My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2015-02-17_HRA_Agenda_Packet
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Housing Redevelopment Authority
>
Agendas and Packets
>
2015
>
2015-02-17_HRA_Agenda_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/12/2015 3:12:36 PM
Creation date
3/12/2015 3:12:23 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Commission/Committee
Commission/Authority Name
Housing Redevelopment Authority
Commission/Committee - Document Type
Agenda/Packet
Commission/Committee - Meeting Date
2/17/2015
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
117
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
Agenda 3 <br />HRA Meeting <br />Minutes Tuesday, January 20, 2015 <br />Page 16 <br />1 <br />Section 2.6 <br />2 <br />Member Wall sought legal counsel comment noted the sixty day written notification for <br />3 <br />resignations. <br />4 <br />5 <br />Ms. Ingram advised that the reason for the 60-day written notice was to provide an HRA, staff, <br />6 <br />the Mayor and City Council to find a replacement in a reasonable amount of time. <br />7 <br />8 <br />Member Wall opined that such a clause was unenforceable if a sitting Commissioner did not <br />9 <br />wish to remain on the board. <br />10 <br />11 <br />Ms. Ingram recognized that situation; however, she noted it was something to addressed by the <br />12 <br />Minnesota Legislature, since the HRA Act included mirror language, and using Member <br />13 <br />Walls argument, the clause in the Act itself was also unenforceable if a sitting Commission <br />14 <br />chose to go off immediately. <br />15 <br />16 <br />Section 2.7 <br />17 <br />Member Wall asked Ms. Ingram if there was any case law on enforcing this clause regarding <br />18 <br />removal of a Commissioner for inefficiency or neglect of duty; and questioned what defined <br />19 <br />inefficiency. <br />20 <br />21 <br />Ms. Ingram advised that she was not aware of any litigation. <br />22 <br />23 <br />Section 3.5 <br />24 <br />Member Wall suggested that the HRA by-laws reflect reality, and language changed to stated <br />25 <br />that the Secretary may delegate keeping of minutes of all meetings to the Executive <br />26 <br />Director <br />27 <br />28 <br />Member Etten noted references in Section 3.6 that tied into Section 3.5 regarding <br />29 <br />responsibilities of the Executive Director. <br />30 <br />31 <br />Consensus of the body was to leave language in Section 3.5 as is <br />32 <br />33 <br />Section 3.7 <br />34 <br />Member Wall expressed concern that the Executive Director, as an appointed versus elected <br />35 <br />officer, be exempted from this section. <br />36 <br />37 <br />Ms. Ingram suggested a simple fix of adding elected before officer. <br />38 <br />39 <br />The body concurred with this proposed change. <br />40 <br />41 <br />Section 4.3 <br />42 <br />Member Wall suggested changing language to City Clerk. <br />43 <br />44 <br />Ms. Ingram advised that the HRA Act defined clerk, and while not legally necessary to <br />45 <br />further define this section, Ms. Ingram offered to do so at the direction of the body. <br />46 <br />47 <br />Section 5.2 <br />48 <br />Member Wall noted current contracts are executed by the HRA Chair and Executive Director, <br />49 <br />and suggested removing or to continue that policy. <br />50 <br />51 <br />Section 4.6 <br />52 <br />Ms. Ingram noted that the changes made last year by the HRA reflected the change by the City <br />53 <br />from Roberts Rules to Rosenbergs Rules. <br />54 <br />55 <br />Chair Maschka duly noted that, and directed staff to change the documents accordingly. <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.