Charter Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay. So it is 06:00 on Thursday, March 12, and I will call the Charter Commission meeting to order. And we'll begin with the roll call taken by Kirsten since Jack is not here tonight.

I need to find the current.

Well, she's doing that. CC two, one thing I didn't tell you about with the remote participation, if you do any motions tonight, because it's electronically being done under state law, we should do it as a roll call vote on any in any votes.

So That's very helpful, Ben. Thanks.

Alright. Scott Jensen.

Present. Present.

Lance Heisler. Cece Lindstrath. Here. Jack Horschauer. David DeLong.

Here.

Amy Gernan. Here. Katie Rook. Is it Rooks? Okay.

It's Rooks. Here.

Thank you.

Okay. Thank you, Kristen. Okay. Let's look at the agenda tonight. I'll need a motion and second to start discussion and approval of the agenda, please.

You're moved.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded. Yeah, and let's begin the discussion on the agenda. And I'm going to request that we move item six, which is discussion on charter section 4.1 to item one on the regular agenda. And then the rest will be done taken. The other items will be taken in the sequence as listed. Any discussion on that suggestion? Okay. Any other discussion on any other items on our agenda? Okay. Hearing none, it has been moved and seconded. Discussion has ended. We'll proceed with the roll call vote please Kirsten.

Usual in the past, do we usually do a voice?

Ben just said. Oh.

Yeah. Sorry. You were you were busy as under state statute because as we have electronic participation, we need to do roll call vote as as part of the actions when we have people removed.

Absolutely. Alright. Commissioner Scott Jensen.

Aye.

Commissioner Cece Lindstruth. Aye. Chair, Cece Lindstruth. Aye. Commissioner David DeLong.

Yes.

Commissioner Amy Gernan. Yes. Commissioner Katie Brooks.

Yes. It

has been approved with a noted change. Thank you. Approval of the minutes for the 01/08/2026 Charter Commission meeting. I need a motion and a second, please.

You're moved. Second.

It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion on the proposed minutes? Okay. Hearing none, it has been moved and seconded to approve the minutes for the January 8 meeting as written. Roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Scott Jensen.

Yes.

Chair, Cece Lindstrom. Yes. Commissioner David DeLong.

Yes.

Commissioner Amy Gernan? Yes. Commissioner Katie Rooks?

Yes. Thank you. And we now have one commission absence to approve. We have been notified that commissioner Heisler is ill and not able to attend tonight. So, in favor of approving his absence, roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Scott Jensen. Yes. Chair Cici Lindstruth. Yes. Commissioner David DeLong.

Yes.

Commissioner Amy Gernan. Yes. Commissioner Katie Rooks.

Yes. Okay. We'll move into the items for the regular agenda this evening. Can I have a question?

Yes. So does this mean Commissioner Horschauer is an unexcused answer?

Yes. I'm assuming that because we didn't receive any notice from him before

But he then that kicks in some stuff. Not the first time, but

Three unexcused. Okay.

Thank you.

Yeah. Thanks. Okay. Yeah. That might be new to Katie and Amy, I think, knows about that. Okay. So we are going to go to the discussion on proposed amendment to charter, section 4.1. So I am going to ask, city administrator Mardik to introduce our attorney support tonight, please.

Thank you, chair, members of the commission. At the request of the chair, there was a request as in the memo to give some perspectives on, this agenda item that the that the commission's been dealing with for some period of time. Flaherty and Hood is the, does provide, civil legal services for the city of Northfield. David Asof is one of our assistant city attorneys. Mister Hood, who is our primary city attorney, was not able to be here, but he had a full briefing with mister Asof.

Flaherty and Hood, David will probably give a greater introduction to himself, but the we've had for a long period of time, I came in 2016 and Flaherty and Hood had been the civil attorney at that time as well. They're one of the primary firms in the state of Minnesota providing municipal law. So their their law firm brings a tremendous amount of experience related to both statutory and charter cities. And so that's one of the reasons Northfield has worked with this particular firm. They also work a lot in greater primarily in Greater Minnesota as well.

