David speaks wisely of a permanent change in the appointment/tenure dates to accommodate incoming councils/administrations.
There is a general provision for almost all boards and commissions (in the absence of specific rules to the contrary) that seats with expired terms remain filled by those holding them until replacements are appointed. Usually, a standard by-law article or the enabling (creating) legislation will mention this process somewhere in there. It's usually considered best to have someone in the seat than a vacancy remaining that way for any significant amount of time. I think the City would be wise to change the appointment dates as well, but even February may be slightly too soon. You would 30 days is enough time, but a change in administrations is a madhouse. Andy Driscoll Saint Paul ------ "The hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who, in times of moral crisis, remain neutral" --Dante > From: "David Brauer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 23:18:42 -0600 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [Mpls] Open appointment process > > RT (and list members): > > I suspect you have a significant legal problem here. My reading of the > city's website is that the current library board appointment ends > December 31. I doubt (but am not sure) that current members can serve, > or be appointed for, one month. > > I suspect instead the seat will have to be vacant. Good luck getting the > outgoing council to give up a perquisite. > > In the future, I would suggest that the timing of the council's > appointment be permanently changed. Make the term through February of > the year after the election (or whatever month of that year seems > convenient). It may require a charter change, but if not, it should be > easy to do....if the new council is, in effect, willing to give up its > appointment (in the waning days of 2005) to set a good-governance > example for the 2006-2010 crew. > > Of course, we could always revisit the question of why the council gets > to approve a seat on the library board, which is more than half elected. > Why not the Park board? (I think all the seats on both boards should be > elected.) > > As for the other advisory boards, some coordination may be necessary so > as not to overwhelm the newcomers. I think the library board is major > enough that it should be on the new council's plate. > > And thanks for asking! > > David Brauer > King Field - Ward 10 > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf > Of >> R.T.Rybak >> Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 10:48 PM >> To: Sheldon Mains; [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Subject: RE: [Mpls] Open appointment process >> >> Thanks to Sheldon for raising the question of open appointments....and > I'd >> love some advice here. >> > > > > _________________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com > > _______________________________________ > Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy > Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: > http://e-democracy.org/mpls > _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
