My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2004_0329_Packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2004
>
2004_0329_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/12/2014 9:45:27 AM
Creation date
12/14/2009 1:40:35 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
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.
/
255
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
Organizational City Council Minutes —1/5/04 <br />Page 13 <br />of each month had been eliminated from the meeting <br />schedule. <br />At the request of Mayor Klausing, City Manager Beets <br />noted that with a three meeting per month schedule, there <br />was no rationale for eliminating the first Monday, other <br />than his having done so arbitrarily. Mr. Beets noted that, <br />the purpose of the staff-drafted calendar was to initiate and <br />facilitate discussion only and staff awaited further <br />direction from Council. <br />Councilmember Kough noted, and Councilmembers <br />concurred that by eliminating meetings on the first <br />Monday of each month when possible, allowed additional <br />time for Planning Commission decisions to be processed <br />for Council information before requested action at a <br />business meeting. <br />Mr. Kysylyczyn further challenged the rationale for <br />dropping business meetings to 21 meetings per year, rather <br />than the 30+ held in the last several years; and sought <br />clarification by the City Attorney on state statute <br />differentiation between regular and work session meetings <br />of City Councils. <br />At the direction of Mayor Klausing, City Attorney <br />Anderson responded to the current discussion, opining that <br />as long as the City Council was receiving information <br />within the meaning of State law, there was no difference <br />legally in a regular business or work session meeting; <br />further noting that the Council was in fact proposing <br />holding 32 meetings in 2004, with the intent to provide <br />due public notice prior to those meetings, whether the <br />focus of the meeting were action votes or receiving <br />information; and further noted that the Council had the <br />discretion to revise their schedule as dictated by <br />circumstances or issues, as well as changing the format of <br />the meeting, as long as the meetings were noticed in <br />accordance with Open Meeting Law requirements. <br />Mr. Kysylyczyn further challenged the advantage of <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.