And I know Northfield's a little bit of both, I think, with that. But they did find on some of the research along the way last year that there was some statutory provisions that, they became aware of that they modified some of their feedback on some on some language drafts to consider for amendment for the commission to consider or not. So as you know, it is the city's attorney and not necessarily directly the commission's attorney but we're happy to provide our legal counsel's expertise upon request as well. So thank you with that. With that, I will turn it over to mister Asaf, I think, that is prepared to give himself an introduction and a little bit of background on this, question that's been before the commission in the draft language that at least their firm prepared for you to potentially consider or not.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ben. Like, I I can defer to most of Ben's description here of the work Flirting Hood does. I'm an associate attorney with Flirting Hood. Since in my time in law school, I generally focused on local government municipal issues. We represent 40 or more cities as a sort of general municipal council.

I'm in the municipal side of of things at Fluttering Hood and, you know, represent other cities on a more sort of special project basis as well. So I'm happy to answer any legal questions that might come up tonight regarding this change. It's been sort of set in the background. Understand there was some discussion last year regarding this provision, section 4.1 of the city charter. As you'll see in the draft attached, it's been presented to you tonight.

We've essentially struck out, language here that states that, at the first meeting, the newly elected officials would be sworn in as the mat of the as the first order of business. Language provided here, incorporates both, you know, statutory section two zero five point o seven subdivision one a, which describes the end of term, for council members, and then clarifies that prior to calling a meeting to order those new council members will be, administered the oath of office and and seated so they can conduct business. And with that, I'm happy to to stand for any questions here. Thank you.

Thank you, David. Okay. One thing that I would like to share with you tonight before we begin our discussion is that in your January meeting, the discussion for four point one was forwarded to tonight, and the only action that was in that January agenda was the discussion of 4.1. So that is what is suggested for tonight. But I do wanna let you know that if we have a vote tonight, that means that with the timeline that is imposed on all of the work that goes from Charter Commission through the council to the effective date of the new work on the charter,

it

would be August, and that's if we vote tonight, and that's if there are no delays at the council level, and if we just have our discussion tonight, as was in the agenda, and there are no delays to the proposed timeline, or the required timeline, I should say, and we vote in May, then it would be October before this would become effective. And if anything happens to our timeline, or if there are any delays in the council's timeline, and we don't vote until our July meeting, then it does not become effective until December, which is our very last meeting with the very last meeting for us to vote on it to give the council the required timeline with no delays on their end to be in place for effective work for the taking of office of the people that are coming on the 2027. So keeping a timeline does have some importance to it. So that's why David is here tonight so that we can get as many questions answered, as much discussion among us as possible to make sure that we do our part to get this process going to be effective for the next election.

So would anyone like to start the discussion on this?

Cece? Yeah. I just have a question about the timelines. I mean, is that a hard and fast set of timelines? Is there there is no leeway by the by the council or by us for that matter to have expedited meetings and discussions and actions by the council to expedite that timeline?

We could certainly call special whoops. Excuse me. I'm gonna stay to the mic. We could certainly call special meetings if that's required. But Could

the city council do the same?

They could. They could call a special meeting. But if we can follow this kind of timeline that I've suggested, which gives us the May and the July options, staying away from or staying away from the July one as much as possible, then we don't put any pressure on the council.

I agree. Yeah.

So but yes. So is there an option for special meetings? Yeah. Yeah. There is, Scott. Okay. Any thoughts? Let's go around and just hear what all five of us think. Would either of you commissioners that are on Zoom like to start? Do you have any questions or comments? We've got David here. Katie?

I have one question for mister Asaf, and that is just if we adopt this amendment, will it effectively put this issue to bed and to rest permanently? Can we expect it to accomplish that?

I I'd say that's certainly the goal here at the language change, to sort of establish it, like I said, a clearer timeline of when when these things are are done.

Okay. Thank you. Okay. Did you have any other comments, Katie? I'd like to have everybody speak. So especially since Jack and Lance aren't here, and they will use the video, I'm sure. So if we can make sure that they're aware of what everybody's thoughts or questions were. Do you have any thoughts on it, Katie? Did it make sense to you what's being recommended?

