AGENDA

MINUTES

ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Wednesday, February 24, 2010

City Hall, Room 604
6:00 p.m.

Members Present: Council President Chris Wery, Council Vice-President Tom DeWane, Ald. John VanderLeest, Ald. Tom Weber, Ald. Jerry Wiezbiskie, Ald. Celestine Jeffreys

Others Present: Ald. Guy Zima, Ald. Steven Deneys, Ald. Dan Piton, City Attorney Allison Swanson, Chad Weininger, John Vetter, Scott Matejov

1. Call to order.

The meeting was called to order at 6:00 pm by Chairman, Ald. Chris Wery. Attendance was taken as noted above.

2. Approval of the agenda.

Motion made by Ald. Piton, second by Ald. Weber to approve the agenda. Motion carried.

3. Approval of the minutes of the November 5, 2009 Advisory Committee meeting.

Motion made by Ald. Piton, second by Ald. Weber to approve the minutes of the November 5, 2009 meeting of the Advisory Committee, as submitted. Motion carried.

4. Request by Ald. Deneys for an update by Mr. Vetter on the development of the downtown.

City Attorney Allison Swanson stated that the Calumet county bank’s portion of the loan exceeded their lending capacity and were working towards filling that gap and that a commitment letter would be send to WHEDA and Baker-Tilly shortly. She also indicated that the closing requirements on the loan take about 6-8 weeks. She also said that she and Mr. Vetter agreed that as soon as the letter of commitment was issued they could proceed forward as they already have footing and foundation permits from the state. Ald. Deneys stated that he is still waiting to see something happen downtown. City attorney Allison Swanson stated that Calumet County has been behind this project 100%. Ald. Deneys asked if businesses were still committed to go into the project. City Attorney Allison Swanson replied that the Children’s Museum was still committed as was Hagemeister Park Restaurant. Ald. Deneys asked for a time frame for when the project might begin. City Attorney Allison Swanson said they are about 8 weeks out and said there have already been preliminary site reviews and Ganther is all ready to go.

Ald. Weber noted that the hiccup with the bank was not anything Mr. Vetter did, but was with WHEDA’s loan requirements. City Attorney Allison Swanson answered that they were working with a group to sell the tax credits, and that group fell apart so they had to find another group. She also stressed how difficult the current banking environment currently is. Ald. Wiezbiskie asked he was correct in assuming that the financing was done and only the legalities and paperwork remained. City Attorney Allison Swanson answered that was correct. Ald. Wery asked if it was safe to say development has gone from waiting and hopeful to imminent. City Attorney Allison Swanson replied that is was. Mr. Vetter arrived late, but was present for the meeting and confirmed the statements by City Attorney Allison Swanson.

Motion was made by Ald. Weber to receive and place on file. Second by Ald. Jeffreys

A vote was taken on the motion. Motion carried.

5. Request by Ald. Piton to examine the legality of late communications.

Ald. Piton stated that he has two concerns. First, that the current ordinance requires communications to be turned in either Thursday or Friday the week before a Council meeting. City Attorney Allison Swanson stated that the agendas are done on Thursday and then printed and distributed on Friday. She specifically pointed to Ordinance 2.06(4). Ald. Piton’s second point is that when a communication is submitted to the Clerk’s office in writing, it is fairly concise. He added that when a communication is brought before Council there is a trend of reading the communication and speaking on it for two minutes and it doesn’t seem appropriate. He asked if the ordinance should be amended to follow the current practice or should the practice be changed to follow the current ordinance. Ald. Wiezbiskie stated that without debate we could see very lengthy communications. Ald. Piton stated that this could be true but it would force someone to think through what they are writing. Ald. Jeffreys asked if filed with the City Clerk was the same as emailed. City Clerk Chad Weininger stated that was the case. Ald. Jeffreys stated that she was fine with changing the ordinance to reflect current Council practice. Ald. Wery noted that Ordinance 2.06(17) allowed for two-thirds to suspend the rules. City Clerk Chad Weininger stated that without objection with now suspend the rules.

Ald. Weber asked for the intent of Ald. Piton’s change. Ald. Piton replied to find out if we were really following the ordinance and there would be less time spent on communications during the meeting which would curtail grandstanding. Ald. Weber asked if the change would affect and commentary when submitting a communication. Ald. Piton replied there would be no commentary, a communication would be read and handed in. He also stated that ideally all communications would be submitted by their due date and this procedure should only be used for emergency communications. Ald. Deneys stated that there are times when he is approached on Council days to submit a communication.

