My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2007_0210.special_packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2007
>
2007_0210.special_packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/10/2012 12:37:15 PM
Creation date
8/26/2009 3:19:59 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Agenda/Packets
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
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
Roseville City Council - DRAFT Minutes <br />of 2106107 Special Meeting �'� 6 of 10 <br />1 time for any additional research; and then action and moving on to other <br />�. issues. <br />3 <br />� Additional comments included broadening discussion items tonight, rather <br />� than specific issues, many of which involved land use issues, specifically not <br />t� allowing additional testimony beyond what was presented at the Planning <br />, Commission. <br />� Mayor �.lausing summarized discussion and consensus up to this point: <br />7 <br />�;i <br />i� <br />; ;} <br />� :� <br />��� <br />L5 <br />1� To see meetings run more efficiently; <br />2� To pursue working outside of the City Council meeting by task <br />forces or subcommittees, while not appointing additional standing <br />committees to have less impact on staff wnrkloads; and <br />3� The positive consensus in receiving packets earlier. <br />Further discussion involved how best to proceed with individual and <br />��, corporate expectations, whether by written rules and procedures, or whether <br />�? those in place were adequate. Discussion included establishing policies or a <br />3� set of rules for conducting Council business; previous adoption of Roberts <br />� ti� Rules; how and when to televise and tape meetings; and whether the Council <br />'�7 <br />r? � <br />• r•x <br />�3 <br />�� <br />25 <br />i� <br />�r <br />�� <br />�{� <br />: ��, <br />�� <br />.�� <br />�Y ; <br />�;�� <br />_�� <br />�� <br />�r <br />�� <br />�, �� <br />�� <br />was in agreement to move to a more explicit document regarding rules, <br />expectations and policies that would clearly identify norms. <br />Comments included: <br />�) A written record would be easily accessible, but needed to be clear; <br />2) Past experience with having substantial discussion and wasting time <br />by not achieving consensus, or adopting piecemeal rules and <br />procedures; <br />3) The purpose of rules and procedures to accomplish public and policy <br />work; <br />4) Problems in not being able to execute policy and procedure items due <br />to misunderstandings, and the need for a clear benchmark to avoid <br />misinterpretation; <br />5) Resolving issues immediatelywhen misunderstandings or <br />disagreements occur; and iden�ifyin� areas that are working; <br />6) The need to leave a legacy of "how to" for future Councilmembers; <br />7) General rules for broadcasting meetings; <br />8) The need to lceep the specificity level of rules and procedures as broad <br />as possible (i.�., similar to a constitution or framework); and <br />9) Consensus to have the rules and procedures in written format. <br />; <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.