MINUTES
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Monday, September 18, 2006
City Hall,
Room 604
6:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Council President Chad Fradette, Council Vice-President Chris Wery,
(arrived late), Ald. John VanderLeest, Ald. Celestine Jeffreys, Ald. Jerry
Wiezbiskie
MEMBERS EXCUSED:
Ald. Tom Weber
OTHERS PRESENT:
Mayor Jim Schmitt, Ald. Tony Theisen, Ald. Gary Kriescher, Chief Craig
Van Schyndle, Chief Jeff Stauber, Sheriff Dennis Kocken, Brown County
Supervisor Harold Kaye, Allison Swanson, Chad Weininger, other interested
parties
1.
Call to order.
The meeting was called to order by Chairman, Chad Fradette at 6:00 p.m. Roll call was taken as noted above.
2.
Approval of the Agenda.
Motion made by Ald. VanderLeest, seconded by Ald. Wiezbiskie, to approve the agenda and to take items in the following order: 3, 5, 4, 9, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11 & 12, and to combine items 6&8. Motion carried.
3.
Approval of the Minutes of the July 13, 2006 meeting.
Motion made by Ald. VanderLeest, seconded by Ald. Jeffreys to approve the minutes of the July 13, 2006 meeting as submitted. Motion carried.
5.
Discussion and action regarding a resolution allowing
bid rights for tax increment financing of private construction projects.
Allison Swanson said this came about from discussion amongst
developers and the City wishing to encourage more interplay between the unions
and non-unions in bidding, particularly when they are using city funds. There
are currently no requirements or policy with TIF funding and they wanted to
encourage more solicitation of bids amongst all groups. She stated that this language has been
agreed to by developers and they don’t find it to be a hindrance. At the request of Ald. VanderLeest, she read
and explained a resolution relating to bid rights, stating that the first
section encouraged competition of bids particularly with the use of TIF funds,
said signatory and non-signatory refers to union versus non-union building and
trades organizations who would be allowed to have access to private developers,
third paragraph states that we want to avoid strikes or lockouts and that
labor-management will work amicably and quickly to settle disputes, the next
paragraph states that the intent of the resolution is to increase job
opportunities for local building and trades labor and to increase the hourly
wage through use of union labor, and summed up by stating that the City wants
to encourage bidding by both types of contractors.
Mayor Schmitt said if there is government tax money
involved, the project should be bid fairly and the resolution still allows the
decision to be made by the developer, but said the city wants the bidding
process to be fair on all projects.
Allison said John Vetter agreed to this type of language in his last
agreement and she believes other developers would agree to it as well, adding
that she doesn’t see it as a significant change to hinder development here and
said usually in the end with the low bid there is a union and non-union bidder.
Motion made by Ald. VanderLeest, seconded by Ald. Jeffreys
to suspend the rules to allow interested parties to speak. Motion carried.
Jack Heyer, 3904 Silver Bow Drive, Green Bay, was speaking
on behalf of the construction workers that he has worked with the past 30
years. He said in light of what’s
happening downtown and with all the work that has been going on, there is a
concern in the construction industry that there is a closed bid practice at
times and said the closed bidding process doesn’t allow for fair bidding;
doesn’t open it up to all types of contractors. He said if you have a general contractor that has relationships
with certain contractors, he doesn’t feel it’s fair to the public for the TIF
money to be spent when it could be portioned out fairly and to the best dollar
for the right amount of quality of work that could be performed. He stated that
they met with the Mayor with a number of people in the industry to express
their concern in the past year. He
asked for the committee’s support on this resolution and said it would be an
advantage for the taxpayers to get the best dollars for their construction
costs.
David Youngbluth, N.E. Wisconsin Building & Construction
Trades Council, 18401 W. Cory Road, Reedsville addressed the Committee stating
that the Building Trades Union want to be recognized as business people in the
City and said if this resolution is passed and the bidding is open and fair,
there is a clause that says the Unions are going to help out with the no
strike/no lockout. He stated that their
organizations are business minded and are here to help the community grow and
to see these projects go smoothly in the future.
Jeff Knaus, 2204 Sullivan Ave., Kaukauna, represents the
1900 members of their Local Plumbers and Steamfitters, Local 400. He stated that in their eyes this resolution
will insure that the most responsible bidder is the one who will be gaining
that project, whether they are union or non-union. He said they are looking out for what’s in the best interest of
the taxpayers.
Motion made by Ald. VanderLeest, seconded by Ald. Jeffreys
to return to regular order of business.
