Laserfiche WebLink
Regular City Council Meeting <br />Monday, February 23, 2009 <br />Page 20 <br />language was based on a model from the League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) with <br />suggestions for outlines and content; and that it was provided as a framework for <br />further discussion. Mr. Malinen provided, as a bench handout, additional infor- <br />mation related to such a policy. <br />City Manager Malinen noted that, in discussions with City Attorney Jay Squires, <br />there was some question as to the benefit and/or consistency of a disclaimer for <br />staff e-mails, as addressed on Page 3, line 21; and whether it should be included <br />as a part of that policy. <br />Discussion included individual Councilmember comments to the proposed policy, <br />as indicated in red, in the draft. <br />Mayor Klausing expressed concern that City Councilmembers be prohibited from <br />participating in list serves, if items were not being deliberated or pending before <br />the City Council; and, allowing for more public discussion for elected officials <br />with their constituents; and considerations of First Amendment Speech rights and <br />Open Meeting laws. <br />City Attorney Anderson noted that the draft was prepared from language in the <br />League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT) with a concentration on <br />risk analysis and concerns; and that his office been asked to draft language based <br />on previous City Council discussion they would do so with fewer restrictions. <br />Mr. Anderson opined that his office did not necessarily think the draft policy was <br />appropriate as presented, but that it was in keeping with the direction given to <br />them to draft a policy based on LMCIT policy language to initiate discussions and <br />to serve as a talking point. Mr. Anderson advised that his office would take into <br />consideration case law to-date, as identified in his previous Apri12, 20091etter. <br />Councilmember Pust opined that the City Council needed to seek recommenda- <br />tions of their City Attorney, not just consider what was the best version of LMCIT <br />proposals. <br />Councilmember Pust requested additional information based on language address- <br />ing retention issues for individual home computers, addressed on Page 4, Section <br />VI, and data retention consistent with law, but not in perpetuity. <br />Councilmember Johnson concurred with Mayor Klausing, asking that more in- <br />formation be provided on First Amendment Rights; expressing concern that free- <br />dom of speech rights were being squelched, in addition to not encouraging public <br />discussion. Councihnember Johnson questioned whether, by his serving as part <br />of a governing body, he had given up some of those rights. <br />Mayor Klausing responded that Councilmember Johnson's concerns were valid <br />from a public policy standpoint, when elected officials should be encouraged to <br />