Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Dorn noted that Ham Lake went through the charter adoption process about <br />one year ago. <br /> <br />The first item for discussion with Mr. Dom was the matter of conflict of <br />interest. Mr. Dorn stated that he lives in Ramsey and that anyone who does, <br />is potentially affected by a charter. Mr. Dorn also noted that as a local <br />lawyer, from time to time he must represent clients that have requests of the <br />Ramsey City Council. Mr. Dorn also noted that he owns 30 acres near Bob's <br />Super Valu that he and 4 others are proposing being developed as a golf course. <br />Mr. Dorn stated that he intends to carry the golf course project through <br />Ramsey's procedures himself, that a decision regarding the golf course should <br />be made within the next 90 days and that he cannot see how a charter could <br />affect that project. Mr. Dorn further commented that if he is retained by <br />the Ramsey Charter Commission and a conflict of interest does arise regarding <br />any issue, he would refer resolution of that issue to the Minnesota Attorney <br />General's office. Mr. Dorn also stated that if the Charter Commission should <br />be intending to include some wording in the charter that could render the <br />charter invalid, that also could be reviewed by the Minnesota Attorney <br />General's office. <br /> <br />Mr. Dorn stated that his legal fees would be $40/hour, $60/meeting attendance, <br />no charge for calls to his office that are less than 10 minutes in length, <br />no mileage charge within the metro area but there is a charge for travel time. <br /> <br />Mr. Dorn suggested, in the interest of saving money, that he not be required <br />to attend all meetings, that legal questions could be answered in a 10 minute <br />telephone conversation. Mr. Dorn requested that he~.be mailed a copy of all <br />Charter Commission correspondence, such as meeting minutes. <br /> <br />Mr. Dorn stated that he has no biased opinion regarding city charters and <br />as an attorney, it would be ethically proper for him to forfeit his right <br />to opinion as a resident of the City. <br /> <br />Discussion ensued regarding rules of order. <br /> <br />Mr. Dorn stated that he recommends against adopting Roberts Rules of Order <br />because they can be too complex. Minnesota statute does not require that <br />you operate under Roberts Rules of Order, but if you do and there is a flaw <br />in your meeting according to the minutes, it could affect any action that <br />has been taken at that meeting. Mr. Dorn then recommended that the Commission <br />adopt an informal set of rules from which to operate. <br /> <br />Commission consensus is to have the Rules Committee submit a proposed set <br />rules and procedures for adoption at the next regular meeting. <br /> <br />Discussion ensued regarding open meeting law. <br /> <br />Mr. Dorn recommended posting notice at City Hall and legal newspaper regarding <br />Charter Commission regular and special meetings. Mr. Dorn stated that any <br />meeting of two or more Commission members is subject to the open meeting law, <br />that any pre-arranged function at which two or more Commission members are <br />present on official business constitutes open meeting law. Open meeting <br />law would apply to the Public Opinion Committee, which consists of two members. <br /> <br />CC/June 9, 1983 <br />Page 4 of 8 <br /> <br /> <br />