Motion carried.
Ald. Jeffreys believes the resolution is a great idea and
appreciates the unions agreeing to no strikes or lockouts. She said she looks forward to a bidding
process that gives everyone a level playing field and said we need to support
our tradesmen and women and let them compete on various projects.
Ald. Fradette read a letter from Tony Vanderbloemen,
President of the Greater Green Bay Labor Council, which urged the Committee to
support the Resolution, and stating that the resolution will level the playing
field for all contractors who want to bid on development projects that are
publicly financed or publicly guaranteed by the City of Green Bay.
Motion made by Ald. VanderLeest, seconded by Ald. Jeffreys
to approve the Resolution Allowing BID Rights for Tax Increment Financing of
Private Construction Projects. Motion
carried.
The Resolution will be presented for Council approval in two
weeks. Allison said they could have
that resolution at the same time as we report out from this meeting, so once
this item is approved on the report and is approved with the other resolutions,
it’s passed.
4.
Discussion and action regarding the Brown County
Public Safety Communications Center and Supervision of the Director of Public
Safety Communications.
Ald. Fradette distributed a position paper from Chief Stauber and Chief Van Schyndle. Motion made by Ald. Wiezbiskie, seconded by Ald. Jeffreys to open the floor to allow interested parties to speak. Motion carried.
Chief Van Schyndle addressed the Committee stating that one
of the problems we have with the Communication Center dates back to it’s
beginning because it was developed for political reasons and the number one
idea was to save money for the county and the municipalities. He said the safety of the personnel and the
safety of the community came second. He
indicated that when the Center was first developed it didn’t have nearly enough
staffing so the staff was working 16 hours a day and the experienced people
were quitting. He said the newly
trained people also were leaving and the lack of experience in the
Communication Center led to the Police officers becoming frustrated because of
all the mistakes. Chief Van Schyndle
said his officers continuously submitted continuously papers to the Center
stating that these are the mistakes that are happening and are threatening our
lives and the community. He stated that
Mr. Nichols came in as director and vastly improved the situation, first by
getting the staff that he needed and then getting them properly trained. He said it took a long extended learning
time and the staff is now beginning to make fewer mistakes. However, he stated that his officers no
longer trust the Communication Center Staff because when they make a mistake,
it’s magnified because his officers are really watching them.
The Chief said another problem is an aging infrastructure
and problem with interoperability; an agency cannot talk to another
agency. He said we have buildings on
the far east and west side that an officer or firefighter cannot communicate
with the Communications Center. He said
this became a political nightmare within the County. He said we now have lost
Director, Jim Nichol and the political infighting is still going on and this is
not acceptable. He stated that we cannot have this political fighting on a
Communications system that is vital to this community and to rescue personnel.
Chief Van Schyndle reviewed four options that he has laid
out and said there is an exceptional individual whose appointment is going
before the County Board next Wednesday.
His first option is to have the Center remain under a director,
controlled by the Brown County Sheriff’s Department and a Steering
Committee. Second option is that it
stays the same under the new director, reporting to the County Executive. Option three would be to have the Center
back under the Police Dept. but that would cost millions of dollars. His last option is to have the Center fall
under the Police Dept. but be county funded, but added that this would put it
back into the political realm again because the Police Dept. would be trying to
get the financing for the staffing and the infrastructure.
In summary, he stated that he only sees options 1 and 2 as reality. He added that he would like to see the candidate approved either way, whether she would report to the County Executive, or to the Sheriff. Chief said other communities have gone to civilian staffing in their Communication Center and said we would have been o.k. if our center would have had proper staffing from the start and said our good leadership left; 5 directors in the last five years. He stated that the exceptional candidate we spoke about has formed a Communication Center with 13 counties in Maryland. Ald. Jeffreys inquired about Homeland Security money to fund a Center? Chief responded that there is some money out there but it has to be regional; there has to be other counties coming in, and again stated that this new candidate has done this.
Chief Stauber said he and Chief Van Schyndle agree on some
issues and on some of the final recommendations as far as who they think should
be operating or in control of the system.