It it made it made sense to me. I, actually, before January's meeting, I I went through all the contextual information that had been provided. I read that. I think I understand the the issue that's been raised and, this amendment's, you know, response to that issue, and I'm I would be prepared to vote tonight.

Oh, okay. Amy, thoughts, questions?

I appreciate the memo, and I I think that the suggestion is in alignment with the statute. And whenever we can be in alignment with the statute, it's a good thing. So it creates less, questions. I agree with Katie. Let's just make sure that, or commissioner Rooks, sorry, that this should put this issue to bed so that we have more clarity going forward. And I would be prepared to vote on it tonight if needed.

Okay. Commissioner Delon?

Yeah. Well, I had a couple questions. You know, this is being proposed by the city council. And

Not by the city council. By the city. That was a

The city

from the city attorney. But this is not a recommendation that the council has passed. Is that correct, Ben?

Thank you, chair. Yeah. I'd have to look back because a lot of time had passed. I was certainly aware of the issue and involved miss mister DeLong who raised the issue, which I think was a valid issue. And as as I kind of explained in the background materials from my standpoint, there was kind of a catch 22.

And I think there were multiple ways to potentially solve it. And there was anyway, with that though, I think also the question I had at the time was, how can we clean up the language to remove any ambiguity or challenges with this in the future? And so I initiated, some drafting of that with our attorney at that time to prepare with mister, the chair Heisler. The council was aware of this issue, but when we are proposing, I didn't formally go to the council for action. So your statement is correct, chair, that this is not there's been no formal action of the, council.

I initiated upon discussion with the chair, former chair Heisler, to offer this forward from the attorney. And at that point, it would be the commission if you wanted to pursue it. It ultimately is in your court. The council hasn't acted. So it was really initiated by the city attorney and I, and we didn't really have any discussion with the council to take their formal position on it. But we'd be happy to if you're of interest in this or if you take action on it, certainly, we will have lots of opportunity to inform the council of this and the solutions. Thank you.

Well, because I thought there was three ways to amend the charter. The Charter Commission, the city council, or petition. And so since this has ordinance written on top of it, I thought it came from the city council. But it doesn't. So where does it fall then?

With us.

Oh, so we're instituting this change?

Yes.

Okay. Or the Charter Commission's instituting the change.

So may I mister DeLong, may I jump in for a minute?

Yes.

So, this is the as I understand the process, the city's following here is under Subdivision 7 where the charter commission would sort of recommend, charter amendment by ordinance to the council. So the it does it does start with the charter commission, and then it goes to council by ordinance.

So the city was just getting ahead of the game by putting ordinance on top?

I don't think so, the way I look at it. And please tell me if I'm incorrect here. I think it was the original language of section 4.1, and they just redlined, you know, deleted and put in the new wording. So ordinance is not

Yeah. Thank you.

Has no meaning there. Is that correct?

Thank you, chairs. So I would say that we put it in the final format of the council of what it would look like when it hits the council. The Charter Commission in the past sometimes might just draft the language of it and not put it in this form. However, over the past years, I've been working with former chair Heisler too to help that if he was drafting language, kinda have it drafted in a similar format just to make it a smoother process from the Charter Commission to the council. So even when you've initiated your own amendments, I've worked with him on, converting the language.

It's like a since it is a action of the through this process, it's an action of the commission, but has to go to the council. And this is the final form as it goes to the council. So we put it in that draft form. So we basically just are helping to streamline the processes. And it's not just this one that we've done it in the past, but we've done it on other ones that you've initiated on your own.

We're used to seeing that, David, just because it shows us what was and what's being proposed.

Okay. And why is there a a tight timeline? Commissioner Heisler was talking about when the discussion on 3.5, I do believe, kind of dragged on and dragged on.

Dragged on with us. This is once we pass it, the timeline that goes through the city council with the notices and the time between the meetings and then the ninety days from the final vote to accept date of effectiveness. Okay. So it's not our timeline. We could discuss this for another year if we wanted to.

