Laserfiche WebLink
Roseville City Co��aci� - DRAFT Minutes <br />of 2/06/07 Special Meeting �'g 7 of 10 <br />I Councilmembers referenced several documents during the discussion: <br />i identifying previous Council Rules and Procedures; and an August of 2005 <br />� summary of Council discussion on their preferences. <br />.; <br />� <br />[� <br />�I <br />E� <br />�� <br />2� <br />�� <br />Further discussion included individual Councilmember approach to their <br />roles as elected officials; basic procedures so each can perfonn their role <br />effectively within their own individual expectations; global versus specific <br />views for tonight's discussion; advantages and disadvantages of modeling <br />the norms established by Imagine Roseville 2025 subcommittees; series of <br />curfews for each item as noted in the suggested agenda times; how to <br />recognize people for public comment and what procedure to follow (z.e., <br />staff introduction of issue; public conunent, City Council discussion and <br />debate; and vote); and how to educate the public on the public comment <br />process and how to be recognized. <br />E� Additional discussion included individual Councilmember campaign issues <br />�? (�.e., community center, motorcycle officers, tree preservation, park and <br />t� open space preservation); ways to improve communication among <br />t{� Councilmembers outside the meeting format while recognizing open <br />��� meeting law restrictions; respecting comments of individual <br />� 1 Councilmembers; perceptions of the role of Mayor Klausing as Chair of the <br />�y meetings and his attempts to l�eep the meeting moving, rather than hearing <br />�? repetitive arguments; individual Councilmembers expressing their rationale <br />i� for decision-making for the benefit of the public; and the need to keep <br />�� agendas manageable by integrating issues as appropriate and recognizing <br />�+� curfew expectations. <br />,�_ <br />�; <br />�� Further discussion included ways individual'Councilmemberscould address <br />�� their questions to staff outside the public meeting on those items needing <br />��:? clarification (i.e., Check Register); planning agendas with goals of the City <br />? l Council to meet their projected achievements and weighting where to put <br />�? items (�.e., regular or Study Session agendas) and an estimate of discussion <br />?:� time required; and recognizing various cycles on an annual basis (i.e., <br />,�� budget cycle and policy objectives previously establishedby Council). <br />�� <br />�� City Manager Malinen advised Councilmembers that staff was currently <br />��' reviewing their agenda management approach and tools to mal�� planning <br />� fi more efficient, including possibly having draft agendas available for 6-12 <br />�� months ahead; recognizing those items coming up that require long <br />�[� discussions through a"triage" system (i.e., budget; Comprehensive Plan <br />