He reviewed his position paper stating the 911 Public Safety Answering
Point is primary to the successful outcome of every emergency in the
county. He stated that If things get
messed up when they take the call, or when they transfer it to the proper
agency, or communicate with the responders in the field, it’s could be a
disaster. He said the staff at the
Center are dedicated employees to the safety of the public but said they
haven’t been given the tools in the form of training and relief from the long
hours they’re putting in. He stated that in addition, the system upgrades that
should at least be in the strategic plan at this point are not there. Chief Stauber said they lost their
communication liaison as part of a budget change, and have nobody in the Fire
Dept. that is dedicated to their records software or radio communications. He stated that he agrees with Chief Van
Schyndle that the center was understaffed from the beginning to make it
attractive to the taxpayers and said this is a recipe for disaster. He said they saw progress when Jim Nichols
came in as Director, but he resigned.
Chief Stauber said Sheriff’s Dept. and Police Dept.
employees do a wonderful job with law enforcement, but they do not know how to
communicate with Firefighters working at a fire scene. He said they need to have civilians that are
familiar with their operations or have some type of Fire Dept. liaison that can
coach or teach people working on the consoles to correct problems as they
occur. He cited the lack of a strategic
plan to increase their coverage or to upgrade their equipment which is aging
beyond its useful life. Chief stated that several areas in the City do not have
portable coverage; the far west side, UWGB, Schmitt Park area, Proctor &
Gamble, etc. and said there’s no plan to correct this.
Chief Stauber said another problem is interoperability,
stating that we can’t communicate with other fire departments, adding that only
Green Bay Fire Dept, Ashwaubenon Public Safety and Brown County can talk to
each other. He said this is a serious
concern and he’s constantly looking for grant money and there are 50 other
states going after the Homeland Security money. Chief discussed a Chief’s Advisory Board, of which he is
Chairman. He said this group meets
quarterly in accordance to the Intergovernmental Agreement and the Director
meets with them but does not have to listen to the needs of the users. Chief Stauber said other independent
Communication Centers have a governing board and include elected officials and
the Police & Fire Chiefs, and they listen to the users. He said we have the ability to create an
enterprise or a utility and that should be looked at as an option for operating
the Communication Center, so it becomes it’s own taxing authority and comes off
the tax roles of the City and County.
Chief Stauber stated that we would then have a group of responsible
individuals, elected officials, users that determine how much we need to have a
strategic plan and an operational plan to have a successful Communication
Center.
Chief Stauber said he and Chief Van Schyndle agree that the
Communication Center cannot continue to be in the political arena and said his
first choice is to have an independent Center, which he feels can be done if it
is properly organized, managed and funded.
He stated that he would agree with Chief Van Schyndle’s recommendation
to place the center under the control of the Sheriff’s Department and a
steering committee for 18 months, as long as the Steering Committee has the
right makeup and some authority.
Further discussion ensued regarding concern that another good director
may get frustrated with the politics and/or budget and leave, if a change is
not made. Mayor Schmitt said good
people will not put up with the headaches since they can go anywhere.
Ald. Theisen thanked the Chiefs for their written position
statements. He said this issue could come up again at the County because the
County Executive’s veto came close to being overridden. He expressed concern that if the County
Board feels more comfortable with the Sheriff than the County Executive, and
the next election there is a change, are they planning to flip/flop the
director with each change in elected political leadership? He questioned Chief Stauber why he would be
in favor of placing the director and the center under the Sheriff for 18
months? Chief Stauber responded that
this would give them time to look at successful Communication Centers in the
Midwest and see what makes them successful and model our center after one of
those centers. He said we could bring
the information back and work with the communities; Ashwaubenon, Green Bay and
the County that form the center to come up with a governing board that has user
input and is not under the control of one person. Ald. Theisen suggested doing
the study without making a change in who the director reports to. Chief Stauber said this became a public
issue 6 months ago but became a provider issue five years ago, adding that
under the direction of the County Executive, nothing has been done and this
creates a sense of urgency in his mind.
He added that six months ago he created an RFP for equipment, and this
is postponed indefinitely and he would support placing the center and director
under the control of the sheriff over the current situation.
Ald. Jeffreys said she believes the candidate that they are
looking to appoint could get them in 18 months to the point where they discuss
the future and how to get where they want to be. Supervisor Harold Kaye reviewed the history of the 5 directors of
the center and clarified that some of the changes were made under former County
Executive Nancy Nusbaum and said Jim Nichol indicated that he would talk about
coming back at some point, but not under the present supervision. He indicated that a study was done by RCT Consultants
to confirm where the problems are, and said they are ready to go but wanted to
wait until the new director was in place. He said he feels very comfortable
with placing the director and the center under the Sheriff for 18 months.