Yeah. Oh, sorry. Did yeah. Oh, I guess I was, a little confused about that, where this exactly was coming from. Because before I joined, I was appointed to the Charter Commission.

Watched from the audience, and I didn't really see the Charter Commission say, oh, we should look into this and we should change it. So, okay. So, now I think I'm clear on where it's coming from. But I was a little confused by the statutory reference to 205 Dash 7 Subdivision 1A. And that does say city council member expiration of terms.

But also in the statutes and in the charter, it says, they serve until I don't have the exact line. But they serve until their replacement is qualified. And so and that has been since 2003, when they changed over to from the first business day in January to the first meeting in January. I think I do believe that was in 2003. So how does that square with all the other statutory and charter language that says serve until their replacement is qualified?

Well, David, I'm gonna ask you to come in on that in a moment. But I think that the big term that hit me also and that I've had questions on is what actually qualified means. And to me, that means that the election has been certified and the person who won the election has taken the oath of office. So it's the election being certified and the oath being taken are the two qualities that come under qualifying. Is that correct? And then is David correct that there is no other confusion with this at other places in the charter?

So I'd agree with your your comment. Thank you. I think as as we discussed, the the intention here then is to make sure that those successors are qualified prior to the start of that first meeting. So that's the intent of the language changing here. So, you know, as he mentioned under two zero seven or two zero five point o seven Subdivision 1 A, Council members are in in office essentially until their successors qualify. This would mean prior to that first meeting. If they hadn't done so already, they'd take the oath of office and be qualified to to sit for that first meeting.

Does that answer your question?

No. I I must admit, there's all kinds of other language and statute and charter that says until at the first meeting in January, which is not the first business day. We took that out. And there's more reference than just the charter. It it's referenced in other places in the statutes.

It would take me a while to look them up and find them, but but it's a very common theme that a member serves until their replacement is qualified. So maybe a better explanation from the, not assistant city attorney, Mr. Assoff, or or more common language for me to understand.

Well, I agree with you. I saw the same thing, David, that I looked several times, and I thought, what is this It sounded like it was talking on a couple of different levels to as far as when that qualification was required and when it took effect. But that's one of the things that we can get cleared up if we vote at our next meeting. You know, we're, at our May meeting, we may have to put that off, Katie and Amy, to make sure we get this connected as far as other parts like David is saying. And, mister Hasop, would that be something that you do for us to check through and make sure that that language is in harmony with other sections of the charter so that there's no confusion as to when when the new officer starts doing business, when they start working.

Yeah. Thank you. I I think, you know, this this section sort of in the charter sort of lays out when that that occurs, and that's, you know, certainly what we're intending to clear up here. My understanding is this evening was sort of a discussion. You're I think as you laid out your timeline earlier, potentially a vote later. If there are, you know, unresolved questions tonight, certainly, you know, we can we can provide some answer to that with the Charter Commission.

Okay. So, David, would you restate your question, please, for David so that if he takes it, back to to look into for us, that we're sure he's got the question that you're asking. You're asking for harmony with other sections of the charter. Is that correct?

Well, other sections of the charter and other sections of state statutes. Okay. Because, you know, if this, and I have found it, and part, Subdivision 2 was repealed. So when was it paid? I mean, so the 02/05/2007 was what sorry. When was that history?

Well, if you check that out, you could get that to Sarah, and Sarah can get it to David. So Okay. Because parts that you find

might be o five. Yeah. And and other statutes.

How does that

And if it says, you know, if it says city council members expiration of terms and terms of all city council members of charter cities Yes. Shall expire on the first Monday in January. Have we been doing it wrong all these years since 2003 when the charter was changed to say, to the first for the first meeting in January?

Well, I am not going to even try to answer that question, David.

Okay. So

But I think that

If he can write that one down. Yes. That would If that's what it says, did we are we in violation, and why were we allowed to change it to the first? Because there was a whole council.

Okay.