Ald. Wery stated that four things could be done. First, they could follow the ordinance. No late communications and all communications must be submitted noon before. Second, amend the ordinance to allow for late communications. Third, read in the communications without comment. Lastly, amend the ordinance to just allow for submission of communications, no reading.

Ald. Piton asked Ald. Deneys how many of his communications come in on Council days. Ald. Deneys responded that he does receive communications on Council day and it is his belief that they should respond as quickly as they can their constituents concerns. Ald. Weber asked why someone who calls on Council day should receive special treatment over a constituent who may call the Wednesday, Thursday or Friday after

Ald. Wiezbiskie stated that he agreed with Ald. Piton that the current ordinance did not allow for late communication. City Clerk Chad Weininger stated they currently do not have a formal procedure for suspension of the rules. Ald. Wiezbiskie stated the whole process is just a little bit sloppy. City Clerk Chad Weininger agreed that the process was not ideal. Ald. Wiezbiskie noted that when someone submits a late communication it never really falls through the cracks.

Ald. Jeffreys stated that all the committee meetings are noticed in advance. She also noted that Ordinance 2.06(9) requires that communications be referred to committee before being brought before the Council. She agreed with the need to streamline the process and also agreed with Ald. Wery’s fourth point of allowing communication but no reading.

Ald. Wiezbiskie asked the City Clerk if he would read the communication if it was just handed in without the Alderman reading them. City Clerk Chad Weininger replied it was currently his practice to read them, but it was up the Council to give in direction in what they wanted.

A motion was made by Ald. Jeffreys to follow the current ordinance by submitting all communications in writing before the Council meeting. Motion failed.

Ald. Zima noted that the way communications are currently handled is the way it has been done for years and that the ordinance needs to be changed, not the procedure.

A motion was made by Ald. DeWane to change the ordinance to reflect the current procedure and allow late communication at Council meetings and not require the two-thirds necessity. Seconded by Ald. VanderLeest.

Ald. DeWane noted that discussion should not be allowed on late communications. Ald. VanderLeest agreed that it is the chair’s responsibility to not allow for extra debate. Ald. Piton agreed and stated that is the way it should be but practice does not always reflect Ald. VanderLeest’s suggestion. Ald. Zima stated that in the past we have been practicing something that does not conform to the current ordinance. He expressed concern that an Alderman would not be allowed to state the reason for the late ordinance. Ald. Wiezbiskie stated he would like to see the change in the ordinance in writing and not rely on the fact that someone has to enforce it. Ald. Weber noted that under Ordinance 2.06(10) an alderman must first address the presiding officer and if an alderman started to make commentary on his/her communication they would be addressing the Council and would need to be recognized by the chair to do so.

A vote was taken on the motion. Motion carried.

A motion was made by Ald. Jeffreys to remind the chair to make sure that communications are requests and not statements of rationale. Seconded by Ald. Wiezbiskie.

A vote was taken on the motion. Motion carried.

A motion was made by Ald. DeWane to receive and place on file. Seconded by Ald. Jeffreys.

A vote was taken on the motion. Motion carried.

6. Request by Ald. Jeffreys to review the obligations and responsibilities of standing committee chairs.

A motion was made by Ald. DeWane to receive and place on file. Seconded by Ald. Jeffreys.

A vote was taken on the motion. Motion carried.

7. Request by Ald. Zima that the City establish a policy whereby food be not served at City meeting unless food is made available to all those in attendance.

Ald. Zima stated that very seldom does this situation occur. He continued that the City is not in the business of providing food. If the food is donated it should be allowed for everyone in attendance and if it is not donated it should not be there. He stated that he heard that a neighborhood meeting of presidents and vice presidents had food catered in and there was some question as to who was allowed to eat. He stated he felt taken aback that individuals at the meeting may have been refused food. He was also surprised to hear about food at the meetings in the first place. He stated that this situation may have not occurred if there was an ordinance in place stating that the City does not provide food at meetings. Ald. Wery asked if Ald. Zima was referring to the Mayor’s Neighborhood Leadership Council and stated that they were and independent body with their own privately raised funds. City Attorney Allison Swanson stated that they started as a government organization but are in the process of converting to a 501(c)(3) organization because many of the neighborhoods under them were converting to a non-profit status. She said it was her understanding that the food provided at the meetings comes from the private donations and it not city funded. Ald. Wery stated that if someone shows up for the meeting to learn more about their neighborhood and there is not enough food for everyone that is not something the City has oversight on. Ald. Wery asked if this request should go to MNLC. City Attorney Allison Swanson stated it is up to them to decide on whether to share food. Ald. DeWane asked if there was any way to find out if this food was provided with city monies. City Attorney Allison Swanson replied that she had asked and was told the food was provided with private funds. Ald. VanderLeest asked for clarification on the incident reported by Ald. Zima. Ald. Zima asked if these meetings are part of the open meetings law and if this is organization is still called the Mayor’s Neighborhood Leadership Council. City Attorney Allison Swanson said it was the Mayor’s Neighborhood Leadership Council but at this point they are converting to a separate entity known as the Green Bay Neighborhood Leadership Council. Ald. Zima asked if the GBNLC meetings had to be officially noticed. City Attorney Allison Swanson said they are not officially a 501(c)(3) yet. Ald. Zima stated that if they are indeed a private organization he does not have problem with what they do. He continued that is was the Mayor who went up to the individuals at the meeting and told them they should not be eating. He stated he thought it was out of place that the Mayor would tell people who were former presidents and vice presidents of these neighborhood associations that they were not allowed a sandwich.