Ald. Wiezbiskie said he believes the driving force is a good
steering committee and said things do change with time, but we can’t focus on
that. Ald. VanderLeest said he agrees
with Ald. Wiezbiskie and said there is a lot of infighting going on at the
County. He supports a steering committee that the Police Chief, Fire Chief and
designee would serve as members and look at what improvements we need regarding
equipment, staff and training. He said
we have to keep sight of the long-term safety of the community. Chief Van Schyndle said he is not for or
against the County Executive or the County Board; he is for his officers, and
said what we have now isn’t working.
He stated that the Steering Committee has to have some teeth and not be
just an advisory group. Ald. Wery thanked Supervisor Kaye for his input and
said he is shocked to hear what is going on. He said we cannot control the
future and need to fix the problems that we have today. He supports the Center
being under the control of the Sheriff for 18 months. The Mayor said we have a structure in place with a solid manager
and supports Harold Kaye’s recommendation.
Sheriff Kocken addressed the committee stating that we have
a county executive that is very frugal and he feels this issue stems from the
fact as both Chiefs have said we have operability problems and interoperability
problems. He said it’s going to cost
the county tens of millions of dollars within the next 5-7 years, adding that’s
why they’re getting these studies together.
He said it appeared to him that this is when the county executive and
current director starting parting ways.
He said public safety is #1 and is going to cost the county money;
second he said he’d be honored if the committee decides to put the
Communication Center under his control and added that there is no personal gain
on his part. He stated that he will be
happy to work with the chiefs and new director, whom he has met and feels is
exceptional. Sheriff Kocken said he
will fully endorse the appointment of the new director next Wednesday and said
he will be happy to work with members of a Steering Committee.
Ald. Theisen asked if after 18 months is it the idea to make
another decision whether the Center stays under the Sheriff or goes back to the
way it was, or with another of the options?
Chief Stauber said he believed this is correct, from his conversations
with Supervisor Kathy Johnson. Ald.
Theisen questioned whether the proposed Steering Committee wouldn’t in fact be
an advisory committee, with the Sheriff having the final say? Sheriff Kocken responded yes, however he
stated that he will encourage the Communication Director to be in contact with
the Chiefs and she would report to the Public Safety Committee as the former
director did and said he would have no problem with the Director reporting to
the County Executive. Sheriff Kocken said he would recommend that the City
Council make their recommendation now rather than waiting until April, in
response to Ald. Theisen’s question.
Sheriff reiterated that the Director will respond to Public Safety, to a
Steering Committee and they will work together and decide what our future is
going to be in 18 months.
Ald. Fradette asked if the Sheriff would voluntarily give up
power to a Steering Committee? Sheriff
Kocken responded that if it came to him and a Steering Committee being at odds,
rather than him putting his nose where it doesn’t belong because the
Communication Director is so far above them as far as technology, he would
recommend that they remove it from the Sheriff’s Dept. Ald. Vanderleest brought up concern about
overtime issues. Sheriff Kocken said he
has cut overtime from $2 million, to $1.6 to $1.4million. The Sheriff said he allows his employees to
do what they need to do to run their department, adding that he monitors and
makes sure they’re doing the right thing. He said he will do the same thing
with the Communication Center and will spend overtime there if it needs to be
for the safety of the community. Ald. Vanderleest said he would support
something related to a Steering Committee for 12-18 months with the director
reporting both to the County Executive and to the Sheriff. He asked if the veto can be brought up again
in this session? Harold Kaye said if
the wording is changed somewhat, he believes it can be brought up again. Allison Swanson said she is not sure where
this issue stands procedurally at the County, but said one thing being talked
about here is in conjunction with approving the position of the new director,
tie the reorganization to that. Chad Weininger
said his understanding is that three other municipalities have to agree on it
and if one doesn’t agree, you can’t change to move it. Chief Stauber confirmed that Brown County,
Green Bay, Ashwaubenon and DePere have to agree to ratify, even if the veto was
overridden.
Motion made by Ald. Wery to recommend to the Brown County Board to move the Brown County Public Safety Communication Center and the supervision of the Director of Public Safety Communications under the Sheriff’s Department for an 18 month trial period. Motion seconded by Ald. Wiezbiskie.
Supervisor Kaye said he has letters on file from DePere and
Ashwauben supporting this move.
Motion made by Ald. VanderLeest, seconded by Ald. Wiezbiskie
to return to regular order of business.
Motion carried.
Ald. Fradette stated that we need to resolve some issues and
get the politics out of it. He said we
have position papers from both Chiefs and he would like to see a Steering
Committee to work with the new director.
