My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2021_0125_CCPacket
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2021
>
2021_0125_CCPacket
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/13/2022 1:40:37 PM
Creation date
1/13/2022 1:40:18 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Agenda/Packets
Meeting Date
1/25/2021
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
292
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
Attachment A <br />Minutes Excerpt from 9-14-2020 Roseville City Council Meeting <br /> <br />a. Discuss Voting Status of Youth Commissioners <br />Assistant City Manager Rebecca Olson briefly highlighted this item as detailed in <br />the Request For Council Action and related attachments dated September 14, 2020. <br />Councilmember Willmus asked if the City went forward with allowing Youth Com- <br />missioners to vote, is there something that the City can do to create a city contact <br />method for that individual, city email, etc. so the public would be able to engage <br />with them. <br /> <br />Ms. Olson indicated the City does have the ability to create a city email account <br />that the Youth Commissioner would be able to access and would be subject to all <br />of the pertinent data practices. <br />Councilmember Etten indicated in the last discussion, there was mention of talking <br />with the parents and students regarding this. He wondered if that had happened and <br />if so, what came from that discussion. <br /> <br />Ms. Olson explained staff did reach out to different current Youth Commissioners <br />and she did not believe any of them wanted staff to talk to their parents. The feed- <br />back received was that some were okay with it while others did not really care and <br />it was not a huge issue with them. After her discussion with the Youth Commis- <br />sioner on the HRIEC, she would be okay with adding any additional liability but <br />also understood that future Youth Commissioners may not be. She suggested the <br />Council give Youth Commissioners a choice whether to be a voting member or not, <br />based on that liability. She indicated there was not a definitive yes or no from any <br />of the current Youth Commissioners. <br /> <br />Councilmember Groff asked how other cities addressed the liability issue and were <br />there any discussions with neighboring cities about that issue. He found it ex- <br />tremely interesting that the City of Shoreview would have a yes on the Parks Com- <br />mission and a no on the HRIEC and wondered what the logic to that was. <br /> <br />Ms. Olson explained the conversation about Youth Commissioners voting did not <br />come up during her time with Shoreview and during that time, she did not believe <br />there was a Youth Commissioner on their Parks Commission. Ms. Olson noted that <br />often times, votes were not taken and so when Shoreview says they do not have a <br />voting member, there are not many votes that are actually done as the Park Com- <br />mission’s decisions are more consensus based. <br /> <br />Councilmember Laliberte indicated at the last meeting where the Youth Commis- <br />sioners were voted in for another term, she had explained it was nice that all of the <br />Youth Commissioners wanted to sign up again. However, that did not give much <br />opportunity to others wanting to be on a Commission but a way for the City to offer <br />this to more youth, would be to add more Youth Commissioners. She thought the <br />numbers of votes would then become a consideration for recommendations being <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.