My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2009_0810
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2009
>
CC_Minutes_2009_0810
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/19/2009 9:21:13 AM
Creation date
8/19/2009 9:21:11 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
8/10/2009
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
18
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
Regular City Council Meeting <br />Monday, August 10, 2009 <br />Page 6 <br />Ayes: Pust; Johnson; Roe and Klausing. <br />Nays: None. <br />b. Approve Electronic Communications Policy <br />City Manager Malinen presented the most recent draft of an Electronic Commu- <br />nication Policy for the City Council, based on previous drafts and discussions and <br />suggestions of individual Councilmembers and the City Attorney. <br />Mayor Klausing questioned Page I, line 36 (III. Communications with members <br />of the public); and intent of the language for confidentiality and whether that <br />should be up to the Councilmember. <br />Councilmember Pust observed that expectations couldn't be legislated; and sug- <br />gested the word "expect" be replaced with "require." <br />City Attorney Anderson concurred with Councilmember Pust's point, and opined <br />that her suggested language change would be a better choice, and would be con- <br />sistent with State Statute, allowing that either the sender or recipient could choose <br />that correspondence remain private. <br />Mayor Klausing further addressed page 2, line 10 - 12 related to individual Coun- <br />cilmembers copying each other on specific inquiries. <br />City Attorney Anderson advised that this language originated with the sample or- <br />dinance provided by the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT) re- <br />lated to serial communications that were in violation of Open Meeting Law; how- <br />ever, he opined that the statement achieved nothing, and that the City's proposed <br />draft ordinance, Item VI, addressing communication outside the realm of a Coun- <br />cil meeting, provided sufficient language and intent under the law, and to avoid <br />backchannel discussions. ~° <br />Councilmember Pust opined that, if not prohibited, why state the language at all; <br />acknowledging that backdoor communication wasn't being invited, but that there <br />was no need to do more than the law required, to allow for a balance between ef- <br />ficiency and transparency, which should be clear in other areas of the draft policy. <br />Discussion among Councilmembers included specific examples of potential in- <br />quiries that the entire Council may wish to know about; with Council consensus <br />determining that the last sentence (lines 11 and 12) be deleted entirely. <br />Mayor Klausing further addressed language of the first bullet point on page 2, line <br />27 and 28, (Section V. Communication during Council meetings), and questioned <br />the intent of that language. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.