Well, that's when we when they changed it, because city elections were every year. And we did an at large an award member every year, and then we stuck the mayor in every two years. So there was always an election. And the state said, that's too many elections. And statutory cities, they can do.

But they came in with charter cities and said, you have to have elections every four years. Or for the mayor, you can have a two or four. And then they had a bunch of things to to make that happen. And I'm wondering if this was not if this Subdivision 1 A was to facilitate the changeover in elections.

That is why you, mister Asop, are here this evening to take this question and clarify it for us. Is it clear to you what David is asking?

I think so. I I mean, I I I don't have the, you know, the statutory, you know, legislative history for, 02/1971 a. You know, it does contain that second sentence that says all officers of charter cities chosen and qualified shall hold office until their successors qualify. That may account for I don't know if there's a delay in the oath of the op taking the oath of office that the city can continue its work. That may be the intention there.

I think here, the the language on the 4.1, as we've proposed the ideas to make sure that those, you know, newly elected officials are qualified prior to, you know, the first meetings that they can conduct business. There's no delay there. So I think the statute, you know, if for whatever reason someone isn't able to become qualified, that prior, you know, outgoing council member would be, able to act still because the their, you know, replacement hasn't been sworn in yet. But, you know, the the the intention of of this charter change is that the the those amendments of 4.1 is that they would be qualified prior then to that first that first meeting.

K. Okay. David So

just to make sure, because in I do believe it was 2003 that the state came in and said, you need to change your election cycles. And we changed the charter at that time, too, to conform with state statute. Marn Swanson was a city attorney. So there's probably not in the office of hood records of this. But there should be an old charter minute. We changed it. And if we changed it in error, because this was in there, and we you know, it's like we've been doing it wrong since 2003?

Well, and what Mr. Assoff is going to do, if I am clear on this, is he is going to check and make sure that this suggestion that has come forward for us to look at is in harmony with the rest of the charter and statutes. And there will be can we have a a written opinion on that, David, for our next meeting in our packet? Would that work for you?

I

Almost dressed up.

I'm sorry.

Could we have a written up, something in our packet for the next meeting that gives your thoughts on that?

I think if that'd be if that'd be helpful to the Charter Commission, we can provide that.

Would that be helpful to you, David? Am I interpreting your question correctly? You'd like to see their interpretation that we are Yeah. In compliance. Okay? We will do that.

And if we've been in compliance for the last twenty three years, because we changed the we changed the char I remember changing the charter. Yeah. Because

yeah. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Scott, any comments or questions from you on the proposal that's

in No. This has been real good with the attorney and David and you. So, yeah, it's good. We're moving along.

Good. Okay. And this makes sense to me, the proposal that is before us. It may it seems to address the question. The biggest concern I had, and like you, I saw the word qualified in different kinds of dates on that, and I remember searching for what does qualified mean?

And it seemed to have, as I mentioned earlier, two parts, that the election has been certified and an oath has been taken or given and taken. And so then that is prior to any action that the council takes at their first meeting. That has been cleared up, everybody's qualified, and they are ready to take action with whatever comes up in that January meeting. So but I think that the part, as far as going back twenty three years, that is not something that I think is under the Charter's purview, I mean, as far as us. We can make sure that it is in harmony from now on, David, if it isn't, but we can't go back over the past twenty years.

I don't think we're in error, mainly because I can't imagine that somebody, we've got such qualified people, that something wouldn't come up. But we can make sure it's clear from the future.

Well, the same would have been said twenty three years ago when Martin Swanson was telling us, oh, you need to do this, and the Charter Commission, you need to do this. And, you know, and this is the state. So, it's like, I don't want to get attorneys into a fight, but, you know

We're not going be

doing that. We won't

be

of us live through this. And, you know, this charter language, the change I mean, this change happened to the first business from the first business day in January to the first meeting in January, back in February

think we've got your point. We've got We've your got the question given to the

But do you. Because it wasn't a problem in 2003 when Pete Stolle was the administrator and Martin Swanson was the attorney. It wasn't a problem for Administrator Scott Neal and Marron Swanson, the language. And it wasn't a problem for Joel Walensky. And it wasn't a problem the language wasn't a problem for Madigan.

