2009-10-27_PWETC_AgendaPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Member Stenlund asked when the 95°/n plan for the Rice Street interchange will be done. Duane Schwartz answered around. the end of the year or early January. Member Stenlund asked if it would be possible if the consultant for the Rice Street interchange project could come and give a presentation about the storm water pollution prevention plan. Duane Schwartz answered he would check on this. Member Stenlund asked if the noise wall on the north side of Highway 36 was approved. Deb Bloom answered that it was approved. Deb Bloom mentioned the proposed mill and overlay of the remaining portion of Snelling Avenue from County Road B to Roseville's south boundary. MnD4T is considered this for next year. 5. Electronic Communication Policy Scott Anderson, presented the policy for electronic communications. The policy is a set of guidelines and a list of things to be aware of. It is meant to raise awareness of some of the pitfalls that can occur with committees dealing with electronic media. The policy is intended for all councils and committees that are formed. A point in the policy that is sped c to the City Council and not committees is that communication with the public cannot be expected to remain confidential. This is due to the fact that City Council members are elected to their positions. There is a specific article of the Data Practices Act that states communication with an elected official even if it is private can be made public either by the sender or recipient. This is more of a warning to members of the public. Communication with committees is always public because of a default in the Data Practices Act that all government data is considered public unless there is a provision in the act that makes the communication private but there is nothing in there. Member Vanderwall asked is it a free choice to make a communication. public instead of private. Scott Anderson answered yes it is. Member Vanderwall then asked. if a member of the public heard about a private communication but both parties wanted to keep it private, could it become public. Scott Anderson answered it could not be forced public.. It would remain private until either the sender or the recipient decided to make it public. Scott Anderson stated in order to avoid claims of violation of the open meeting law, Section 4 of the policy states try to rr~ake communication one way. An example would be if a committee member had questions or comments about the reading material Duane Schwartz provided to the Public Works Environment and Transportation committee it is encouraged that communication should be directed only to Duane Schwartz. Then Duane Schwartz could communicate back to the rest of the committee. 4