2016.05.10 CC Packet Combined - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Apri126, 2016 Page 10 of 13 Attorney, as has been done in the past by a Councilmember. She believed the City Attorney was not considered a part of City staff and for that reason, she did not have to go through the City Manager. She indicated she was seeking his position on how the language should be forward for the ballot and was not discussing his stance on the matter. She stated she was working on this petition in order to let the people decide in 2016 if the Ordinance should have been approved She believed the Ordinance should be negated and thought that when people didn't like you they acted in peculiar ways. Mayor Johnson stated Councilmember Bauman was out of order and explained she did not have the floor. Councilmember Bauman continued by stating she spoke to the City Attorney for 20 minutes to verify State Statute for her petition. Mayor Johnson indicated Councilmember Bauman could not insinuate that she or any of the Council was being improper when the fact was that Councilmember Bauman had contacted the City Attorney unethically. She then requested clarification from City Clerk Haarstad City Clerk Haarstad responded this Council term issue was something that had been discussed since she was hired in December of 2014. This led her to believe each member of the Council was aware of the situation. She provided further comment on State Statute 205.07 and explained the Council was required to adopt an Ordinance addressing Council temis due to the fact they would no longer be in alignment with previously approved terms. She stated generally, Councilmembers had four year terms. After having a discussion the Council decided to reduce Council terms to three years to align with an even year election schedule. She explained that no matter when the Council took action on this item, there would be some negating of the voters decision from a previous election, due to the fact terms were staggered. She indicated if the Council did not address term lengths within the Ordinance, the teens would automatically be extended Mayor Johnson allowed Councilmember Bauman to continue at this time. Councilmember Bauman stated at the Cable Commission she spoke to eight other individuals regarding the action taken by the Council regarding the term lengths. Mayor Johnson requested Councilmember Bauman not assume that the remaining members of the Council speak with other city representatives regarding Council actions. Councilmember Bauman did not believe it was unusual for City staff to discuss City business with adjacent community staff members. Likewise, she did not believe it was self-serving to bring up this matter. She stated it was her intent to gather information on how they changed their elections to even numbered years. She indicated each of the cities had never changed the terms, but rather shortened the term lengths at the next election. This would eliminate the need to shorten a term that was already approved by the voters. In her opinion, she felt the actions of the Council were wrong. She stated after discussing this with the members of the Cable Commission, she was advised to contact the City Attorney and the actions of the City could be challenged She stated she had a First Amendment right to contact other cities regarding this matter. She stated she had the right and was doing her due diligence in order to make a good decision on behalf of the community. She commented she was not a self-serving individual and never has been. She was appalled that the Mayor was proposing to have her censured as this would take away her First Amendment rights. She believed she was being falsely accused and explained she was being extremely clear with the public as to why she was moving forward with a petition. She supported the voters of New Brighton having the final say on this matter and not the City Council. She reported she had spoken to the Secretary of State and the Speaker of the House regarding this matter to ensure proper protocol had been followed Councilmember Burg reported the discussion should be centered around the fact that Councilmember Bauman contacted the City Attorney. She believed the contact was personal, political and that the City Attorney was brought into this matter wrongly. She understood that all Councilmembers sought opinions from others; however, Councilmember Bauman went to the Cable Commission and presented information that they found "appalling". She did not believe this matter should have been brought to the Cable Commission but rather, should have been discussed with the City Council. She feared that Councilmember Bauman had personally gained by contacting the City Attorney as was noted by Mayor Johnson. Councilmember Snub indicated he did not have access to the private advice of the City Attorney. He stated no single member of the City Council should. He appreciated the questions raised by Councilmember Bauman; however, this was a matter of her actions being a protocol breach and not on the legality of previously approved legislation. While he looked forward to discussing the legislative matter fiuther, it was