Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021/06/16 - ADMIN - Minutes - Charter Commission - RegularOFFICIAL MINUTES CHARTER COMMISSION MEETING ST. LOUIS PARK, MINNESOTA June 16, 2021 5:30 p.m. – Virtual Meeting via WebEx 1. Call to order Chair Maaske called the meeting to order at 5:31 p.m. 2. Roll call and attendance Members present: JC Beckstrand, Jim Brimeyer, Lynne Carper, Jim de Lambert, Terry Dwyer, David Dyer, Sara Maaske, Andrea Rose, and Henry Solmer. Members absent: David Ault, Gary Carlson, Erin Smith Others present: Melissa Kennedy (City Clerk), Soren Mattick (City Attorney), Maria Solano (Sr. Management Analyst) 3. Approval of minutes a. Minutes of April 6, 2021 Charter Commission meeting It was moved by Commissioner Rose, seconded by Commissioner de Lambert, to approve the minutes of April 6, 2021 as presented. The motion passed 9-0. 4. Old business a. Subcommittee recommendations related to review of Home Rule Charter sections 2.09, Interference with Administration, 12.01. Declaration of Policy, 12.18. Personal Financial Conflicts of Public Officials, and 12.19. Financial Conflicts of Associates of Public Officials; Contracts and Transactions Voidable Commissioner Beckstrand outlined the subcommittee’s review process and presented the proposed changes. He stated the commission is responsible for reviewing and maintaining the Charter and effectively serve as the conscience of the community. He added the commission has an obligation to ensure that the provisions of the charter are upheld. He explained following their review, the subcommittee does feel changes to the Charter are needed to provide greater oversight, transparency, and accountability. Commissioner Brimeyer explained that the city attorney provided the opinion that statute does not necessarily provide the Charter Commission with this type of authority over the city council. However, the subcommittee feels that the proposed amendments do fall w ithin the commission’s purview to ensure that the charter is followed and enforced. Commissioner Dyer stated the subcommittee’s intent is to make sure there are checks and balances in place and that the council has oversight so they cannot solely police t hemselves. Chair Maaske asked the subcommittee to summarize the changes that were proposed. Commissioner Beckstrand stated that section 2.08 was amended to avoid potential conflicts of interest that could arise with the city manager or city attorney investigating complaints related to council violations of the charter. He noted there are still questions as to how or when investigations are ordered. In Section 2.09 the subcommittee attempted to provide clarity as to Charter Commission Minutes -2- June 16, 2021 how to deal with council member who may be inappropriately interfering with administration and what constitutes an inquiry. They also attempted to clarify language related to what interference is and how a potential violation is adjudicated. Minor edits were offered to chapter 12 to provide greater transparency and establish that a conflict should not be limited to only financial interests. Commissioner Dyer stated in section 12.14 the subcommittee felt that nonprofit associations should be included because undue influence could still be a factor if a council member served in a leadership role with the organization. Commissioner Beckstrand noted in Section 12.18 the timing of recusal was clarified to establish that it should occur immediately upon discovery of the conflict to avoid the potential for undue influence to occur in other ways prior to a vote by the city council on an action item. Mr. Mattick outlined several legal considerations related to the proposed amendments. He stated the effect of the changes proposed to Secti on 2.08 would give the commission the authority to look into the day to day activity of city departments and staff. He noted the standard legal premise in the state is that the charter commission is expected to operate within statutory guidelines. State law does not currently provide for a charter commission to have this type of oversight authority and the city’s form of government is the council-manager plan whereby the city manager is responsible for oversight of the day -to-day activity of departments and staff. He questioned if the commission’s intent is to have oversight authority over city staff. Commissioner Brimeyer stated the intent was only to have oversight over council, not city staff. Commissioner Dwyer suggested if the commission really wants oversight over the council it should be in a separate section of the charter. Commissioner Carper stated he understood the city attorney’s concerns and agreed that a mechanism for oversight of the council was preferred, not city staff. Mr. Mattick stated that the way 2.09 is written leaves questions regarding the logistics of the investigation process and whether or not the charter commission could have separate investigations of the same issue, meaning both the council and the charter commission could be simultaneously engaged in independent investigations of the same alleged violation. He also noted that the language does not provided the commission with final adjudication authority. Commissioner Brimeyer stated in situations where there is a clear conflict of interest there needs to be a process to compel the council to investigate the issue. He added the intent was not to have concurrent investigations. Commissioner Beckstrand agreed the intent was not to have dual investigations, noting the subcommittee felt there should be a mechanism for the commission to collaborate with the council and allow for an opportunity to ask the council to conduct an independent investigation. Commissioner Rose asked for each commissioner to provide direction on the two questions posed related to oversight authority and simultaneous investigations. Charter Commission Minutes -3- June 16, 2021 The consensus of the commission members was that the commission should not have oversight authority of city staff and that there be a single-track for investigations, meaning the commission would not undertake a simultaneous investigation of the same alleged violation of the charter. Commissioner Carper questioned if the commiss ion should define a process or procedure on how to handle situations in which the commission and the council have conflicting opinions about whether an independent investigation is necessary. He also questioned how and who would determine if a complaint was legitimate and expressed concern about the potential volume of work. Commissioner Brimeyer stated that type of detailed process should be developed outside of the charter. Commissioner Beckstrand agreed, noting the subcommittee attempted to build tha t type of process but found it was too complicated to put in the charter itself. He reiterated the intent is to make sure the council know there is an oversight mechanism. The commission discussed next steps and directed the city attorney to edit the draft amendments to reflect the commission’s intent to have no independent authority over city staff and to provide a single-track method for investigations. 5. New business a. Elect vice chair due to resignation Commissioner Dyer resigned from the Charter Commission after seven (7) years of service because he is planning an out-of-state move. The commission thanked Commissioner Dyer for his work on the commission and wished him well in the future. Chair Maaske asked for nominations to the fill the position of vice chair. Commissioner Beckstrand indicated he would be willing to serve in the role. It was moved by Commissioner Rose, seconded by Commissioner Dwyer, to appoint JC Beckstrand to the position of Vice Chair of the Charter Commission. The motion passed 9-0. 6. Future meetings The commission asked staff to coordinate an in-person meeting of the commission in July 2021. 7. Communications 8. Adjournment It was moved by Commissioner Beckstrand, seconded by Commissioner Dwyer, to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed 9-0. The meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted by: Melissa Kennedy, city clerk