Laserfiche WebLink
� <br />i <br />� <br />� <br />� <br />�r <br />�� <br />LI <br />�� <br />r� <br />i �� <br />�� <br />�o�evi��e City Council - DRAFT Minutes <br />of 2/06/07 Special Meeting Pg 7 of 10 <br />Councilmembers referenced several documents during the discussion: <br />identi�ying previous Council Rules and Procedures; and an August of 2005 <br />summary of Council discussion on their preferences. <br />Further discussion included individual Councilmember approach to their <br />roles as elected officials; basic procedures so each can perform 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 establishedby 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 (�.e., <br />staff introduction of issue; public comment; 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 />t� Additional discussion included individual Councilmember campaign issues <br />� r (i.e., community center, motorcycle officers, tree preservation, �ark and <br />S� open space preservation); ways to improve communication among <br />�� Councilmembers outside the meeting format while recognizing open <br />�:�� meeting law restrictions; respecting comments of individual <br />�� � Councilmembers; perceptions of the role of Mayor Klausing as Chair of the <br />�� meetings and his attempts to keep the meeting moving, rather than hearing <br />� 3 repetitive arguments; individual Councilmembers expressing their rationale <br />� for decision-making for the benefit of the public; and the need to keep <br />�5 agendas manageable by integrating issues as appropriate and recognizing <br />z � curfew expectations. <br />�'; <br />�� Further discussion included ways individual Councilmembers could address <br />�� their questions to staff outside the public meeting on those items needing <br />;o clarification (i.e., Check Register); planning agendas with goals of the City <br />3 l Council to meet their projected achievements and weighting where to put <br />�� items (i.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 />�5 <br />�� City Manager N�a�inen advised Councilmembers that staff was currently <br />3? reviewing their agenda management approach and tools to make planning <br />,� more efficient, including possibly having draft agendas available for 6-12 <br />3� months ahead; recognizing those items coming up that require long <br />�r� discussions through a"triage" system (i.e., budget; Comprehensive Plan <br />