Ald. VanderLeest said he attends the Military Avenue Business Association meetings and they have breakfasts but people pay to attend the breakfast. He continued that this situation seems unique and if the food was sponsored its creates a difficult situation of who is allowed to eat. He continued that it is probably best that if this is a publicly noticed meeting they should state the cost of the dinner so people do not assume there is a free meal and if it is not noted then everyone in attendance should be allowed to eat. Ald. Piton stated that as he understood it, the MNLC was already a private organization and when he was president wondered why it was noticed at Council meetings and was told in case seven alderpersons showed up. He added the MNLC’s checkbook is that organizations and the meetings are not held on City property but in rented space. He continued that city staff helped facilitate the meeting but it was not a part of the City. Ald. Jeffreys stated that she also attended the MNLC meetings when she was president. She continued that the meeting was only for current neighborhood presidents or their proxies and the money for food was in fact paid out by private funds. She continued by stating the reason they get the minutes from the MNLC meeting in their packets is so they can understand what the neighborhoods are talking about and what they would like to see. She stated that the GBNLC has the right to set its own rules about guests and who is invited to the meetings. Ald. Weber stated that lunch and dinner meetings occur all the time and people show up to these meetings uninvited regularly. He continued that we cannot write an ordinance for every uncomfortable situation that comes about and this is something that should be handled by the GBNLC.

A motion was made by Ald. Weber to receive and place on file. Seconded by Ald. Jeffreys.

Ald. Wiezbiskie stated that it is indeed called the Green Bay Neighborhood Leadership Council and the Mayor is not affiliated. He continued that the GBNLC does not really invite the general public.

Ald. Zima stated that if this is indeed a private organization he would not presume to tell them what they can or cannot do with their organization. He continued that if elected city officials or appointed staff is involved with this organization in their official capacity we should look at this differently. He continued that if is the City is intricately involved with the function of GBNLC and involved with the fundraising, they need to be denounced and come under the open meeting law and people need to be invited to the meetings. Ald. Zima continued but the Chair ended discussion. Ald. Weber asked the Council if a Alderman was to fundraise for the group they are able to do that as a private citizen with no consequence to the City. This was confirmed by City Attorney Allison Swanson.

A vote was taken on the motion. Motion carried.

8. Request by Ald. Piton to consider allowing meetings of the Standing Committees to be scheduled by a petition signed by two members plus the vice-president of the respective committee.

Ald. Piton stated that there was already something at the County similar to this and the original communication was not correct. He clarified that that Advisory Committee can meet with the petition of any three members and an occasion came up where he was looking to call for a meeting on one of the committees he served but there was no mechanism to do so. He continued that he was aware the County allowed for the calling of a committee meeting a certain number of members. He requested that a meeting should be called by a majority of the committee or fifty percent plus the president or vice-president of the Council. Ald. Weber asked if Ald. Piton was referring to a special meeting and not a regularly scheduled meeting. Ald. Piton concurred but stated the agenda must clearly state the reason for the meeting. Ald. Jeffreys agreed. Ald. VanderLeest said the chair has the prerogative to set the agenda and what items are on the agenda. He said this might cause a problem of who is actually calling the meeting and setting the agenda and he does not agree with the direction this would go. He continued that they already try to work together to accommodate everyone’s schedule and this might not do that and cause more division among members. Ald. Wery stated that this request seems to be more pointed towards those items that are continually hanging out there and not taken up by the Chair. He continued that a Chair should not be able to hold an item off the agenda continually. He stated there needs to be a balance that power and a means to get the work done. Ald. DeWane stated there should be a time frame for which the chair has to act on an item and if not done within the time frame this rule would come into effect. Ald. Jeffreys asked for clarification on the time required to bring forth an item. City Attorney Allison Swanson stated there is no set time for an original item, just for an appeal. Ald. DeWane clarified that this time frame would affect all committees and start at the time the request was originally submitted. Ald. Piton asked what would happen to requests that are not ordered by the committee and for example a communication comes in and is taken off the agenda. Ald. DeWane replied that the Council could override the chair. Ald. Piton stated why take up committee work at Council.

