My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2013-05-01_PC_Minutes
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Planning Commission
>
Minutes
>
201x
>
2013
>
2013-05-01_PC_Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/18/2013 11:24:11 AM
Creation date
7/18/2013 11:24:08 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Planning Commission
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Minutes
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
5/1/2013
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
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 />Planning Commission Regular Meeting <br />City Council Chambers, 2660 Civic Center Drive <br />Minutes - Wednesday, May 1, 2013 <br /> <br />1. Call to Order <br />1 <br />Chair Gisselquist called to order the regular meeting of the Planning Commission meeting at <br />2 <br />approximately 6:30 p.m. and reviewed the role and purpose of the Planning Commission. <br />3 <br />2. Roll Call & Introduction <br />4 <br />At the request of Chair Gisselquist, City Planner Thomas Paschke called the Roll. <br />5 <br />Members Present: <br /> Chair John Gisselquist; and Commissioners Michael Boguszewski; <br />6 <br />Gerald Olsen; David Stellmach; James Daire; Shannon Cunningham; <br />7 <br />and Robert Murphy <br />8 <br />Staff Present: <br /> City Planner Thomas Paschke; Associate Planner Bryan Lloyd; and City <br />9 <br />Engineer Debra Bloom <br />10 <br />3. Review of Minutes <br />11 <br />a. April 3, 2013 Regular Meeting Minutes <br />12 <br />MOTION <br />13 <br />Member Cunningham moved, seconded by Member Boguszewski to approve the <br />14 <br />April 3, 2013 meeting minutes as presented. <br />15 <br />Ayes: 7 <br />16 <br />Nays: 0 <br />17 <br />Motion carried. <br />18 <br />4. Communications and Recognitions: <br />19 <br />a. From the Public (Public Comment on items not on the agenda) <br />20 <br />No one appeared to speak at this time. <br />21 <br />b. From the Commission or Staff <br />22 <br />None. <br />23 <br />5. Training <br />24 <br />City Attorney Mark Gaughan was present to review Open Meeting Laws, Data Practices, and <br />25 <br />Electronic Communications. <br />26 <br />Open Meeting Law <br />27 <br />Mr. Gaughan briefly reviewed the Open Meeting Law with all meetings of a government body, <br />28 <br />including the Planning Commission, open to the public, with applicable notice and public access <br />29 <br />identified (e.g. who, when and topics of discussion). Mr. Gaughan noted that there were few <br />30 <br />exceptions statutorily identified where any such communication would be considered private. Mr. <br />31 <br />Gaughan defined when a meeting actually occurred, anytime a quorum of the body was together <br />32 <br />and discussing Commission business. <br />33 <br />Mr. Gaughan cautioned the body on electronic communications and to avoid any perception of <br />34 <br />serial meetings done by e-mail that could be considered a violation of the Open Meeting Law. Mr. <br />35 <br />Gaughan suggested that individual members not “reply all” on any e-mail communications to <br />36 <br />avoid such a violation or perception of any violation. Mr. Gaughan suggested that it was always <br />37 <br />good to err on the side of caution, and rather than risking violations of the Open Meeting Law, <br />38 <br />better to default any discussions for the next public meeting of the body; and to follow the <br />39 <br />Roseville City Council’s Electronic Communications Policy. As public officials, Mr. Gaughan <br />40 <br />advised that it was basically common sense, and if necessary to allow staff to appropriately <br />41 <br />disseminate information to the body. As a general rule, Mr. Gaughan advised that e-mail <br />42 <br />communications should be considered public data unless specifically addressed as private by <br />43 <br />State Statute. Mr. Gaughan briefly reviewed the distinction between individual e-mails versus <br />44 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.