacancies. He commented he would like to have a new youth member <br />added before June. He noted that Joan Dao was available to continue serving as a youth <br />commissioner after graduation. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.