Ald. Zima stated that a meeting can be scheduled by a simple majority of a committee or the County Board, but it has to be for a specific purpose and it has to be listed on the agenda as well as giving 48 hours notice. He continued that if the request contains over $10,000 then it requires 5 days notice and two-thirds majority. Ald. Wery asked how many individuals usually sit on the County committees. Ald. Zima responded five. He continued that he does not have a problem with putting in a mechanism for the calling of a special meeting. Ald. VanderLeest stated that when he was chair of the finance committee there were times when requests came to finance that were not appropriate for the committee and the Chair should have the discretion to handle those matters and not put them on the agenda. Ald. Wery responded to Ald. VanderLeest by saying that a chair could hold off on any item because the Chair believed it was not appropriate. Ald. VanderLeest said he believes the process already works fine to setting up special meetings and does not want to make things too complicated. Ald. Piton responded that he does not think the propose rule is overly complicated. He continued that this provision allows for the committee to override the chair if a majority of the committee believes the chair is in error of not bringing forth an item. Ald. Wiezbiskie asked for clarification on who exactly Ald. Piton is asking to sign on to the petition to bring a special committee. Ald. Piton responded that if there are five persons on a committee then a majority or three is appropriate, but for those committees that only have four, two members plus either the president or vice-president seems appropriate. Ald. Wiezbiskie asked Ald. Piton if he was referring to special case of quasi only or to all special meetings. Ald. Piton responded that it was his belief this could be used for any item when the committee disagrees with the chairs discretion in not bringing forth an item. Ald. Wiezbiskie asked if an item is placed on a printed agenda does the chair have the ability to remove the item. City Attorney Allison Swanson stated that a chair could amend this agenda as he saw fit but could not remove an item that was tabled by the Council specifically for that committee on a specific date. She continued that chairs are allowed to add an item to the agenda. Ald. Wiezbiskie stated that he disagreed with the chairs ability to add items without amending the agenda. Ald. Jeffreys stated that she is uncomfortable is taking anything off the agenda and stressed that the committees need to continue to remain open so the public can see what is happening. She stated that she was fine with noticing the time, date and 48 hours notice, but not the dollar amount as it is not always clear what the amount might actually be. She said she was in favor of a more general ruling saying it has to be petitioned, it has to be noticed and the date and time have to be present. If it is a four person committee you need try to get three of four members, if that is not possible then two members plus either the president or vice-president of the Council is acceptable.

A motion was made by Ald. Jeffreys to amend ordinance 2.05 to allow of communication of special meetings by a petition of a majority of the committee members or half the committee members plus either the president or vice-president of the Council. The petition must contain the time, date and purpose of the meeting as well as allow for a 72 hour notice. Seconded by Ald. Wiezbiskie.

Ald. Zima endorsed the motion and stated that under any circumstances a chairman should be able to take anything off an agenda that has gone through the proper channels of communication. He continued that anyone’s communication whether you agree with it or not has the right to see the light of day and be acted up on by the committee. Ald. Weber added the chair has the responsibility for building the agenda and once a meeting is noticed and published it should go forward without the chair removing any items.

A vote was taken on the motion. Motion carried.

9. Report by Ald. Wiezbiskie on working with staff to bring guidelines to improve respectfulness and orderliness at meetings.

Ald. Wiezbiskie stated that it should not be that hard to come up with guidelines as many of the chairs run their committees from Robert’s Rules, but there is more work than appears and is not ready to discuss it at this time.

A motion was made by Ald. DeWane to hold this request until the next committee meeting. Seconded by Ald. Jeffreys.

A vote was taken on the motion. Motion carried.

10. Report by Ald. Nicholson on working with staff to write guidelines for Council meeting presentations

A motion was made by Ald. Jeffreys to receive and place on file. Seconded by Ald. Weber.

A vote was taken on the motion. Motion carried.

There being no further business, a motion was made by Ald. Jeffreys, second by Ald. DeWane to adjourn. Motion carried.