Thank you, David.

And it wasn't a problem for Hay Skinmiller. It wasn't a problem Point of order, David. Until

Thank you, David.

What's the point of order?

Well, the point of order, what I'm going for here is that I'd really like us to be aware of everybody's time, and we have many items to go to on the agenda. And your question has been received. It's been honored. The attorney is going to look at it. And to go through, you've mentioned that you're concerned about what has happened since 2003. Your concerns are noted, and I don't think we need to go through every person who has been involved with government since 2003, because to honor everybody's time, we have a lot of other things on the agenda. And I wanna be very respectful of that.

Okay. I appeal your point of order.

Okay. We'll take a recess for a moment, please. I called a point of order and asked the discussion to stop, and commissioner has appealed my order. And so I have said my I don't know if you were on when I said it, but I said the reason that I interrupted commissioner DeLong was because I thought we were off track and we needed to get back on with her agenda. That the task had been given to the attorney.

He knew what the question was, and he understood his task. And commissioner DeLong said that was the question that he was asking. So I looked at the rest of our agenda and wanted to get back on track. So, David, would you like to speak? And then each of you may speak once, and then we will vote on the appeal to overturn my point of order.

Yes, I would. Now, if you would have said, David, hurry it up. David, how much more? But you didn't, and you stopped, and you lectured. And then you lectured me again just now saying, well, I looked at this and it's but you could have handled it differently.

And I consider what you did as a lecture to me. And a point of order should be succinct and quick and you're off topic or whatever. I get to speak once. You know, you spoke during your point of order, and I just have to you're the chair. And then you spoke again, adding new information as to why you did it. But I don't like the way that you lectured me, basically. And if you would have said, David, get back on topic. David, we're short of time. Whatever. And with that, I'll withdraw my appeal.

Okay. So, Mr. Assoff, you've got the question, and you are clear on what we're asking you to have for us for our next meeting.

Yes. Thank you.

Great. Thank you very much. Okay. We will go back to the agenda.

It okay to excuse mister Asaf for the rest

of the meeting? Oh, yeah. Yeah. You are all done. Thank you, mister Asaf.

Okay. So the next item on our agenda was going to be reviewing the duties of the officers, especially after we elected a secretary. But since Jack is not here tonight, I am going to suggest that we put the election of the secretary off till our next meeting since I think Jack would like an opinion on that. But the other item that you see on there, review of the charter commission policies. If you look at your new handbook that Sarah put together for us, and it section two.

And Amy and Katie, yours are in Sarah's office waiting for you. Okay? Section two. One of the sheets in section two under our policies is the duties of the officers. And under the duties for the chair is item I, which says provide new members with the charter, applicable statutes, the city ethics code, charter commission policies, and other materials.

And Sarah put it together in this beautiful binder with all these colors, and so that's what we have for you. But as you look down at the secretary's tasks, one of the things that the secretary is supposed to do is type, copy, and mail minutes and letters and proposed charter amendments, and then they're supposed to do updating the website. And so I thought once we decide through election election who who our are secretary is, that secretary along with Sarah, could sit down and look at actually what is the secretary doing now and look at changing that that those duties to relate to more to the time that we've got now.

We won't show this to Jack

Yeah. Before we elect him. No. No. No.

And then once we do elect him, then he gets to craft that with Sarah and probably Lynette looking at it too. So we will move those two items to the next meeting. And then I wanna go to item number four down there, which is the minutes, the approval when we look at the discussion on open public comment response process. That's number five, actually. And what I wanna talk with you about on that is that we have some process when people come to share with us their concerns, that we have a process that guarantees they know what happens to their concern.

For instance, the reason that we started on the section 4.1 was because of commissioner DeLong's concern about how do we really follow what the charter said at that January meeting. And my concern, I went up to Lance after the meeting, I said, do we have a way? What what do we do with these so that when people come with a concern, that we have a response for them? And so what I proposed was and I'd like you to think about it, and we'll take a vote on it at another time. But what I was proposing to Lance and to you this evening to consider is when anyone comes to speak with us about a concern about the charter, that we listen that evening, we ask questions.

