My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2005_0523_Packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2005
>
2005_0523_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/9/2014 3:47:52 PM
Creation date
9/14/2009 10:02:10 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Agenda/Packets
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
283
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
City Council Study Session — 05/16/05 <br />DRAFT Minutes - Page 10 <br />courtesy and flexibility; and the time-sensitive nature of some <br />issues coming before the Council. <br />After further discussion, it was the consensus to remove this item <br />from the Rules of Procedure at this time for further discussion. <br />Adjournment <br />Discussion included Robert Rules of Order and supermajority <br />needed to suspend rules; adjournment time versus no additional <br />agenda items after 10:15 �.m.; exception to remove super <br />maj ority rule, and implement simple maj ority ruling; potential <br />penalty of maneuvering; recessing a meeting and notice <br />requirements; recessing to the next regular meeting at Council <br />discretion and as needed; and moving this item to Item 6, under <br />Suspension of Rules. <br />The maj ority opinion seemed to be to remove the language, "No <br />new agenda item will be taken up after 10: � S p.m.," but to leave <br />the remaining language in Section 4; and including it in the same <br />section as "Suspension of Rules;" with concurrence by City <br />Attorney Squires. <br />Suspension of Rules <br />The majority opinion seemed to be to leave the 2/3 majority <br />provision language intact in the "Suspension of Rules" section. <br />Videotaping <br />Discussion included staffing needs and funding; production <br />value; Council quorum and attendance at various events; and <br />definition of "meeting;" and clarification of Council intent to <br />staff. <br />Councilmember Schroeder opined his preference that a11 City <br />Council meetings should be videotaped, with the exception of <br />those meetings of select Councilmembers (i.e., at State Official <br />offices); and that no more remote Council meetings be held due <br />to poor video quality capabilities. <br />Councilmember Kough concurred with Councilmember <br />Schroeder's comments; with the exception that he would prefer a <br />hand held video of ineetings (i.e., State Official offices) for those <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.