02/07/84 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I a) Reduce hearing procedures to writing and distribute to ' affected persons. I b) DO not v~clate the open meeting la~~. In the recent case of ~cberg v. Independent School District No. 281, 336 N.W.~0 (July 1=~, 198~,~]~'~-~oT~r~d ~-~-{--~-n order for There to be a violation of the open ' m~eting law, a quorllm or more of the membersm ~f th~ [ g~verningdecidebOdy, subc°mm~gte[~f~m[°mmissi°n,- .- ~- ~' tion must I i d~scuss, or rece' e . at a meeting ~ Which is not open. H~wever,~ be conservative. A : p~anning conmission member or council member should not I t~lk to another planning co~ission member privately or . C6uncilmember about how he/she intends to vote. Be careful about any substantive discussion of the . i~sues. If you must communicate about potential · vDting, talk to the city planner, attorney or aclministrator. c) A~ of August 1, 1983, open meeting law statute M.S. ' 471.~75 requires that materials distributed to governing body be made available to public. d) i! I~ you inspect the property, state in the public record, when, with whom, what your observations were. e) . If someone communicated to you about the application o~tside of a public meeting, state in the public record Who, when and what was said. f) ~i DO not force the city staff to rush a review. When the Iapplicant wants to hurry up, slow down. g) City staff, planning commission and council should i a}ways remember that any matter before them could be l~tigated. h) City staff must 'litigate the case before the planning I c~mmission council, applying to and the facts the ;i a~plicable law which normally consists of the standards in the ordinance. Staff should identify the applicable I l~gal tests and relevant facts for each test. -i), The applicant should be allowed to examine and c~oss-examine witnesses, perhaps even the planning c~mmission and council. Each witness should state h~s/her name and address before speaking for the first ~' t~me and name only before each subsequent statement. -27-