The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1979/04/03 - ADMIN - Minutes - City Council - Joint�-- .:��--,------- 2. MINUTES JOINT CITY COUNCIL/CHARTER COMMISSION ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA April 3, 1979 Call to Order MEETING A joint meeting of the St. Louis Park City Council and Charter Commission was called to order by Mayor Stern at 7:51 p.m. Roll Call The following Councilmen were present at roll call: Martha Elstrom Jerrold Martin John Ralles Irving Stern The following were present: Charter Commission members Pat Bestler David Dombrowski Eth�el Graves Bill Hanley Bruce Humphrey J i m Hyde Jean Miller Burton Weisberg Charles Bastis Natalie Gaull Erica Buffington Jim Heltzer 3. Pro osed Charter Jim Heltzer, Charter Commission Chairman, Amen ments explained the Charter Commissian sub- mitted two proposed Charter amendments for Council consideration in October, 1978. After conducting a public hearing and deferring action�for several months, the City Council subsequently rejected the proposed amendments. For this reason, he explained the Charter Commission felt it may be beneficial to meet with the City Council to discuss the proposed amendments. , Bill Hanley and Jim He1tzer describCharterpr�Theeintentdandts to Sections 2.04 and 2.09 of' the City rational of the amendments was reviewed and it was explained that the Charter Commission was not unanimous in its action recommending amendment of section 2.04 perta�ning to City Councilmen being empioyed by the City. Natalie Gaull expressed concern regardinb tthemCitydCouncil d whi ch , the proposed amendmentsdmentscweredconsidered together and no � She explained both amen She requested that ,explanation was given for their re�ec�nsnre�garding the amendments. the Council convey its specific conce Ma,yor Stern May 7, 1979, ically react suggested the propose�0aa11ow�the City Coun�O�osednamendment. to each p p Councilman Elstrom compared the allowing City employees to serve ..gg_ proposed on �h� be placed Council to amendment to Ci ty Counci 1, on the speci f- section 2.04, to teachers � �"""-,�ri�t � 4. SeT�V111q a i n ordel,. City Coun cil/Char�ter Conmiissi�n min�ates April 3� 1�79 board; she stated such a provision may nat be SCh00� iartin objected to the repor� describiegcludepemployees Counc�lman � t�e cited c�ty charters do not amend►nent statin9 in on the City Council and the.retroact�oeosedvmethodQ from serv g the amendment would not be in confl�ct w�th t e p p of adoption. J im Heltzer explained thai the salient issue addWassWhetherhe Cha►•ter Commi ssi on i n i ts study of secti on 2' �havi rtg empl oyees or not sound public policy would be�sess�onbcould not be con- elected to the City Council, the Co cerned with how the amendment would affect one no��indtota1 He reiterated that members ofn�nent�andsan�extraordinary number accard on the pr-oposed ame of affirmative votes by Commission members is necessary to recommend that amendment to the Charter. Councilman Elstrom stated she would oppose any amendment to the City Charter. John Ralles spoke in opposition to section 2.04 stating a problem may employees are elected to the City retroactive the proposed amendment to result if three or more Council. In response to a question, Jim Heltzer explained the Commission's intent in proposing an amendment to section 2.09 of the Charter providing a sanction for violation of this section by City Council members. Burton Weisberg further explained that concern regarding this section was brought to the Charter Commission in 1976 wF�en the Charter Commission and City Council met in joint session. He explained that at that time, considerable concern was expressed regarding violation of this section of the Charter and the Commission was requested to review this matter; inasmuch as this question is not as great an issue at this time, it may be beneficial to make changes which would avoid future conflict. Following further discussion, the Mayor matters would be again considered by the May 7 , 197 9 . Code of Ethics explained that City Cauncil these on This item was introduced by Mayor Stern and Chairman Nelt2er. A brief review of the Charter Commission's past involvement in studying a code of ethics and how the current Code of Ethics containted in Resolution No. 6170 was adopted by the City Council. Jim Nyde explained the Charter Comnission began some cansideration of a code of ethics in 1976, however, after the Mayor appointed a cor!mission on ethics the Comnission deferred any action pendinq -100- 0 � � � � City Council/Charter Comnission minutes April 3, 1979 its recommendations. After the Mayor's Commission on Ethic' recommendation was not adopted as proposed, the Charter Commission continued its study of this matter. ••, It was the Charter Commiss�on s opinion that Resolution No. 6170 is insufficient to meet the desir objectives of a code of ethics. The Charter Commission has revisedd the original code recorr�nended by the Mayor's Corr�nission on ethics and has resubmitted it to the Council for consideration. Councilman of ethics, essential questioned a code of Elstrom explained several items in the proposed code which were referred to by the Charter Commission as components, are provided for under state law. She whether the Charter Commission proposed to establish ethics as a Charter amendment. Jim Heltze r explained the question of the method of establishing a code of ethi�cs has been considered b.y the Charter Corrmission and the general consensus was that the Charter should not contain such specific provisions as a code of ethics and its method of implementation; greater�interest was expressed in adoption of a code of ethics as an ordinance. He ,added the Commission strongly supports this issue and would consider an amendment to the Charter if its concerns were not adequately addressed. Jean Miller stated she believes Resolution No. 6170 contain specific provisions which would preserve the of a code of ethics over a period of time. does not intent Counci lman Marti n stated al though some ethi cal practices are provided for by state statutes, the statutes may change but the City may continue to want such provisions. Councilman Elstrom said the question of a code of ethics should not be considered in depth without Councilmen Backes and Meland being present as they were involved in drafting the established code. The Correni ss i on and Counc i 1 revi ewed the code of ethi cs proposed by the Cha rter Commission in detail. Referring to sections pertaining to financial disclosure, concern was expressed by Council members that such provisions would constitute an invasion of privacy. In response to these concerns, Jim Heltzer and Natalie Gaull explained the Commission did not share this opinion and believed when an individual runs for public office, and/or is elected, they must forego certain elements of privacy they would otherwise lay claim to. Following considerable discussion of the proposed code of ethics, �Jatalie Gaull suggested that due to the wide difference in opinion between the Commission and Council, a Committee of three members from each body should be established to resolve differences and�prepare a final draft. -101- � Cit Council/Charter Commission minutes April 3, 1979 y It was agreed that a joint Committee would be eubmbt1ahrecom- further study the proposed code of ethics and s mendation to the City Council. 5. Adjournment Recording Secretary There be�ng no further business, the r�eeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m. I rv i r� Mayor -102- � M. ' Stern � � I ��