Chief Van Schyndle would like to have a smaller group for a Steering
Committee to include the Fire Chief from Green Bay, the Ashwaubenon Public
Safety Director (he’s Fire & Police) a civilian that is picked by the
Committee, the Director of the Brown County Communication Center and possibly
an EMS person. Ald. Jeffreys amended
the motion to say that we recommend in the hiring of a new Director of the
Communication Center that the supervision would move from the County
Executive’s Office to the Sheriff’s Office. After further discussion, Ald.
Jeffreys withdrew her motion.
After further discussion regarding amendments to the motion,
Ald. Wery amended his original motion to read as follows: the Advisory
Committee recommends to the Brown County Board that the Communication Center
remains under a director, controlled by the Brown County Sheriff’s Department
and a Steering Committee made up of participating agencies (Police, Fire, EMS,
the Communication Center Director and one civilian chosen by the Steering
Committee members) that are dispatched by the Communication Center. This option shifts management of the
Communication Center to the Sheriff with the director of the center reporting
directly to the sheriff for a period of 18 months. The Sheriff would also be responsible for budgeting and employee
performance issues brought forth by user agencies.
The amended motion was seconded by Ald. Wiezbiskie. A vote was taken on the amended motion. Motion carried.
After further discussion regarding what change would be made
after 18 months, a motion was made by Ald. VanderLeest, seconded by Ald.
Wiezbiskie that the City of Green Bay have a review the performance of the
Communication Center under the Sheriff’s Department, in 18 months, and give a
recommendation to the County on the future reporting structure of the
Communication Center. Motion carried.
7.
Request by Ald. Jeffreys to consider the formation of
a citizen committee to study environmentally related issues.
Mayor Schmitt said he is in the process of putting together
a Sustainable Greater Green Bay Committee, which is a citizen committee. A copy
of the minutes from the first two meetings was distributed. Mayor Schmitt said
the group is breaking down into subcommittees to look at specific areas and
said much of the information is coming from the U.S. Conference of Mayors. Allison Swanson reviewed the makeup of the
members of the committee for Ald. Jeffreys.
Ald. Theisen inquired if this is a formal committee under the definition
of what the state would require for open meeting laws? Allison Swanson said it not a formal
standing committee and is formed by the Mayor, not the City Council, with
minutes being taken but no formal agenda is included in the meeting packet.
Motion made by Ald. VanderLeest, seconded by Ald. Wiezbiskie to receive and place on file. Motion carried.
9.
Report from the City Attorney’s Office regarding City
Council meeting procedures.
Allison Swanson referred to a memo from Atty. Jerry Hanson in which he stated that at the Advisory Committee of July 13, 2006, he was asked to draft the further definition of “subject” as it relates to the number of times an Alderperson may speak on any given issue. Allison said she and Jerry discussed this and agreed that “subject under discussion” is the subject on the agenda as opposed to each specific motion. For example each member would speak twice on the Sustainable Green Bay Committee, not the motion to amend, motion to postpone, etc. Allison referred to suggested language that could be added to the ordinance to clarify the intent of the ordinance.
Ald. Theisen expressed concern that sometimes motions make a substantial change to the whole idea of the item, and if you have already spoken twice, you would not be allowed to speak again. Allison said you can speak once but must reserve your right to speak, with Ald. Theisen responding that you don’t know when someone will amend a motion. Ald. VanderLeest is in favor of leaving the wording the way it is, but members should be cautioned to stick to the point of the motion. Ald. Kriescher stated that he is not in favor of making this change and said they need to be allowed to speak on each individual amendment. Ald. Wiezbiskie believes some people tend to change the motion just to be allowed to speak more than twice. Allison said Atty. Hanson’s suggestion was to clarify the intent and if they do not agree with this, she suggests stating that you be allowed to speak on “subject under discussion” twice on any main motion and each subsidiary motion. Ald. Jeffreys agrees that debate on subsidiary motions is sometimes necessary.
Motion made by Ald.
VanderLeest, seconded by Ald. Wery to add the following sentence to the end of
§2.06(10): “Subject under discussion is
considered to be each main motion and each subsidiary motion such as a motion
to postpone, amend or refer.” Motion
carried.
6.
Request by Ald. Vanderleest that American Flags be
placed in major roadways throughout the City and that the City seek
sponsorships to help pay for related costs.
8.
Report from the Mayor’s Office regarding median
improvements for city entry corridors.
