Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />Councilmember Woestehoff replied he would. <br /> <br />City Administrator Ulrich stated that procedurally, what Councilmember Musgrove was alluding <br />to, would require a Charter Amendment. The Council would give it to the Charter Commission to <br />consider, it would then come back to the Council and if it has the unanimous vote of the Council, <br />it could be adopted as a Charter Amendment. If it doesn’t have a unanimous vote of the Council, <br />there is a process to bring it to referendum. <br /> <br />Charter Commission Chair Joe Fields stated that the question comes down to two: were the <br />protocols used in the past utilized this time; and, were those protocols consistent to any governing <br />laws pertaining to this process. He has looked at the Charter and it is silent on where a <br />Councilmember can be on the Charter Commission. He stated that City Administrator Ulrich <br />misspoke and meant to say there is nothing in the Charter to prohibit a Councilmember from <br />serving. He thought, given the power invested in a Charter Commission which limits control to <br />its local citizens, it is a standing constitutional convention. It is the only authority that has more <br />power than the City Council. Now, a Councilmember is going to have a vote and a say on that <br />Commission. He stated if he thought it was going to be a problem, he would have said no from <br />the beginning. He stated they maintain local control, which means they can have a direct say and <br />so can the citizens. To have a Councilmember serve on the Charter Commission is a questionable <br />precedence. He stated consider what was just advocated by the City Administrator, that the Charter <br />Commission would propose a measure to amend the Charter to not allow a Councilmember to <br />serve. If that is done, it must come back to this Council for a unanimous vote when a member is <br />also on the Charter Commission to vote himself out. He stated he would vote himself out, but he <br />suggested that should be done now. He suggested that the Council initiate the measure to change <br />it so no Councilmember can serve on the Charter and they will see if the Councilmember can <br />abstain from that vote. He noted the issue of a grandfather clause would apply to the current <br />Councilmember, which he didn’t think it should apply. <br /> <br />Mayor Kuzma stated the judge appointed Councilmember Woestehoff and has to be aware of the <br />circumstances, given there were multiple applicants, and if there was a problem he wouldn’t have <br />been selected. <br /> <br />Councilmember Howell replied the question isn’t whether Councilmember Woestehoff could <br />legally be appointed by a judge. What has been pointed out is that the circumstances are oddly <br />inconsistent in the advertisement of the position and while legal requirements were met, it made it <br />impossible for a lot of residents to find the position. She questioned why the City Clerk did that. <br /> <br />Councilmember Heineman asked City Attorney Knaak to explain the role of the Charter <br />Commission as it pertains to the City Council. <br /> <br />City Attorney Knaak replied the Charter Commission is a standing constitutional convention for <br />the City. The relationship is just that. It is not a legislative body but is more of a foundational <br />body. He stated there is no legal reason to prohibit it, although some cities choose to do so. He <br />wasn’t sure it is necessary that there is a Charter provision, in their own internal regulations it <br />could be indicated what commissions or other outside activities a Councilmember would be <br />City Council / February 22, 2022 <br />Page 24 of 34 <br /> <br />