And then between that meeting and the next meeting, the very next meeting

We

are almost done, Jack. But you're here just in the nick of time.

Short of a forum time.

No. We've got two on Zoom.

Oh, two on Zoom. Okay.

Okay. So we are talking about when we have public comments and setting up a process to respond to that. And I was sharing with the commissioners my comments to Lance after David Telong had come forward with his concern about whether we had followed, adhered to the charter when the last officers and new members to the council were elected Mhmm. In January. And so what I've talked to Lance about and what I am proposing that commission to think about is that we listen to what the person brings to us that night at the open comment.

And then we have time to think about that before the next meeting. And at the next meeting, it would be on the agenda. If there is a motion and a second, then we will discuss the item that was brought up by the resident. If there is not a motion or a second, then the response that would be given to that, not necessarily the resident, it can be any person that comes forward, that we would say, due to failure of motion, and second, the charter commission at this time will not be taking up this question. But what we've done is given them an opportunity to know what happens to their thoughts, that it doesn't just go into a dead letterbox like Santa Claus letters, you know, so that we can make sure that everybody knows we've thought about it, but at this time, there is not the interest.

Interest. If there is, if we come back to that next meeting and there is a motion and a second and the majority of the commission wishes to discuss it, then we will. But at least we've got a process so that people know that they've been listened to and heard, we've reflected and made a decision. So questions or comments on that? And, otherwise, we don't see it on the next agenda because we'll we'll ask to have that adopted as a policy.

Oh, I think that's very reasonable. And we'll not probably come up that very often, so it's not gonna be something that's gonna burden us. So I think it's very reasonable.

I agree. I support it. I think it is, fair and and per is a perception of fair. And I think that it is a transparent way to handle public comment and also avoid getting mired in comments which might prove, a little frivolous or or, not something that we wanna spend time and resources on.

Any other comments? David, Jack, Amy? David,

you brought some comments to us last year. What was your experience on the feedback?

It was taken up. Yeah. And and and I appreciated that. I think the assumption would be if you didn't take it if the commission didn't take up a public comment, then they wouldn't, you know, okay, we, you know, we heard, but, you know but then if it comes up at the next meeting, I would be a little hesitant that discussion was going on amongst board and commission members that, you know, they were going to a conclusion that, oh, well, we're not gonna talk about this. We'll just we'll just do it through a motion.

But how did that decision come to be made? And was that decision, you know, through serial meetings? Or, you know, I would be concerned about the transparency and the open meeting part of the discussion or not discussion, how did they how did they get there to say, no. We we don't wanna talk about it. Do do I I'm just

do I recall that this thing went over about three or four meetings that we talked about your issue. Right?

Yeah. And I understand government and Northfield government enough to know that the wheels move slowly, especially the Charter Commission that only meets every two months. You know, it's different than, you know, planning commission that meets once a month or council that meets twice a month. You know? And government takes time.

And so, no, I was I was not. I was encouraged that there was discussion about this. Oh, okay. But also, then, that permits someone to lobby, perhaps, and write individual members of the board and say, let me expand on my comments. Because two minutes is not very long, and then to get all the the nuances. But then

And you did respond

to Yeah. Okay.

Any other comments? Or

I think that's a good plan.

Okay. So plan on seeing it on next time's agenda because we'll get that, discussed if there if there is a motion and second for that to come forward. And we'll see what happens as far as putting that in as a policy for us. But that will be a full commission decision. Well, guess what? You're here now so we can discuss secretary election.

So

I was gonna warn you, Dave. I was

just turn around. I know. Turn around. And Kristen will wanna go back and make sure that commissioner Hoecher was noted in attendance.

Yeah. I I think that I saw commissioner Gurren wanting to make a comment last time and Oh, thank you, time for that. So I wanna make sure that she's heard if she wants to be. Amy?