Items 6 & 8 were addressed together. Motion made by Ald. VanderLeest, seconded
by Ald. Wiezbiskie to refer these items to the Mayor’s Beautification
Committee. Motion carried.
Ald. VanderLeest said when he enters the Village of Howard he sees American flags illuminated and feels the City should also have this in their city corridors as a distinguished, welcoming feature. He suggested having businesses or private donations sponsor the cost of these flags. Chad Weininger distributed a map showing the major roads and entryways to the city. He stated that he will work with the Beautification Committee on this item.
10. Discussion and action regarding the addition of a
citizen member to the Protection and Welfare Committee.
Motion made by Ald. VanderLeest, seconded by Ald. Wiezbiskie to approve a liaison member to the Protection and Welfare Committee.
Chad Weininger said a
liaison member would be a community advisory member that would be appointed by
the Mayor and would provide input but would be a non-voting member. Ald. Theisen stated that he was a liaison
member on the Police & Fire Commission and his understanding is a liaison
member does everything a regular member does but cannot make a motion or vote,
but can give their opinion on a motion. Ald. Kriescher said he believes a
problem would arise with a liaison member participating in closed session, such
as happened on the Police & Fire Commission.
After brief discussion, Ald.
VanderLeest amended his motion to add “refer to the City Attorney’s Office for
a legal opinion on a liaison member participating in closed session”. Motion seconded by Ald. Wiezbiskie. Ald.
Theisen added to the motion that the liaison member would be appointed by the
Mayor and approved by the City Council.
The amended motion reads as follows: to approve a liaison member to the Protection and Welfare Committee who is appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council and to refer to the City Attorney’s Office for a legal opinion on a liaison member participating in closed session. Motion carried.
Brief discussion followed
on why the committee is making this motion since citizens can come into any
committee meeting and make comments and a reminder that the liaison member
cannot be used for purposes of a quorum.
11.
Request by Council Vice-President Wery to amend
Section 2.03(2) of the Code to allow the Council President to appoint another
Council member, if the Vice-President is not available, to sit in for an absent
Council member on a standing committee if there is danger of not having a
quorum.
Ald. Wery said since the President and Vice-President are
both often busy, and rather than canceling a meeting, he is requesting that the
Council President be allowed to appoint another Council member to sit in for
purposes of a quorum.
Motion made by Ald. VanderLeest, seconded by Ald. Wiezbiskie, to approve Ald. Wery’s request to allow the Council President to appoint another Council member, if the Vice-President is not available, to sit in for an absent Council member on a standing committee if there is danger of not having a quorum and that on the day of a meeting the acting Chair of the Committee can ask the most senior Council member present to fill in for purposes of a quorum.
Ald. Theisen said this
problem usually arrives when it is unexpected and in the past he has requested
asking the Chair of the committee to select a Council member from the audience
but this was not allowed. Mayor Schmitt
agreed that he has seen a situation when many constituents are in attendance
and there is not a quorum to hold the meeting, and there are other Council
members in attendance who could have filled in. Ald. Kriescher agrees with the
Chair being allowed to ask a Council member to sit in for a quorum. Ald. VanderLeest amended his motion to add
that the Chair of the committee be allowed to invite the most senior Council
member from the audience. If that
member declines, the next most senior member present would be asked. If there is more than one Council member
present who were elected at the same time, the Chair would select one of those
members.
A vote was taken on the
above amended motion. Motion carried.
12.
Request by Ald. Wiezbiskie for the Council to refrain
from reading late petitions and communications.
Ald. Wiezbiskie said this
communication came about because of some of the late Council meetings. He
stated that he doesn’t see a need for reading these late communications at the
meetings, adding that they can just turn them in at the Council meeting. Ald. VanderLeest stated that many
constituents watch the replay of the Council meetings and watch to see if he is
entering the items in as Council business.
Ald. Theisen suggested asking the City Attorney if it’s legally required
to read these communications. Further
discussion ensued regarding not having the section titled Late
Communications, but rather call it Communications and reading important
items or something that needs to be made more public on TV but using restraint.
Ald. Theisen commented that Council members could purposely hold communications
to be able to read them on television.
Motion made by Ald.
VanderLeest, seconded by Ald. Wery to receive and place on file. Motion carried.
There being no further
business, a motion was made by Ald. VanderLeest, seconded by Ald. Jeffreys to
adjourn the meeting. Motion carried.
The meeting adjourned at
8:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Mary Haupt
Recording Secretary