Oh. Oh, last time. I think it got taken care of. I was just wanting to say when we were talking about the other amendment that I don't wanna get confused with making doing something to make something more clear in the future and meaning that necessarily what we were doing in the past was wrong. I don't think those two are equating, and I think commissioner Lynn's the chairwoman sort of summarized what I was thinking in that front. I I think we're just talking about providing clarity in the future, not necessarily what in the past was wrong.

Okay. Thank you. It's hard to remember on the Zoom to look, so thanks for the reminders. Okay.

Thank you.

So we have not an elected secretary. And so I am open for nominations.

I would nominate Jack to continue to fulfill his role that he does in such a wonderfully, marvelous fashion.

Seconded.

Are there any other nominations? Do want to?

You're interested? Okay. Then I'll do it.

Hearing none, it has been moved and seconded that Jack Hoshar will be for the next year, yet again, our wonderful secretary for the Charter Commission. And we do need to do a roll call, Jack, because it's a Zoom meeting.

Do it now? Yeah. Okay.

We're doing it. We're behind schedule on that.

Commissioner Jensen. Yes. Commissioner Delorme.

Yes.

Commissioner Gernan.

Yes.

Commissioner Brooks.

Yes.

Chairlady.

Yes.

And I'm with hold I'm I'm saying no comment here.

Well, there has been a majority vote to have Jack Osha as our secretary for another year. But Jack, what we were looking at in our wonderful this is your first task in addition to the minutes is to look under section two. And in the back of the first sheet there, it says duties of officers. And if you come down to the bottom, it says that you are to type mail copy and mail all the minutes to us, and then you respond I I know. That's why I brought it up afterwards.

Too late.

And so and also to update our website. So so what I would like to ask you to do is to work with Sarah to see what resources Lynette and Sarah have and how you would suggest to bring back to us how those duties be rewritten. Would you be willing to work on that?

Yeah. Just cross everything out.

Well, check.

Yeah. I'll do

that. Okay. Yes, Steve.

Well, I I think it could be easily remedied that, you know, the secretary makes sure that the minutes get typed. Make sure you know, because we have there's administrative tasks. You know, there's Kirsten. There's Sarah. And just as the double check, you know, that the secretary doesn't have to do it. He just he or she just needs to make sure it gets done.

Yes.

I think just a simple little caveat on that. Ensure that. Well,

we will have you work with Sarah and Lynette to make sure we've got everything covered in that. Because right now, when Kristen submits the minutes to you, you are the final supreme editor of that. And then but it does go to Lynette because she is the person that is responsible for Kristen's work. So she checks that off, but you are the one who edits. And then it goes into the packet for approval at the next meeting.

So are you Already drunk with power.

I can I can tell? Okay. It looks like we have a very happy new secretary, and we have got we did do our discussion on four point one, and there was a representative from Flaherty and Hood here to answer a question, and he will have that question in writing the answer to that question in writing to us for our packet, with the hope of proceeding further with the discussion because we'd like to make sure we are in a good timeline to get it to the council on time, Jack, so that they have all the time that they need, and then it's ready for the next election. Okay. Do you have any questions or comments on four one?

No. I don't. I mean, I've been through four one my several times.

Yes. Nothing new. So we have completed our discussion of the agenda items. Is there anything anyone would like to bring up before we adjourn the meeting? Okay. Could I have a motion for adjournment, please?

So moved.

A second?

Second.

Then moved and seconded. Discussion? Hearing none. Moved and seconded to adjourn the meeting for 03/12/2026. All in favor?

Don't we need a roll call?

Oh, yes. We do need the roll call. Okay. One more time, Jack. Get that roll call.

Commissioner Jensen? Yes. Commissioner DeDong? Yes. Commissioner Gernan?

Yes. Commissioner Rooks? Yes. Commissioner Heisler? He is.

Yes. He is.

Chair chairlady Lindstrom.

Yes. Okay. Thank you, and thank you, Zoom people. This was great. It really made our discussion, I think, very good for our next meeting on 04/2001. So